Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

[Saint Steven]

I'm going by the Scripture: "Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for."
I can believe and say that I am baptised with the Holy Spirit without showing any outward manifestation of any gifts. This is because my faith in the promise, "You shall receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit" is the evidence (of things not seen) of it.

There are pagan religions, along with occult societies, as well as Mormons, who speak in tongues, and they have not received the baptism with the Spirit. But we assert that tongues is the initial evidence, then we have to say on that basis that these non-Christian groups are baptised with the Spirit, which would be an error.

But what sets genuine Christian believers apart from these non-Christian groups is that when they do speak in tongues, they have already laid the foundation of faith in the promise in Acts 2, "Repent and be baptised in the Name of Jesus (which pagans, occult and Mormons don't do), and you shall receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit".
Every manifestation of the Spirit can be counterfeited, so we cannot depend on them as being reliable evidence. We have to go back to our faith in the promise of God.

It seems that we are in agreement. Just looking at different sides of the same coin, so to speak.

The whole point of this topic is to question whether tongues is always the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I say it is not, and you say it is not. It seems that we are more in agreement than not.

It seems that our biggest contention is identifying protocol for the early church in this regard. So, we can continue to discuss that point if you wish.

To that point, here are a couple of questions for you. Why did the Apostles need to lay hands on the baptized believers in Samaria in Acts chapter eight? If the Holy Spirit is given automatically at baptism, what went wrong? And really, we could ask the same question about the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus. What went wrong?

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dave L]

The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.
​

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

No. All believers have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. And besides the two outpourings in Acts, we see tongues associated only with the laying on of an apostle's hands.

 

[Saint Steven]

No. All believers have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. And besides the two outpourings in Acts, we see tongues associated only with the laying on of an apostle's hands.

Thanks for your response. However, that's not the question.

Maybe I need to modify the question for those with a Cessationist doctrinal view.

Was tongues always the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

 

[Dave L]

Thanks for your response. However, that's not the question.

Maybe I need to modify the question for those with a Cessationist doctrinal view.

Was tongues always the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

No, not all spoke in tongues. The fruit of the Spirit is the evidence you can take to the bank (in heaven of course).

 

[dgiharris]

FIrst, let me declare I am not even close to a bible scholars, I've barely read the bible and that was decades ago...

but the one take away I had from reading the bible and going to church is that God is not a genie. You can't conjure God nor is there anything in the way of solid "evidence" of God's existence. If there were, then there would be no need to have "faith".

The biggest problem I've always had with Christianity is the belief that laymen (or any man) can read the bible and understand the will of almighty God. I am so tired of the "Well, this is my opinion of what God thinks and how God works and obviously my opinion is correct because I'm saved and thus God is speaking and thinking through me so obviously I know the correct interpretation of this passage..."

Are there times in human history where God and the Holy Spirit "took over" someone to the point where they were speaking in tongues? Sure. I have no doubt of that.

But to require or believe that this happens at baptism or when one is "truly Christian" or *insert whatever disclaimer here* is just wrong to the point of folly.

God works according to his plan and agenda which is far beyond us. A monkey would have a better chance of understanding Calculus than we'd have of understanding the whys and whens of God's will. So I'm always suspect to the point of disbelief when these sorts of threads pop up.

My take away was that our relationship with God is built on "faith". The moment you require "evidence" you are no longer dealing in "faith".

 

[FatalHeart]

The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.
​

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

I actually don't believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I believe it happens when you give your life to Christ and that the experience you are referring to is most of the time either as a pouring out of His Spirit because of your prayer for such an experience or a demonic manifestation as I have heard plenty of stories of people "filled with the Spirit" speaking blasphemes when their words are properly interpreted by someone in the audience who happened to know the language they were speaking. Furthermore, because it tells us to not speak in tongues in church unless there is an interpreter, it tells me very pointedly that those who are behind such movements care little what the word actually means about the verses they think they are supporting, seeing as they are unwilling to follow the prescribed practices of said gift in the first place.

As per the OP question, I've seen the gifts manifested sporadically among people, not singularly and specifically granted, as miracles and answers to prayer. I think that perhaps when it comes to the Spirit, there may be grounds for the idea that the verses talking about spiritual gifts, just because some of those gifts are more concrete than others, shouldn't be taken to mean that every gift is a concrete thing. That perhaps miracle working and healing and guidance aren't set positions like teaching, although, one can even say that, those that teach still do so in seasons according to the Spirit's leading.

 

[drich0150]

no, tongues is a spiritual gift. gift usually come later. we first receive Spiritual fruit. As in All of Galatians 5. Most people limit the fruit of the Spirit to just 2 or 3 verses that list out a few attributes but the true fruit is to live in freedom apart from the law. this is what the whole chapter is contextually about, and subsequently is the primary evidence that we are in the Spirit.

Then comes Spiritual gifts based on how much 'fruit' we produce meaning how well we can except this freedom. If we can not accept this freedom then I'd say we can not produce fruit and if we can not do this we will not be given spiritual gifts, which is why the church has all but died.. meaning why our church today looks nothing like the church in Paul's day.

Living apart from the law according to gal 5 and basically the whole book of Romans has nothing to do with living in sin. matter of fact 1/2 the book of romans and 1/2 of gal 5 is dedicated to this. What is mean by living apart from the law is our righteousness does not come from making check marks when ever a rule is kept or making a mark when one is broken. It is about living through direction directly from the Spirit. to be used as an extension of the Holy Spirit to be use as a hand or foot/member of the body. can be a member of the body if you are tied to the law as an individual would be. As a member of the body it is by the head of the body that we are judged.

 

[DamianWarS]

The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.
​

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

there is implicit evidence of the HS in Acts 8 as Simon the sorcerer seemed to be impressed enough that he offered money to do the same. You could argue that Simon just witnessed the laying on of hands event and that's it but I think his reaction to what he sees warrants more than just laying on of hands and fits better with a supernatural experience.

How the baptism of the HS looks in Acts is never really addressed anywhere else in scripture. You can argue 1 Corinthians 12-14 does however the baptism of the HS in Acts conflicts with the rules laid out in 1 Corinthians so some look at Acts as describing the Baptism of the HS or the "gift" (dorea) of the HS describes a separate experience from salvation and the gifts (charisma) of the HS describes gifts given upon salvation and the infilling of the HS. (we should not confuse Acts "gift" and 1 Corinthians 12 "gifts" as they use very different words for "gift")

The problem with this is that if true there is no real teaching on the baptism of the HS in Acts and there are few examples for us to look at. According to Acts the baptism of the HS is revealed as a separate experience from salvation and water baptism and even in it's few examples shows contrasts to all these things. If we put Acts in a vacuum what we see is we should seek the baptism of the HS and upon receiving it should expect tongues but not demand it. If we take it out of the vacuum it's difficult to marry Acts with 1 Corinthians and after study it really seems like these are different things.

in the end the questions that remain is why doesn't anyone teach on the baptism of the HS if Acts describes something else or the opposite is ture as well why does Acts conflict with 1 Corinthians on so many levels?

 

[Geralt]

the isssue with 'tongues' is the content. people ASSUMED what they say, is what is otherwise described as the content of 'tongues' in scripture.

they have already fallen victim to extra-biblical assumption thinking it is scripture simply because they associate it with the word 'tongues'.

 

[swordsman1]

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

No, all believers are baptized in the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) - that is what joins them to the body of Christ. And scripture makes it clear that not all believers have the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:29-30, 1 Cor 12:8-10, 1 Cor 12:19-20, Rom 12:4-6).

In Acts, tongues was the evidence that whole new groups of people were now included in the Church. That is true of all 4 instances of tongues in Acts - Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, disciples of John the Baptist (assuming tongues was the manifestation in Samaria).

What is the evidence that someone has been baptized in the Spirit? The evidence of an apple tree is the fruit of an apple tree - apples. The evidence of a vine is the fruit of the vine - grapes. The evidence of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

 

[fhansen]

I know it's all controversial but personally I don't think tongues as we generally see it today has anything to do with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Showing that the law is written on our hearts (Jer 31:31-34) by the degree of love that we have for God and neighbor, as demonstrated by what we do for 'the least of these' as per Matt 25:31-46, with those 'works prepared for us in Christ Jesus' (Eph 2:10), is a more sure witness to the HS living and working in us IMO.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

To say that speaking in tongues is the only evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit is literally to say that no one has received the Holy Spirit for two thousand years. There are no accounts of speaking in tongues anywhere in the history of the Church except among some fringe groups that no longer exist.

Pentecostals have been around for over 100 years and they still exist

 

[Monk Brendan]

The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.
​

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

Where does the Bible say that Jesus spoke in tongues?

BCV, please,

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

It seems that we are in agreement. Just looking at different sides of the same coin, so to speak.

The whole point of this topic is to question whether tongues is always the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I say it is not, and you say it is not. It seems that we are more in agreement than not.

It seems that our biggest contention is identifying protocol for the early church in this regard. So, we can continue to discuss that point if you wish.

To that point, here are a couple of questions for you. Why did the Apostles need to lay hands on the baptized believers in Samaria in Acts chapter eight? If the Holy Spirit is given automatically at baptism, what went wrong? And really, we could ask the same question about the disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus. What went wrong?

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

One explanation could be that because things were in their infancy, this is the way they thought at the time. Paul gave a lot of teaching later on that clarified the role of the Holy Spirit and that we could receive the Holy Spirit by faith. I know that in the early years of the Pentecostal movement, they had "tarrying meetings" where they sought the Lord for the baptism with the Spirit and waited for Him to bestow it on them. What they didn't know at that time was that asking for Him to come was one thing, but actually receiving Him and activating His gifts by faith was another.

The problem was answered by some who chose to believe that the Holy Spirit came in at conversion, so in effect they received Him by faith on that basis. And it worked for them.

The trouble with some who say that a manifestation is the evidence that the Holy Spirit has come, is that they look for a sensory experience before they will believe; and often the devil is there to give them one, leading to a counterfeit. But when a person asks, receives, and believes through faith in the promise, it is much more difficult to receive a counterfeit, because the person is believing by faith in Acts 2, and is treating any sensory experience as the icing on the cake and not the cake itself.

 

[marineimaging]

The biblical model says, "No." --- Or at least begs the question.

Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence
of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

What do others know about this?
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience with the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit that differs from the "norm"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is the second of two baptisms for the believer.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we see this pattern established. (but not always in this order)
- Belief
- Repentance
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (typically received through the laying on of hands)

But how do you know that you have received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?
Most would say that tongues follow the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
And that is mostly correct. However, that may not be the case.
Even the biblical model leaves us with questions about the validity of that claim.

And, of course, we need to hear the personal testimonies of those who have experienced something other than the "standard" experience with the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Probably the best example of this is found in the passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles about the new believers in Samaria.

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This follows the established pattern listed above. (also see Acts 2:38-39)

- Belief
- Repentance (assumed)
- Water Baptism
- Holy Spirit Baptism (received through the laying on of hands)

They only thing missing in the passage is the evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. We will have to look at other passages for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are examples of the initial evidence of tongues following the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. But notice that in each case there is another manifestation listed. This begs the question of this topic. Is Tongues Always the Initial Evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? Or is any manifestation of the Holy Spirit valid evidence? Or in some cases, the manifestations may come later.

Here's what we don't know based on these texts. Did everyone in these examples speak in tongues? Did some have another manifestation instead of tongues? Did everyone manifest tongues but some had a second manifestation? We are not told.
​

Acts 19:6
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Acts 10:44-46
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's another example. No evidence of a manifestation is given other than his miraculous healing. But who would argue that the Apostle Paul did not speak in tongues?

Acts 9:16-19
I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary statement

In Acts 19:6 and Acts 10:44-46 we see a manifestation of something other than tongues listed as evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. Namely, prophecy and praising God.

Some may argue that praising "praising God" is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. However, at Pentecost the onlookers exclaimed, "... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” - Acts 2:11

So, if I understand what some are saying, Romans 10:9 falls short of the course because "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" is not enough? That it requires the work of someone else (the laying on of somebody elses hands or the confirmation by another person) to complete that which Jesus died on the cross to accomplish? That Jesus' death and Resurrection and ascension to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Fater was not sufficient? Sort of like the priest has to give you last rites or hear your confession or it doesn't count? Or you can't read the Bible without another person of the collar there to interpret for you? You are saying that if that you repent of your sins, and that you are baptized as a public proclamation of your faith, all of this needs something more in order to be saved? Or is it just the part about receiving the Holy Spirit?

 

[dqhall]

So, if I understand what some are saying, Romans 10:9 falls short of the course because "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" is not enough? That it requires the work of someone else (the laying on of somebody elses hands or the confirmation by another person) to complete that which Jesus died on the cross to accomplish? That Jesus' death and Resurrection and ascension to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Fater was not sufficient? Sort of like the priest has to give you last rites or hear your confession or it doesn't count? Or you can't read the Bible without another person of the collar there to interpret for you? You are saying that if that you repent of your sins, and that you are baptized as a public proclamation of your faith, all of this needs something more in order to be saved? Or is it just the part about receiving the Holy Spirit?

It is not enough to say, "Jesus is Lord." Consider the Gospel:

Matthew 7:21 (WEB) Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will tell me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?’ 23 Then I will tell them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.’

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few chosen."

Paul spoke about gifts of the spirit of various sorts, not everyone was gifted in the same way:

1 Corinthians 12:7 (WEB) The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all. 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith. To others that one Spirit gives gifts of healing. 10 To others he gives the power to do miracles. To others he gives the ability to prophesy. To others he gives the ability to tell the spirits apart. To others he gives the ability to speak in different kinds of languages they had not known before. And to still others he gives the ability to explain what was said in those languages. 11 All the gifts are produced by one and the same Spirit. He gives gifts to each person, just as he decides."

Prophesy is when God gives words and instructions for someone to give to another or others. God's memory surpasses human memory.

 

[HTacianas]

Pentecostals have been around for over 100 years and they still exist

100 years is only modern as relates to Christianity.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

It's frustrating that is seems like everyone is obsessed with tongues but forget that there are a bunch of others Gifts Of The Holy Spirit:

• The gift of Wisdom
• The gift of Knowledge
• The gift of Faith
• The gift of Healing
• The gift of Miracles
• The gift of Prophecy
• The gift of Discerning Spirits
• The gift of Tongues
• The gift of Interpreting Tongues
• The gift of Administration
• The gift of Helps

https://www.allaboutgod.com/gifts-of-the-spirit.htm

 

[Saint Steven]

there is implicit evidence of the HS in Acts 8 as Simon the sorcerer seemed to be impressed enough that he offered money to do the same. You could argue that Simon just witnessed the laying of hands event at that's it but I think his reaction to what he sees warrants more than just laying on of hands and fits better with a supernatural experience.

How the baptism of the HS looks in Acts is never really addressed anywhere else in scripture. You can argue 1 Corinthians 12-14 does however the baptism of the HS in Acts conflicts with the rules laid out in 1 Corinthians so some look at Acts as describing the Baptism of the HS or the "gift" (dorea) of the HS is a separate experience from salvation and the gifts (charisma) of the HS describes gifts given upon salvation and the infilling of the HS. (we should not confuse Acts "gift" and 1 Corinthians 12 "gifts" as they use very different words for "gift")

The problem with this is that if true there is no real teaching on baptism of the HS in Acts and there are few examples for us to look at. According to Acts the baptism of the HS is revealed as a separate experience from salvation and water baptism and even in it's few examples shows contrasts to all these things. If we put Acts in a vacuum what we I see is we should seek the baptism of the HS and upon receiving it should probably expect tongues but not demand it. If we take it out of the vacuum it's difficult to marry Acts with 1 Corinthians and after study it really doesn't seem like these are different things.

in the end the questions that remain is why doesn't anyone teach on the baptism of the HS if Acts describes something else or the opposite is conflicting as well why does Acts conflict with 1 Corinthians?

I mostly agree.
I don't have the issues many have between Acts and 1 Corinthians. They are in harmony from my perspective.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's frustrating that is seems like everyone is obsessed with tongues but forget that there are a bunch of others Gifts Of The Holy Spirit:

• The gift of Wisdom
• The gift of Knowledge
• The gift of Faith
• The gift of Healing
• The gift of Miracles
• The gift of Prophecy is being able to proclaim a message from God.
• The gift of Discerning Spirits
• The gift of Tongues
• The gift of Interpreting Tongues
• The gift of Administration
• The gift of Helps

https://www.allaboutgod.com/gifts-of-the-spirit.htm

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the gift of tongues. I'm talking about the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the manifestation of tongues that typically follows.

The gift of tongues is the one that requires interpretation because it is being addressed to the whole congregation.