JesusAddict333
Jesus is my best friend
Even then I am skeptical that you must speak in tongues to have the holy spirit. I had other gifts of the spirit before I ever had tongues.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Even then I am skeptical that you must speak in tongues to have the holy spirit. I had other gifts of the spirit before I ever had tongues.Tongues are NOT evidence of salvation. Faith in Christ is the sole requirement. Tongues is evidence solely of baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Even then I am skeptical that you must speak in tongues to have the holy spirit. I had other gifts of the spirit before I ever had tongues.
If I strut my gifts won't I seem vain? Have you not read the scripture someone posted earlier? Corinthians 12 makes it clear that not all have every gift. And yes, I consider myself pentecostal and I have been to plenty of pentecostal/charismatic churches that do not believe that speaking in tongues is the ONLY evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.If I may, could I ask which gifts you are speaking of?
If I strut my gifts won't I seem vain? Have you not read the scripture someone posted earlier? Corinthians 12 makes it clear that not all have every gift. And yes, I consider myself pentecostal and I have been to plenty of pentecostal/charismatic churches that do not believe that speaking in tongues is the ONLY evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
I've read the bible -- there is no convincing me that speaking in tongues must be had to have the Holy Spirit.
You need to be aware that the position that Luke735 is attempting to promote is absolutely NOT the position of the AOG and it is one that they absolutely reject; if any of their accredited ministers were to attempt to present such a position they would be immediately dismissed as they should be.Just FYI: Luke735 is expressing a classical doctrine of Pentecostalism- which is that 'the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.' I was raised with that exact quote in the AoG. If I'm not mistaken ALL of the Pentecostal denominations that sprung up in the early 20th century initially believed this (if some no longer do then it must be a very recent development). The idea of this not being the case among those who are into speaking in tongues- came about with the Charismatic movement of the late 60s. I've noticed that there are a lot of people who now go to Pentecostal churches who are somewhat unaware of what said denominations actually teach- or- if they are- don't care and attend/are members anyway.
I noticed someone mentioned Oneness Pentecostals earlier- but considering they don't even believe in the Trinity- you're not talking about people who possess a Christian faith to begin with.
People can believe it or not (I don't)- but you really can't argue that he's presenting anything that isn't part of the Pentecostal faith. Anyone who doesn't believe it should probably step lightly on this board.
This was not a particularly well thought out statement as you are presenting a view which the AOG soundly rejects. As you appear to be a non-Pentecostal and maybe not even a charismatic (if I am correct) then your declaration regarding what is Pentecostal doctrine is supposed to be, was probably not all that appropriate in my view....People can believe it or not (I don't)- but you really can't argue that he's presenting anything that isn't part of the Pentecostal faith. Anyone who doesn't believe it should probably step lightly on this board.
You need to be aware that the position that Luke735 is attempting to promote is absolutely NOT the position of the AOG and it is one that they absolutely reject; if any of their accredited ministers were to attempt to present such a position they would be immediately dismissed as they should be.
You seem to be confusing the classic-Pentecostal doctrine that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit (which is subsequent to salvation) is to be evidenced by the individual speaking in tongues; this is not the same as when a person is born again and receives the Holy Spirit as a seal. The AOG and the other major Pentecostal denominations (other than the Oneness groups and similar) acknowledge that tongues is NOT a requirement for salvation though it is the only singular evidence of the subsequent Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
If anyone attempts to promote the view that only those who speak in tongues are saved within any respected Pentecostal denominations, they will be immediately cautioned and if they continue on with this belief they will then be told to pack their bags. I dont know what AOG congregation you attended those many years ago, but the person who supposedly told you this, which again the AOG deem to be a heresy, then they would definitely not last long in a position of authority.
Let me point out that the title of this particular thread is Tongues are a requirement. When I read the opening post I presumed that he was simply following the classic-Pentecostal view (AOG etc) that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (which again, is subsequent to salvation) needs to be evidenced by an individual speaking in tongues. What we quickly discovered was that he was promoting the view that one must speak in tongues to be saved, again, this is deemed to be heresy within the AOG and within all respected Pentecostal denominations.
If you look at his following statements you will find that they do not represent classic-Pentecostal (incl. AOG) doctrine in any form:This was not a particularly well thought out statement as you are presenting a view which the AOG soundly rejects. As you appear to be a non-Pentecostal and maybe not even a charismatic (if I am correct) then your declaration regarding what is Pentecostal doctrine is supposed to be, was probably not all that appropriate in my view.Luke735 Post 1:I believe that EVERYONE who are Born of the Spirit are able to speak in tongues. Any thoughts?This is reasonable and is something that I fully agree with, but he then goes on to say in;
Post 14:
Whenever someone like me gets up and says maybe we should explore the possibility that Tongues are Essential for salvation people immediately reach for Corinthians 12:28-31 to rebut such a claim.
Post 36:
I have found over the years that most people who believe that tongues are not required do approach the matter from the "FALSE" assumption that I must prove from scripture that they must speak in tongues as evidence that they are born again/recieved the Holy Ghost, Been Converted, Saved etc etc.
In another post, since removed, he stated;
Simply stated we are saying that if you have not spoken in tongues then you are not born again of the Spirit and therefore cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Regards.
Hello, if you do not mind me asking, are you an Australian by any chance?Very good point Biblicist. In Australia I would be most rejected/excluded from AOG churches for promoting such a belief and doctrine. So do not hold the wider AOG community responsible for any of my views here.
I am simply posing questions here that as yet are not being answered.
How about you are able to supply me with some SCRIPTURAL REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT TONGUES ARE SUBSEQUENT TO SALVATION.
Luke 7:35Biblicist
Well, I can't! Even though I held to the classic-Pentecostal view for years that tongues is a necessary requirement for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; I have now changed my understanding where I have followed much along the lines of the thought of the apparent majority of highly respected Pentecostal scholars that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit should be better described as being soteriological in nature and not necessarily subsequent to our initial reception of the Holy Spirit at salvation.How about you are able to supply me with some SCRIPTURAL REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT TONGUES ARE SUBSEQUENT TO SALVATION.
Hello, if you do not mind me asking, are you an Australian by any chance?
As for this being merely an Australian perspective, I can assure that it is the position held by the AOG worldwide and it would be the same view that is held by every respected Pentecostal denomination. There are numerous (if not all) Oneness groups who hold to your doctrine but it is not a position that would be tolerated by any serious Pentecostal academic nor by any administrative authority.
It appears that the majority view amongst European AOG (and other) denominations/congregations is that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is primarily soteriological and not subsequent to salvation, though they will not present the view that tongues is the necessary indicator of a persons salvation.
As for the Australian arm of the AOG, now that it is referred to as the Australian Christian Churches (ACC), I seriously doubt if this 'revised' body could be deemed to be Pentecostal, at best it could probably be seen as a "Third-wave" movement. Within many Pentecostal congregations, it seems that tongues has been sadly relegated to being an optional experience where many AOG/ACC members both here in Australia and within the US no longer speak in tongues or even desire too - a very disappointing state of affairs.
Well, I can't! Even though I held to the classic-Pentecostal view for years that tongues is a necessary requirement for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit; I have now changed my understanding where I have followed much along the lines of the thought of the apparent majority of highly respected Pentecostal scholars that the Baptism with the Holy Spirit should be better described as being soteriological in nature and not necessarily subsequent to our initial reception of the Holy Spirit at salvation.
The important work by Frank D. Macchia Baptised in the Holy Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (2006) has probably summed up the current thought within Pentecostal and charismatic academic circles regarding how we should be describing the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, particularly if we should be deeming it to be primarily (but not exclusively) soteriological or as will historical classic-Pentecostal thought that it is subsequent to salvation. As regarding tongues being the necessary indicator that a person is born again, this is absolutely rejected by all major Pentecostal academics within respected classic-Pentecostal, Pentecostal, charismatic and Third-wave circles.
You are not using any scriptural proof that there is no one who has the Holy Spirit without tongues. Show me proof and you may sway me but as for myself, I know the truth. You just want to put politics in the bible and pass it off as law.HOW ABOUT STICKING WITH THE SCRIPTURES AS SOLE PROOF.
You are not using any scriptural proof that there is no one who has the Holy Spirit without tongues. Show me proof and you may sway me but as for myself, I know the truth. You just want to put politics in the bible and pass it off as law.
Yes, as I was presenting the position of the vast majority of Pentecostal denominations, particularly with that of the AOG internationally, this means that I am more than justified with pointing out the opinion of these respected organisations particularly as their combined membership is in the many millions, of course each of these denominations has their own intrinsic faults and issues but as a whole they are certainly respected.I NOTICE THAT YOU ARE TENDING TOWARD A "THIS RESPECTED TEACHER SAID THIS AND THIS AUTHORISED ORGANISATION SAID THAT APPROACH"
So the speaker in the video isnt merely another opinion!IF YOU WATCH THE VIDEO, IT BEGINS WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY OPPINIONS IN THE WORLD...HOW ABOUT STICKING WITH THE SCRIPTURES AS SOLE PROOF.
You could add to this “the majority of Pentecostal leaders…”; I suppose we could also add in that all mainstream-charismatics also adhere to the position that tongues are not a necessary indicator with someone being born again, though of course there will be small individual congregations/house groups or would agree with your position. As I mentioned earlier, to my knowledge, most Oneness groups hold to your position as well but they are certainly not deemed to be a part of the classic-Pentecostal movement, they are definitely on the side-lines so to speak.In recent years the vast majority of religious leaders believe and teach that the “burden of proof,” lies with those who profess that ALL who receive the Holy Ghost WILL speak in tongues. In reality the burden of proof” belongs to those who say, “YOU DON’T HAVE TO speak in tongues”, to prove their case by showing where this is stated in scripture.
I would say that Paul and the other Apostles would have definitely had the expectation that the believers of their day would have immediately or very quickly begun to speak in tongues and probably that they would have prophesied; I would go as far as saying that Paul would have been absolutely dismayed to encounter believers who had chosen not to speak in tongues – something that he would have undoubtedly quickly rectified.It is clear as a matter of law according to the rules of legal evidence that those observing this event on the Day of Pentecost, had a reasonable expectation of the same outward manifestation as the one they had just witnessed; which was clearly confirmed to them as the promised outpouring of the Holy Ghost, given by God and explained by Peter the Apostle.
To put it simply, I would turn their argument around by asking them “Why have you chosen not to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), particularly if you know that believers can chose to pray in the Spirit? This certainly places them on the back foot as the onus is now being placed on them.Those who say that you do not need to speak in tongues are saying in effect. “It is not conclusive enough according to God’s word to warrant us to have this expectation”.
Your problem is that the Pentecostal scholars along with the respected Pentecostal denominations recognise that the burden of proof rests with those who claim that tongues are the necessary indicator of someone’s salvation – we simply see no evidence for this position.To fully test this argument, one must go to the beginning of the Church and look at the FACTS. Remembering all the while the “burden of proof” lies with those who contend that speaking in tongues are not the outward manifestation associated with the baptism or being filled with the Holy Ghost.
Thats a great question. When I was born again as a teenager in a cessationist congregation I think that the most popular question that many of us had was, How do we know that we are saved and that we have the Holy Spirit within us? Now our more seasoned brethren would simply say Because the Bible tells us so, well this can be a hard one to counter and I think that for a lot of us we simply gave up expecting to hear a substantial answer. For many, I think that it might have been a reason for them eventually turning their back on the Lord.How do you know you are filled with the Holy Ghost
Im not sure that your passages have any real meaning, as Jesus had his problems with scholars and non-scholars alike. I suppose that I could switch your argument around quite easily by pointing out that the majority of those who seized Jesus were non-academics, but of course this would be just as silly as saying that scholarship was the cause of Jesus problems - granted, the scholars of Jesus day will certainly be held more accountable as they should have known better.THE SCHOLARS OF JESUS DAY HAD THE SAME PROBLEM THAT EXISTS TODAY:
I always chuckle with this one as I am well aware that your position has to my knowledge, absolutely no support with any Pentecostal academics. Tell me, when you go for a medical consultation or to someone regarding financial matters, do you make sure that you only speak to people who only have a rudimentary knowledge of these or other similar persuasions - I certainly hope not? I wonder what the scholar Paul would think of your criticism of the finest teachers of the Church, remember, it was the Father himself who established the Office of the teacher within the church.TAKE NOTE HERE BIBLICIST THAT THESE MEN WERE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING I.E. REFERRING TO SCHOLARS FOR VALIDATION OF THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM:
We can always take the easy path where you can supply passages from Paul where he states that tongues are supposed to be the sole evidence of a person being born again - this would undoubtedly keep the discussion very short indeed.In the past I have made the mistake of entering into long drawn out discussions with people who have already made their mind up. I am not going in that direction here. This why I posted the videos...to save time.
Thats a great question. When I was born again as a teenager in a cessationist congregation I think that the most popular question that many of us had was, How do we know that we are saved and that we have the Holy Spirit within us? Now our more seasoned brethren would simply say Because the Bible tells us so, well this can be a hard one to counter and I think that for a lot of us we simply gave up expecting to hear a substantial answer. For many, I think that it might have been a reason for them eventually turning their back on the Lord.
About 18 months later, I went to a meeting with a workmate to an FGBMFI meeting where I was presented with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Now I was certainly ready for this having read many books on the subject (pre-Internet and satellite days) but when I went forward nothing appeared to happen.
About four hours later, I was sitting in my car waiting for someone outside of a shop, when I simply decided to speak in tongues! This moment which occurred in the mid 70s seems almost as real to me now as it was then as it left me with the knowledge that I was definitely born again and filled with the Spirit. I can recall my earlier time when I gave my heart to the Lord in the second back row of our church but when I began to speak in tongues this is when I knew that I knew!
Even so, I realised that I was born again 18 months earlier but having experienced the Spirit of God praying through me was an experience that I certainly could not forget. As far as that goes, I would like to see our Pentecostal churches stop counting alter-call attendees by number, but instead where we see salvations counted by those who speak in tongues.
But this does not mean that we can claim that tongues are the sole evidence of our salvation, merely that we have been taught correctly that we are to seek and allow the Spirit of God to speak to the Father through us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?