Initial Evidence: The Word or Tongues?

[rebaa]

I apologize for my use of slang. I did not intend it to be offensive i will not use it when responding to you.

Fruit or fruits in both correct. Depending on which Dictionary you want to use. There are 9 fruit(s) of the Spirit as I listed.

I have checked every bible translation i can find. They all say fruit. Dictionaries and Smith Wigglesworth can say what they will, Gods word says what it says. Gods Word is correct.

 

[chris320]

I totally disagree. If I ask God and base that I have received the Holy Spirit because Gods Word says I have, I will speak in tongues. My PROOF is not in the tongues but in the Word.

You will speak eventually, but unless you do speak at the moment you prayed, you have not yet received the Holy Spirit in the natural realm. As I stated in my earlier post, according to Acts biblical proof that you have received the fullness of the spirit is when you speak in tongues.

Ahh? Wasn't aware that the Holy Spirit came in two parts?

I never said that the Holy Spirit came in two parts. The Holy Spirit did not come until you began speaking in tongues. You are confusing receiving by faith with receiving in the natural realm. People make the same mistake when it comes to healing.

 

[rebaa]

You will speak eventually, but unless you do speak at the moment you prayed, you have not yet received the Holy Spirit in the natural realm. As I stated in my earlier post, according to Acts biblical proof that you have received the fullness of the spirit is when you speak in tongues.


I never said that the Holy Spirit came in two parts. The Holy Spirit did not come until you began speaking in tongues. You are confusing receiving by faith with receiving in the natural realm. People make the same mistake when it comes to healing.

Are you saying ' no tongues' 'no Holy Spirit' ?

 

[chris320]

Are you saying ' no tongues' 'no Holy Spirit' ?

No, this is not what I am saying. We are discussing being filled with the Spirit, not the measure of the Spirit we receive when we are born again.

-Chris320

 

[rebaa]

Ty for a direct simple answer

 

[look]

Ty for a direct simple answer

Isn't that what you just got??? You can't get it any plainer than that...

 

[AndOne]

I would like some Biblical support for the notion that you MUST speak in tongues in order to receive or give evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit.

Can anybody provide that?

 

[rebaa]

Isn't that what you just got??? You can't get it any plainer than that...

Goodness yes it is and that is why i said thank you. Do you have some hidden problem or what. Do you always try and cause confusion and trouble?

 

[look]

I would like some Biblical support for the notion that you MUST speak in tongues in order to receive or give evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit.

Can anybody provide that?

There is "no Biblical support" in the form you are looking for, but there is Biblical evidence that the apostles could tell when someone received the baptism of the Holy Ghost...

The evidence is in the form of the records of the book of Acts, namely in this manner...They knew when the people in question recieved, seeing "the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

In all of the recorded Biblical examples of people receiving this, they spoke in tongues, causing the apostles to know that they did indeed "get it".

Please be careful to note that there is the praise language that is given to us for personal prayer and edification, and the gift of tongues (which you don't neccessarly get right away) which has a different set of rules for usage, which is used for service to the body of Christ...

I hope this helped you...

 

[look]

Goodness yes it is and that is why i said thank you. Do you have some hidden problem or what. Do you always try and cause confusion and trouble?

Rabaa, I'm so sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic, please forgive me...

 

[He put me back together]

I haven't heard an explicit scriptural argument for why tongues is the only initial evidence for recieving the Holy Spirit, but some fair arguments pertaining to the Spirit announcing himself exist, though they depend on speaking in tongues being that announcement. As far as initial evidence itself, particularly pertaining to the gifts, I've made an argument previously on this thread. It's #12 if you'd like to check it out--there are some more comments to be made if you'd like to hear me ramble some more.

Blessings

 

[rebaa]

Rabba, I'm so sorry, I misintepreted the manner of your speech, please forgive me...

Sheeesh ,

Flat words no eye contact etc can be hard to read you bet LOOK forgiven

 

[Andrew]

I apologize for my use of slang. I did not intend it to be offensive i will not use it when responding to you.

no problemo rebaa

I would like some Biblical support for the notion that you MUST speak in tongues in order to receive or give evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit.

As Look said, there is no direct explicit verse that says what you are looking for. But there are plenty of patterns in Acts as well as types and shadows of tongues in the OT.

I used to have the same questions, and sought God about this and he showed me this passage. The bolded parts are the parts that "spoke" to me.

15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.
16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”
18 When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

Peter's defence, which silenced those who were questioning his actions (preaching to Gentiles), was very simple: The gentiles also received the Holy Spirit.

Now why didnt they ask Peter, "How in the world do you know God gave these Gentiles the Spirit too?! Did you actually see the Spirit going into them?!"

Obviously, they believed Peter becos Peter told them that the gentiles received JUST AS THEY THEMSELVES HAD IN THE BEGINNING ie with tongues -- that was the observable proof. (Notice too that unlike some Christians today, they did not even say to Peter: "ah those are just fake tongues, they are makingit up."

So when I saw this revelation in the simple passage for myself, I was silent too from then on.

 

[He put me back together]

sheesh...you guys crack me up

 

[rebaa]

Please be careful to note that there is the praise language that is given to us for personal prayer and edification, and the gift of tongues (which you don't neccessarly get right away) which has a different set of rules for usage, which is used for service to the body of Christ

Look, what is your scriptrure 'back up' for praise language?

 

[Andrew]

what is your scriptrure 'back up' for praise language?

Firstly, we believe that praying in tongues IS praying in the spirit:

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.

So to worship/praise God in tongues is to worship/praise God in spirit and in truth.

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

that explains why sometimes during praise and worship the worship leader lead the people into a time of singing in the spirit/tongues.

 

[AndOne]

Thanks LOOK,

The "evidence" that is provided in Acts does not suggest that you MUST speak in toungues to show evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit. I do not deny the gift (it is real today too and biblical) - however I believe it is wrong to suggest that you must display this single one gift to show that you have been baptised by the Holy Spirit.

Also - not every incident of receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts is evidenced by toungues. Look at Acts Chapter 8:9-25, specifically at vs. 17. I see no reference to tongues when these people received the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying that they didn't speak in toungues - but there is no reference to it here.

Also, there is no reference to toungues when Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18).

As to your "praise language" - I find no reference to any such thing in the Bible. Could you provide me a reference for that?

 

[Andrew]

The "evidence" that is provided in Acts does not suggest that you MUST speak in toungues to show evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit.

I do not know about the others, but I believe most tongues speakers here simply want to receive the way it was received in the early church. I mean since I know I can have it, I would simply want to follow the Bible pattern and 'benchmark'. Remember again Peter's defence. Imagine if Cornelius' household received the Spirit without speaking in tongues, do you think then Peter and his critics wld have believed that God has also poured out the Spirit on the Gentiles?

Also, there is no reference to toungues when Paul received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18).

we could also argue that it was such a norm that it did not have to be recorded all the time. anyway, we do know that Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone in the Corinthian church.

 

[rebaa]

Acts 2:3-4
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
KJV

(background)
Being born (natural birth) into a penticostal family of generations does not make one penticostal, nor does it make one christian. I have been around tongues, penticostals, charismatics, how ever you want to call them for over a half century. I have seen the empty tongues, false teachers, false healers. I have also been blessed to see the real.

Tongues is so easy to fake. We can fake tongues with out the intention to do so, trying to please those around us. Young ones wanting to be 'spiritual' etc. 'Tongues' can be learned as we learn English or Spanish.

So often i have heard Acts 2:4 as the evidence of the evidence. Acts 2:3 is as much scripture as Acts 2;4. Acts 2;3 would be harder for man to contaminate. I would love to see the tongues of fire.

His Word can not be faked. I trust HIS WORD not what man can do to HIS gifts.

1 Cor 14:39
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
KJV

 

[Andrew]

Tongues is so easy to fake. We can fake tongues with out the intention to do so, trying to please those around us. Young ones wanting to be 'spiritual' etc. 'Tongues' can be learned as we learn English or Spanish.

That's what I used to think too, until I tried to get 3 or 4 close friends to ask for the Spirit baptism and then speak out by faith. They just cldnt do it (the speaking by faith part).

Anyway, I believe none of us here are faking it just to impress others.

BTW rebaa, do you speak/pray in tongues?