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

[Saint Steven]

No, tongues is not a necessary result of being born-again or "baptized" by the Holy Spirit. There is only one "baptism" of/by the Holy Spirit and that is the "baptism" that "washes and regenerates" (Titus 3:5) a person, and makes them the temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted, redeemed child of God. A more important and more sure sign of the indwelling Spirit is not tongues, which can be faked very easily, but a life transformed by the Spirit and conformed to the Person of Christ. (Romans 8:29) Holiness, the Fruit of the Spirit, a peaceable, humble character, dying to Self - these are all far more necessary and true manifestations of being "baptized" by the Spirit (aka - born-again) than speaking in tongues.



There is no "second baptism" of an already born-again believer. The very first born-again believers came to be in Acts 2 where the followers of Jesus gathered together at Pentecost were filled by the Spirit. And they did not need a second baptism to speak in various tongues when they went out immediately after their spiritual regeneration by the Spirit and shared the Gospel with the lost in the street. We also have no idea if they had all been water-baptized or not prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. Nothing in the account in Acts 2 gives us reason to think they had been.



How do you know you have received the Holy Spirit?

1.) The inner witness of the Spirit. (Romans 8:16)
2.) A love of the brethren. (1 John 3:14)
3.) Conviction of sin. (John 16:8)
4.) An understanding of God's truth. (Luke 12:12; John 14:26)
5.) A hunger for, and delight in, the word of God. (Jeremiah 15:6)
6.) The Fruit of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23)
7.) A spiritually-minded life. (Romans 8:5)

These are the marks of a person in whom the Spirit truly dwells. And they all exist entirely independently of tongues-speaking.



No one's personal experience trumps the plain teaching of Scripture or may add to it. And Scripture no where teaches that tongues are an essential manifestation of the indwelling Spirit.



This passage doesn't mention speaking in tongues nor does it say that the Samaritans had a second baptism of the Spirit. Although they had believed the Gospel, and had even been baptized in water, they had yet to be truly born-again by the washing and regeneration of the Spirit.



In Acts 2, the manifestation of tongues enabled the disciples to preach the Gospel to an audience of people of widely-varying languages, it did not simply show they had been filled by the Spirit. And no where in the entire chapter are we told that all believers must do likewise when they are first saved. The descriptions of the chapter are not offered prescriptively.



What little the NT tells us of this particular gift gives us cause to understand that this gift was being abused by those "manifesting" it. (See 1 Corinthians 14) And after the accounts of Acts and Paul's comments on tongues to the Corinthian believers, the topic of tongues is entirely absent from the NT. This indicates to me that the modern obsession with this gift is far out of proportion to the attitude of Scripture toward speaking in tongues. I suspect it has become a favorite among those seeking a sign from God today because it is the easiest to fake.



And yet, no where in all of his letters does he once say that a Christian must speak in tongues. What's more, in comparison to those things that did occupy his letters, tongues appears to have held little to no importance for Paul.

Thanks for your detailed response. I appreciate it.
I'm not claiming that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation. Although you seem to think so. By your definition anyway. You say one baptism, I say two.

So, what went wrong in Samaria? (and Ephesus for that matter) In both cases the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands. (after water baptism)

How was it determined that the believers in both cases did not have the Holy Spirit? This passage says that "the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them". Notice: that's "on" not "in".

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.

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

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

No, tongues is not a necessary result of being born-again or "baptized" by the Holy Spirit. There is only one "baptism" of/by the Holy Spirit and that is the "baptism" that "washes and regenerates" (Titus 3:5) a person, and makes them the temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted, redeemed child of God. A more important and more sure sign of the indwelling Spirit is not tongues, which can be faked very easily, but a life transformed by the Spirit and conformed to the Person of Christ. (Romans 8:29) Holiness, the Fruit of the Spirit, a peaceable, humble character, dying to Self - these are all far more necessary and true manifestations of being "baptized" by the Spirit (aka - born-again) than speaking in tongues.



There is no "second baptism" of an already born-again believer. The very first born-again believers came to be in Acts 2 where the followers of Jesus gathered together at Pentecost were filled by the Spirit. And they did not need a second baptism to speak in various tongues when they went out immediately after their spiritual regeneration by the Spirit and shared the Gospel with the lost in the street. We also have no idea if they had all been water-baptized or not prior to receiving the Holy Spirit. Nothing in the account in Acts 2 gives us reason to think they had been.



How do you know you have received the Holy Spirit?

1.) The inner witness of the Spirit. (Romans 8:16)
2.) A love of the brethren. (1 John 3:14)
3.) Conviction of sin. (John 16:8)
4.) An understanding of God's truth. (Luke 12:12; John 14:26)
5.) A hunger for, and delight in, the word of God. (Jeremiah 15:6)
6.) The Fruit of the Spirit. (Galatians 5:22-23)
7.) A spiritually-minded life. (Romans 8:5)

These are the marks of a person in whom the Spirit truly dwells. And they all exist entirely independently of tongues-speaking.



No one's personal experience trumps the plain teaching of Scripture or may add to it. And Scripture no where teaches that tongues are an essential manifestation of the indwelling Spirit.



This passage doesn't mention speaking in tongues nor does it say that the Samaritans had a second baptism of the Spirit. Although they had believed the Gospel, and had even been baptized in water, they had yet to be truly born-again by the washing and regeneration of the Spirit.



In Acts 2, the manifestation of tongues enabled the disciples to preach the Gospel to an audience of people of widely-varying languages, it did not simply show they had been filled by the Spirit. And no where in the entire chapter are we told that all believers must do likewise when they are first saved. The descriptions of the chapter are not offered prescriptively.



What little the NT tells us of this particular gift gives us cause to understand that this gift was being abused by those "manifesting" it. (See 1 Corinthians 14) And after the accounts of Acts and Paul's comments on tongues to the Corinthian believers, the topic of tongues is entirely absent from the NT. This indicates to me that the modern obsession with this gift is far out of proportion to the attitude of Scripture toward speaking in tongues. I suspect it has become a favorite among those seeking a sign from God today because it is the easiest to fake.



And yet, no where in all of his letters does he once say that a Christian must speak in tongues. What's more, in comparison to those things that did occupy his letters, tongues appears to have held little to no importance for Paul.

Kind of lol. I say and most of those baptized in the Holy Spirit and miricle working power including speaking in other languages say: The fruit of the Spirit has nothing to do with baptisms of the Spirit. Might be helpful but you can be a walking miracle and have a bad character and visaversa. Not be baptised in the Holy Spirit but have the fruit.
So to us your comparing apples to oranges. Your conflating two different subjects that by their very nature are exclusive of one another.

 

[aiki]

I'm not claiming that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation. Although you seem to think so. By your definition anyway. You say one baptism, I say two.

It is not merely what I say, it is what Scripture indicates. One is "baptized" into the family of God, one is spiritually regenerated, by the coming of the Spirit to dwell within one's self. The first time this happened in the born-again sense was in Acts 2. And, as I pointed out, there was no "second baptism of the Spirit" required for these very first born-again Christians to be speaking in tongues. What, then, of the notion that speaking in tongues requires a "second baptism of the Spirit"? It doesn't look like the former depends upon the latter, to me.

So, what went wrong in Samaria? (and Ephesus for that matter) In both cases the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands. (after water baptism)

What makes you think something had gone wrong? The Early Church was in the process of being established by the apostles. Unusual supernatural events were fairly typical as they did so. These events helped to confirm the spiritual authority of the apostles and, in the case of the Samaritans, create great confidence in them of the reality and surety of their salvation. Believers from other regions would also be assured that the Samaritan church was a genuine work of God by the apostle's direct involvement with them. In any case, no where in all of Paul's letters, or John's, or Peter's, or in all the recorded words of Christ in the Four Gospels, do we ever read that salvation requires the laying on of an apostle's hands, or that spiritual power and fruitfulness in the individual believer requires such a thing.

How was it determined that the believers in both cases did not have the Holy Spirit? This passage says that "the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them". Notice: that's "on" not "in".

The Bible doesn't say how it was determined that the believers did not have the Holy Spirit. I think Scripture gives me good grounds to think that the Samaritans did have the Spirit dwelling within, that they were saved, but that the Spirit had not manifested his presence in any strongly external, supernatural way. As a way of confirming the genuineness of the Samaritan's conversion and so confirm their authenticity as a church of God, the apostles laid on their hands, to which the Spirit responded with a supernatural manifestation. But there is nothing in this account that necessitates the reader taking this event as prescriptive for all believers. And the complete absence of any specific prescriptive teaching in the rest of the New Testament that believers need this laying on of apostolic hands supports the thinking that what happened with the Samaritans was not the norm for all believers in all times.

 

[aiki]

Kind of lol. I say and most of those baptized in the Holy Spirit and miricle working power including speaking in other languages say: The fruit of the Spirit has nothing to do with baptisms of the Spirit.

Well, Scripture disagrees with you. If one is not baptized into Christ by the Spirit (Acts 1:5; Romans 3:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Titus 3:5) one is not saved. And if one is not saved, one does not manifest the Fruit of the Spirit.

Might be helpful but you can be a walking miracle and have a bad character and visaversa. Not be baptised in the Holy Spirit but have the fruit.

I disagree. One can be a "walking miracle" and not be saved, but one cannot fake being truly born again. Many try, of course, but to those who are truly saved, the genuineness (or lack thereof) of a person's salvation is always inevitably evident.

So to us your comparing apples to oranges. Your conflating two different subjects that by their very nature are exclusive of one another.

Nope. See above.

 

[Saint Steven]

It is not merely what I say, it is what Scripture indicates. One is "baptized" into the family of God, one is spiritually regenerated, by the coming of the Spirit to dwell within one's self. The first time this happened in the born-again sense was in Acts 2. And, as I pointed out, there was no "second baptism of the Spirit" required for these very first born-again Christians to be speaking in tongues. What, then, of the notion that speaking in tongues requires a "second baptism of the Spirit"? It doesn't look like the former depends upon the latter, to me.



What makes you think something had gone wrong? The Early Church was in the process of being established by the apostles. Unusual supernatural events were fairly typical as they did so. These events helped to confirm the spiritual authority of the apostles and, in the case of the Samaritans, create great confidence in them of the reality and surety of their salvation. Believers from other regions would also be assured that the Samaritan church was a genuine work of God by the apostle's direct involvement with them. In any case, no where in all of Paul's letters, or John's, or Peter's, or in all the recorded words of Christ in the Four Gospels, do we ever read that salvation requires the laying on of an apostle's hands, or that spiritual power and fruitfulness in the individual believer requires such a thing.



The Bible doesn't say how it was determined that the believers did not have the Holy Spirit. I think Scripture gives me good grounds to think that the Samaritans did have the Spirit dwelling within, that they were saved, but that the Spirit had not manifested his presence in any strongly external, supernatural way. As a way of confirming the genuineness of the Samaritan's conversion and so confirm their authenticity as a church of God, the apostles laid on their hands, to which the Spirit responded with a supernatural manifestation. But there is nothing in this account that necessitates the reader taking this event as prescriptive for all believers. And the complete absence of any specific prescriptive teaching in the rest of the New Testament that believers need this laying on of apostolic hands supports the thinking that what happened with the Samaritans was not the norm for all believers in all times.

What Paul said to Timothy is a good example and it was church Elders, not the Apostles.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Oh yeah, I mean people in general (The Church) seem to focus more on that particular gift then any other for some reason.

I genuinely believe that it is the most misunderstood and misused gift from The Holy Spirit.

Only by those outside of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement who do not speak or pray in tongues. Every person I have met within these movements over the last 50 years of my involvement know exactly what tongues is for and how to use it properly.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Only by those outside of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement who do not speak or pray in tongues. Every person I have met within these movements over the last 50 years of my involvement know exactly what tongues is for and how to use it properly.

When I used to go to Assemblies Of God Church I remember many people speaking in tongues All At The Same Time With No Interpreters and The Preacher Never talked about the other gifts of The Holy Spirit.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Did you express your concerns to the leadership at the time and show them what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 14 about the problems associated with speaking out in tongues in meetings without interpretation?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Did you express your concerns to the leadership at the time and show them what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 14 about the problems associated with speaking out in tongues in meetings without interpretation?

No, I was just learning about these kind of things at the time. It's mostly just memories that I'm remembering about those times. Everything was new to me concerning speaking in tongues.

 

[Sam91]

Was this baptism of the Holy Spirit around 20 years ago? I was at a pentecostal church 20 years ago and speaking in tongues was something you just prayed for. We were already spirit filled before getting tongues and people would fall down when being prayed for each week but still not have the gift of tongues.

I never prayed much for that gift. I didn't particularly desire it as much as learning His ways and growing in Him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No, I was just learning about these kind of things at the time. It's mostly just memories that I'm remembering about those times. Everything was new to me concerning speaking in tongues.

That's fair enough. I was converted in the AOG as well, at the age of 19. It seemed to me that people knew when people were praising God verbally in tongues, and when someone got up and gave a message in tongues which was interpreted. There was no disorder that I could see in any of the meetings I attended. There were set periods of praise and worship where people praised God in English and in tongues. Then people calmed down, listened to the notices, sang the songs and hymns, heard the sermon, Then there was an altar call, where people were prayed for, and others in the congregation supported them in prayer, quietly praying in English and in tongues.

Of course, as in any church, there is the lunatic fringe who went over the odds. But the leadership was aware of them and was quick to correct them and to inform the congregation to ignore what happened or what was said.

It seems that some infiltrate Pentecostal and Charismatic churches with their smartphones and take videos of people worshiping and praising God, and others being prayed for at altar calls. Then they use these video clips to show that the meetings are full of disorder. I think that is an invasion of sacred times, and of the privacy of those worshiping God and being ministered to in services. We have a Privacy Act in New Zealand, and I would be encouraging anyone who had a video of them being prayed for in an altar call to report them to the authorities with a view to getting them prosecuted under the Privacy Act. Most of these video clips were taken without the consent of those being videoed. Therefore they are unauthorised and are not appropriate evidence of anything to do with what happens in Pentecostal or Charismatic services.

 

[Saint Steven]

When I used to go to Assemblies Of God Church I remember many people speaking in tongues All At The Same Time With No Interpreters and The Preacher Never talked about the other gifts of The Holy Spirit.

Speaking it tongues all at the same time isn't a problem.

As long as they aren't all addressing the whole church with a message in tongues (that needs interpretation) all at the same time. This seems like a great misunderstanding on your part. Those ignorant about tongues come with this criticism all the time. Speaking in tongues in general and the gift tongues (a message for the church that needs interpretation) are two different things.

 

[Saint Steven]

Was this baptism of the Holy Spirit around 20 years ago? I was at a pentecostal church 20 years ago and speaking in tongues was something you just prayed for. We were already spirit filled before getting tongues and people would fall down when being prayed for each week but still not have the gift of tongues.

I never prayed much for that gift. I didn't particularly desire it as much as learning His ways and growing in Him.

No, it was around 2000 years ago and still going strong. lol

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Speaking it tongues all at the same time isn't a problem.

As long as they aren't all addressing the whole church with a message in tongues (that needs interpretation) all at the same time. This seems like a great misunderstanding on your part. Those ignorant about tongues come with this criticism all the time. Speaking in tongues in general and the gift tongues (a message for the church that needs interpretation) are two different things.

I wish they would give a clear and detailed guideline when people attend these types of churches so people know what to expect. Even seasoned Christians who know a lot of scripture (like myself) don't have all the specifics when it comes to speaking in tongues.

 

[Alithis]

When I used to go to Assemblies Of God Church I remember many people speaking in tongues All At The Same Time With No Interpreters and The Preacher Never talked about the other gifts of The Holy Spirit.

hi,
the problem with this kind of statement is double sided
yes the congregation ,IF all they ever do is meet sing and pray in tongues is in error .for we are called to so much more then only that.
the other problem with it is ..
almost every one who posts in opposition to tongues being integral as a sign a person has the holy spirit
fail themselves to do the work of the gospel .(the reason the gifts of the spirit are given is for the building up of the body and the work we are commanded to DO) they dont actually move in words of knowledge or heal the sick or decern spirits or work miracles etc . for they TOO just sit in the building and sing songs and argue doctrine .

no tongues is not a validation of spirituality . but neither is saying we have the holy spirit without tongues

what people often forget ..is being baptized in the holy Spirit makes us MORE responsible to be obedience , not less .and a person ,once they have realized they CAN pray in tongues ... and do so . can also live in disobedience . AND sadly this is the most comon case that is happening .

 

[aiki]

What Paul said to Timothy is a good example and it was church Elders, not the Apostles.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Outside of Acts and 1 Corinthians, are there any other verses, besides this one, in all of the New Testament concerning this sort of laying on of hands? Nope. And, as I said, this verse is not in the least prescriptive. Paul does not go on to say that all born-again believers ought to have a similar laying on of hands by an apostle.

 

[marineimaging]

The tongues that come as "evidence" of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit are not the same as the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians.

This is one of the BIG points I have been trying to make with my topics. There is more than one kind of tongues. (at least five kinds) There is more than one use for tongues. There is more than one reason for speaking in tongues.

I do believe in a literal position that if God wanted two peoples to come together, they could understand each others tongue if it was ordained by God. But I can't see whereas man could invoke the speaking in tongues if it were not understood because God is not the author of confusion and that would be just that. Confusion.

 

[swordsman1]

So, what went wrong in Samaria? (and Ephesus for that matter) In both cases the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands. (after water baptism)

Samaria was a unique event in church history - the first time anyone outside of Judaism had believed in Christ. The Samaritans and Jews hated each other, so it was necessary for the reception of the Spirit to be delayed until the apostles arrived so they could witness for themselves that the hated Samaritans were now also part of the Church, and for the Samaritans to accept the (Jewish) apostles as it's leaders. That is the only time the Spirit was delayed after Pentecost.

That is clearly an exception to the normal pattern. There are numerous passages in scriptures that state the Spirit is received at conversion: Rom 8:9, Gal 3:2, Gal 3:13-14, Gal 5:5, Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 6:19, Titus 3:5, 1 John 3:24, 1 John 4:13, Acts 2:38, Acts 11:17.

The other instances of tongues in Acts similarly occurred when whole new groups of people became Christians. But there was no delay in those instances. There was definitely no delay with the Gentiles receiving the Spirit in Acts 10. And there was no appreciable delay in the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, if any at all. They were not Christians when Paul met them at Ephesus. Paul's preaching, the laying on of hands, their speaking in tongues, and their water baptism all happened in quick succession. No precise order is stated - note that it says "When Paul places his hands on them", not "Then Paul placed his hands on them". All we can say is it all happened quickly around the same time.

In Acts tongues was a confirming sign that each of these new groups were now included in the Church. These were unique historical events in the history of the church, not the pattern that we expect to see repeated today.

 

[swordsman1]

What people call 'praying in tongues' nowadays it is not praying in tongues as scripture describes the phenomenon. Although they genuinely believe it is the NT gift (as they are taught), I believe what they actually experience is the natural phenomenon of the flesh known to linguists as free vocalization or glossolalia. It is the technique of letting your vocal organs do it's own thing. Today's 'tongues' has been well researched and proved to be devoid of any linguistic structure - it is just strings of syllables haphazardly put together to give the appearance of language. It is not unique to Christianity. Anyone can discover the technique. It is commonly found in pagan religions and atheists. You can even find ex-Pentecostals who have abandoned the Christian faith and declared themselves to be atheist and yet they can still fluently 'speak in tongues'. This proves that it is not of the Holy Spirit.

The only description of tongues in scripture is found in Acts 2 and it is miraculously speaking a foreign human languages you have never previously learned. It is nowhere redefined as being a non-human language.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Was this baptism of the Holy Spirit around 20 years ago? I was at a pentecostal church 20 years ago and speaking in tongues was something you just prayed for. We were already spirit filled before getting tongues and people would fall down when being prayed for each week but still not have the gift of tongues.

I never prayed much for that gift. I didn't particularly desire it as much as learning His ways and growing in Him.

It was first recognised in its present form in the Pentecostal movement at the turn of the 20th Century.

When I counsel people concerning the gifts (including tongues), I establish that they believe that it is certainly God's will for them to receive that gift. If they are not sure. I don't go any further with them. There is no point pressuring a person to receive something that they don't want.