Initial Evidence: The Word or Tongues?

[AndOne]

Good Morning Andrew,

As I stated - I do believe in tongues (spelling it right now), and by all means if the Lord bestows the gift upon you the same way he did upon the early believers - then Praise Him for it! I am simply saying that putting this condition - evidencing tongues - to show the Baptism - is wrong and is indeed not supported by scripture.

You cannot argue that speaking in tongues was the norm - at least not use the Bible or specifically the book of Acts to make the argument - unless you can get in a time machine and go back to see for yourself - there is just no proof to support it. It is a good hypothesis - but just as with evolution - hypothesis does not necessarily make fact.

I do not disagree with your ref to I Corinthians 14:18. However if tongues were the evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit - why didn't Paul make that clear when he discusses tongues in the whole of chapter 14? If anything he points out that tongues are a sign unto unbelievers - NOT believers. If tongues were the evidence of the Baptism - why did Paul not state so right at vs 22?

The problem with this doctrine is that it divides the church. It puts believers into two classes - those who have the gift and those who do not. It is a clear path for the sin of pride to work its way into a believers life - and it also hinders the poor fellow who hasn't spoken in tongues from realizing his full potential in the Church.

 

[rebaa]

Acts 11:15
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
KJV

Back to the beginning..

Acts 2:4-6
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
KJV

 

[rebaa]

BTW rebaa, do you speak/pray in tongues?

Because i like simple direct answers, more then i dislike privet questions yes

 

[look]

Sorry about not responding to the past few posts, I had to get my mom up for the day (I take care of her so she can stay home). But it looks like everything is going rather nicely and I think at this moment of time, it would be a good thing to let the Holy Spirit open up to you, the few things that were talked about here...

God bless you and yours...

 

[Andrew]

I am simply saying that putting this condition - evidencing tongues - to show the Baptism - is wrong and is indeed not supported by scripture.

This is where I simply disagree for the reasons explained earlier. There is plenty of scripture support in Acts.

You cannot argue that speaking in tongues was the norm

Again, I'd have to disagree. A plain reading of Acts wld show that it was the norm. In Pauls epistles, there was usu also a reference to tongues. eg Eph 6- tongues being the 7th armour of God.

The problem with this doctrine is that it divides the church. It puts believers into two classes - those who have the gift and those who do not. It is a clear path for the sin of pride to work its way into a believers life - and it also hinders the poor fellow who hasn't spoken in tongues from realizing his full potential in the Church.

I see it differently. The baptism of the Spirit is uniting the church. The number of people speaking in tongues is increasing. Less and less people are opposing tongues and more and more people are receiving the baptism and speaking in tongues. It is no longer just a Penticostal or charismatic trait as prophesied. Methodist, Lutherans, even Catholics are now speaking in tongues. In every denom, every church there is probably someone who prays in tongues, albeit quietly if its not allowed in church. The church is moving in that direction, I'm glad to say that.

The problem is that those who do not speak in tongues tend to speak against it, and find all sorts of arguments to say why it is not needed. But if they would only realise that the gift is for everyone who would believe, and that they can receive it as easily, they wld not be so 'jealous' and against it. Those who speak in tongues in this forum have never preached it to be a badge of superiority, but have simply tried to show others how easy it is for them to receive too. It is simply faith, simply believing. Jesus said: "And these signs shall follow them that believe -- they shall speak in new tongues". So those who can't speak in tongues aren't any sort of "lesser" Christian, they simply choose not to believe.

 

[He put me back together]

If Acts 11:15 means that every baptism in the Holy Ghost will be and must be speaking in tongues like those in the upper room spoke in tongues, wouldn't that require the tongues to be earthly tongues, with foreign witnesses? If one reads Acts 19, he finds that not every instance of "speaking in tongues" was in the presence of foreigners, and as far as Corinthians is concerned, not every instance is necessarily a tongue of men. But if every instance of baptism was like the upper room in the manner that you are stating, how does "tongues of men and angels" apply, and where are your foreigners? Wouldn't that uphold the assertion that speaking in tongues is for the sake of foreigners alone? (Not that I am of that doctrine myself)

 

[rebaa]

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
KJV


Some general questions and statments from the first part of Acts chapter 19.

We know Paul "baptized" about 12

Do we KNOW or is it a 'good guess 'they were a group ya know buddys?


We dont know if Paul met them in one on one or in small groups etc

We know Paul "laid his hands upon them" etc

We dont know that they spake right there on the spot, could it be as they went out to minister they were able to speak as Peter did so others heard in their own languages.

We are told Paul was around for about 2 years.

We do not know if more then 12 were baptised the Word does not say.


Are the first verses written in exacting order or written as a general synopsis?


no sarcasm intended

 

[Iddie4him]

I believe that you can have the gift of tongues and not be ready to use them, God knows the time and place for you to be able to use these or any gifts that you have recieved thru the Holy Spirit. It is thru his Love and Grace that we are empowered to use these gifts, In his infinite wisdom he always finds a way to tell us we are ready to do his work and follow his will and he always watches over his lambs. God Bless.

 

[Lee]

Hey guys,

Thank you for your prayers and encouragement. I finally speak in tongues. Well, I already have my first experience. But because of myself being shy and timid, I speak it once and quickly stopped. However, this time I just keep on letting it out. With a simple prayer and a lonesome empty place, I decide to have faith in my prayer. So I did it!!!! YES!!! It feels good.

I believe that I have been baptize by the Holy Spirit before I actually have been given tongues. That is my stand learning from my personal experience.

 

[Andrew]

If one reads Acts 19, he finds that not every instance of "speaking in tongues" was in the presence of foreigners, and as far as Corinthians is concerned, not every instance is necessarily a tongue of men. But if every instance of baptism was like the upper room in the manner that you are stating, how does "tongues of men and angels" apply, and where are your foreigners?

I have never said that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit must be an exact replicate experience of Acts 2.

Like salvation, different people react differently. Some cry, some scream with joy, some tremble, some get visions, some just feel nothing but peace.

All I'm saying is that tongues is the sign/pattern in Acts that the Spirit baptism has occurred. Whether one speaks immediately or 2 days later doesnt really matter to me.

Thank you for your prayers and encouragement. I finally speak in tongues. Well, I already have my first experience. But because of myself being shy and timid, I speak it once and quickly stopped. However, this time I just keep on letting it out. With a simple prayer and a lonesome empty place, I decide to have faith in my prayer. So I did it!!!! YES!!! It feels good.

Praise God Lee! I'm happy for you! Keep on praying in the Spirit, building up your most holy faith!

Jude 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

and dont let the devil talk you out of it!

 

[Lee]

Praise God Lee! I'm happy for you! Keep on praying in the Spirit, building up your most holy faith!

And I am learning to "walk by faith, not by sight."

 

[SnuP]

The evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is not tongues. And it definately isn't some obscure belief based on your presumptions of the Word.

The evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is the release of the Spirit in the life of a believer in the form of the gifts of the Spirit.

Since tongues is one of those gifts, it does prove that a person has recieved God in this way. But that doesn't prove that a person is mature. The fruit of the spirit prove that.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit can be equated to a honeymoon. Untill you've had that first night, you haven't really been intimate with God. He has only been courting you. And you have only been flirting with Him. Its time to get commited and stay commited.

 

[He put me back together]

Whew! I just got back from the Appalacians in *October*--actually it was kinda warm--how is everybody?

Andrew writes:
I have never said that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit must be an exact replicate experience of Acts 2.

So Acts 11:15 is not an argument for Speaking in Tongues being the only initial outward evidence, then, right? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The gifts are for us today, but this "initial evidence" doctrine, while apparently correct as far as the existence of an initial evidence at every instance in Acts that applies, simply isn't Biblical when it says that speaking in tongues is always that initial evidence...or at least I haven't heard the conclusive argument yet. We could claim it to be the case by experience, I suppose, but Acts simply doesn't make the case. Only that a) speaking in tongues is for all walks b) it isn't just in the presence of foreigners, and c) it is in fact a way man speaks with God.

As for tongues being easy to fake, well...I've heard it done too many times, and sometimes it wasn't even a very good performance...but it was believed, and accepted. Time and time again. The repetition of one "word" with imitated pure vowels...it can happen, but every time? And when God gives a different elaborate message every time, to the repetition of one word? <waits for a "God can say anything in just one word" argument>The gift of tongues exists, and it is for us today, but if you think that HALF of the people who claim to be filled with the Spirit and speaking them aren't faking it, open your eyes.

 

[He put me back together]

That's great, Lee. Just Praise his name--that's all I can say. He cleans us and gets us ready for his coming inside. Test the Spirits, although I know it's very difficult at this point. Be sure that you don't fall to fabrications of man and yourself, but that the Holy Spirit is control of everything. He will guide you. Seek him, praise and worship him, and all this business will come when God sees that it is time.

 

[rebaa]

nicely said ' He put me back together'

 

[hal]

Greetings! I see a difference between subjective and objective evidence.

When I received the batism in the the Holy Spirit I was overwhelmed by the subjective (not objectively evident to others). A month later, I received the objective evidence of speaking in tongue.
That is, it could be observed to others through their sense of hearing and sense of seeing. And, on occassion, experience something from their being prayed for in tongues.

 

[jessedance]

Hey guys and gals; I speak in about 10 different tongue languages and i understand some of two of them. anybody else understand their tongue language?

 

[Andrew]

Andrew writes:
I have never said that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit must be an exact replicate experience of Acts 2.
you said: So Acts 11:15 is not an argument for Speaking in Tongues being the only initial outward evidence, then, right? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I dont quite understnd what you are trying to say here. I meant that one did not have to tarry for many days (as in Acts 2) before one could receive the Baptism. Neither does one have to see tongues of fire descending or hear a rushing wind. BUT one should have the evidence of speaking in tongues, sooner or later.

It is interesting that the Bible in Acts does not record the receivers' emotions, visions, winds (except in Acts 2 -- wind and tongues of fire visions) but just the objective evidence of tongues. As with salvation, it is not important how one receives (whether with tears, trembling and visions or just plain peace) but that one receives. And the evidence is tongues -- as the pattern in Acts clearly shows.

So yes, I do believe tongues is the evidence. And I do not see why any Christian wld settle for less when the gift and promise is for all, and is simply received by grace thru faith.

Hey guys and gals; I speak in about 10 different tongue languages and i understand some of two of them. anybody else understand their tongue language?

huh? You mean you recognise that your tongue-speaking sounds and syllables change for time to time such that they sound like 10 different languages and that you have been able to interpret 2 of them?

 

[jessedance]

andrew; the two i understand sometimes are french and german. and actually i understand some of my spanish one but only a word here and there. but my french tongue language, when i have the spirit of the Lord on me strong like in church around worship time. i speak fluently and understand much of what i am saying, at other times only some of it. same with german only less so. my other tongue language like chinese and japanese, or american indian or norwegian I understand nothing of them. they sound like those languages and i have tried them out on native speakers of those languages but they dont understand what I say. however I havent tried the french and german out on native speakers, we do have a german lady in our church and she understands what I say. someof it.

 

[SnuP]

andrew; the two i understand sometimes are french and german. and actually i understand some of my spanish one but only a word here and there. but my french tongue language, when i have the spirit of the Lord on me strong like in church around worship time. i speak fluently and understand much of what i am saying, at other times only some of it. same with german only less so. my other tongue language like chinese and japanese, or american indian or norwegian I understand nothing of them. they sound like those languages and i have tried them out on native speakers of those languages but they dont understand what I say. however I havent tried the french and german out on native speakers, we do have a german lady in our church and she understands what I say. someof it.

It sounds as if you are limiting your perception of the tongues that you speak to what you can figure out. Why do they have to be languages that are preasently being spoken? Why do they have to be human languages at all?