Tongues are a requirement

[JesusAddict333]

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.

 

[Luke735]

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 may, could I ask which gifts you are speaking of?

 

[seashale76]

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.

 

[JesusAddict333]

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.

 

[Luke735]

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.

The majority of the discussion thus far has been around the context of the verse of scripture you quote above.

Perhaps it would bode well for you to take a moment of pause...actually read a few of the posts above so that your posting may be both deberate and measured. i.e Pro 18:13 He who answers a matter before he hears the facts--it is folly and shame to him. AMPLIFIED VERSION

Luke 7:35

 

[JesusAddict333]

I've read the bible -- there is no convincing me that speaking in tongues must be had to have the Holy Spirit.

 

[Luke735]

I've read the bible -- there is no convincing me that speaking in tongues must be had to have the Holy Spirit.

So why do you continue to read the WORD of GOD out of context and therefore incorrectly...Is it not important enough to warrent some responsible attention to something as critical as context???

You do realise that the Bible is a Testament...As in a legal Will and Testament.

You would do well to consider the fine print in the contract and be careful who you are listening to.

On that note, here is another video for those who are interested

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHENBIfEj3k

 

[Biblicist]

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.

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 don’t 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:

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.”
​

...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.

Regards.

 

[Luke735]

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 don’t 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:

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.”
​

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.

Regards.

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

 

[Biblicist]

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

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.

How about you are able to supply me with some SCRIPTURAL REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT TONGUES ARE SUBSEQUENT TO SALVATION.

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.

 

[Luke735]

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.

BEFORE WE COMMENCE ON ANY LONG DRAWN OUT DEBATE ON THE MERRITS OF THE THREAD. I.E. "TONGUES ARE A REQUIREMENT"

I NOTICE THAT YOU ARE TENDING TOWARD A "THIS RESPECTED TEACHER SAID THIS AND THIS AUTHORISED ORGANISATION SAID THAT APPROACH"

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.

Speaking in Tongues Explained - YouTube


Alternatively you may like to check out my web page here (http://fullgospelfellowship.websyte.com.au/)
LUKE 7:35

 

[JesusAddict333]

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.

 

[Luke735]

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 is this for a start? Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

 

[Luke735]

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.

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.

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”.

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.

WHAT IS: “Burden of Proof?”
An evidentiary burden of proof or burden of leading evidence is: an obligation that shifts between parties over the course of the hearing or trial. A party may submit evidence that the court will consider prima facie proof of some state of affairs.
This creates an evidentiary burden upon the opposing party to present evidence to refute the presumption.

Why is this important?

Speaking in Tongues was first observed in 33AD on the Day of Pentecost.
The events, testimonies and eye witness accounts on that day, in Jerusalem; is all we have to establish on whom to place the “Burden of Proof” (as at 10am on the Day of Pentecost 33AD)

All subsequent testimonies and experiences are to be examined on the premise that when The FIRST members of the Church received the Holy Spirit, “they ALL spoke in tongues"
Evidence is gathered and measured against this "premise" as they were established by the eye witness accounts beginning on that first day and onward.

In layman’s terms: If anyone were asked at 12pm on that day "what happens when you receive the Holy Spirit?"
The answer is without question "you will speak in different languages"
WHEN; IF AT ALL DID THIS CHANGE? “That is the Key Question“

A GOOD STARTING POINT:
First of all let’s start our examination of scripture with the directive from Jesus to the Apostles to go to Jerusalem where they would be given the promised gift of the Holy Ghost. We will spend a little time looking at that directive and the concept of remission of sin before getting into the burden of proof. We will then proceed to examine Acts one and two. We will progress through the rest of the accounts of the Holy Spirit being poured out and see whether the doctrine of tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism is supported in scripture.

What you will see is that this was in fact the norm in the early church and over time the Church was infiltrated by wolves in sheep’s clothing with the express purpose of robbing people of a relationship with God and his son Jesus Christ.

REMISSION OF SINS:
Speaking of the remission of sin, we read in Hebrews:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (Note: The legalistic terms of reference)
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The Blood of Jesus is what gives us “remission” The question is this:
“Is it heresy to say that remission is contingent on more than just acknowledging that Jesus died for our sins”?

Let’s examine the evidence.

Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,
Important: Understanding can only come as a gift of God. You can’t learn your way to heaven.

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Note: Here Jesus was saying that “Remission of Sins” was to “Begin at Jerusalem” and this was to happen in the coming days. This is extremely important because many of these religious leaders point to any and every instance of someone receiving or being “filled with the Holy Ghost” whether Old or New Testament to substantiate their claim to disregard speaking in tongues as a legitimate evidence of salvation.

The TRUE GOSPEL is the gospel of Jesus Death, Burial and Resurrection in victory over death. Integral in the Gospel is the sanctifying Blood of Christ to purge the sinner of their sin so that they can stand before God pure and clean. The first instance of any man or woman being free from sin did not happen until the day of Pentecost. Jesus spoke of “Remission of Sins” several times but we did not receive “remission” until the confirmatory infilling of the Holy Ghost. That is why it is SO IMPORTANT.

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The fact that Jesus died and shed his blood so that we could be sanctified is accepted by all Christianity.
The fact that the New Covenant, agreement or testament was not ratified until the recipient of the grace of God received the Holy Ghost is not accepted.
We know from the Gospels that the Holy Spirit had not been given before Jesus had risen from the dead and had been glorified. This of course was the whole reason Jesus came. He was and is after all Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Anointer.
We also know that John the Baptist preached baptism for the “Remission of Sins” saying that they (the people) should believe on he who was coming, that is on the Jesus the Christ. Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he (Christ Jesus) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

The important word is “believe”. The question is; what is belief? Is it just acknowledging the existence of God, Is it verbalising belief in Christ? What does the Bible say? Lets see!


REMISSION OR PARDON FROM SIN
The term “Remission of sins appears 7 times in scripture. In these 7 references to remission of sins, the benefits of remission are contingent on Water, Blood or Spirit.

For example:
1) Water: Mar 1:4 “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”.

2) Blood: Mat 26:28 “this is my blood…Shed for many for the remission of sins”.

3) Spirit: Act 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The religious leaders of the world freely quote Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness; that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

They openly tell their parishioners that belief only, is sufficient to receive the salvation, ignoring the very next verse and the confirmatory 3 witnesses.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision, which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Why do churches ignore this? The things that happened to the household of Cornelius were identical to those things that occurred with the120 on the Day of Pentecost.

They had received the Holy Ghost as the Apostles had at the beginning.

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

Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

This story is my template or model of how to determine if and when those to whom I preach have received the Holy Spirit. If I simply said to people say a sinners prayer or verbalize your belief. I might just as well white out this portion of scripture.

We are called to give people “all the counsel of God”. Not just the parts that afford us the least resistance.

 

[Biblicist]

I NOTICE THAT YOU ARE TENDING TOWARD A "THIS RESPECTED TEACHER SAID THIS AND THIS AUTHORISED ORGANISATION SAID THAT APPROACH"

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.

When it comes to specific teachers, I certainly have the advantage in that I know how to resource the better material and when it comes to the likes of academics such as Carson, Dunn, Fee, Flower, Grudem, Hollenweger, Karkkainen, Macchia, Menzies, Strondstadt, Thiselton, Yong etc., this certainly enables me to gain a solid understanding of the current thought with regard to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Though I need to say that by quoting the above esteemed academics, this does not imply that I have a solid grasp of their views or even that their views are always necessarily correct; for me, this is definitely a work in progress. Undoubtedly when it comes to some of their theological positions there is a good chance that at times I will undoubtedly misunderstand what they are sometimes saying – when it comes to Macchia, I have to re-read his difficult arguments often repeatedly before I can grasp what he is saying.

But, as I am hoping to undertake a masters in this field sometime in the future, this means that their material is compulsory reading. When you compare their material to that of what is often popularly available on the internet for example, it’s like trying to decide between having a heart surgeon performing some life threatening surgery or choosing a first-aid attendant down at the local sports ground – I know which way I choose to go.

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.

So the speaker in the video isn’t merely “another opinion”!

At least when we obtain the opinion of the various Christian academics, they not only reflect the broad spectrum of diverse opinions across the Church but they also back up their opinions with the best research within the various theological persuasions, be this with the Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic languages, socio-rhetorical studies, Christian archaeology and with theology in general. At least when we deem them to be wrong on occasions, we are better able to understand their perspectives even when we consider them to be wrong – and at times than can be wrong with quite a flare.

When people do not connect with the material that has been produced by the better Christian scholars, this can all too easily leave them in the dark, often forcing them to rely on very dated theology and ideas that have often been discarded long ago. What is your opinion on the current developments within key sectors of the Pentecostal movement (particularly within the AOG) with regard to the BHS not being so much an issue with subsequence; this is a very important development right across the Pentecostal movement.

I did go to the video but after about 8 minutes I struggled to maintain interest as I could not see where you were going with your message and an hour is certainly a long time. If you can point to a few pertinent areas in your presentation (min:sec) then I would be more than happy to go back to the video.

As for the Australian Full Gospel Churches, it does ‘appear’ that the Full Gospel Churches of Australia might only be a single congregation/building? I did go to your website but I could not find any real material of substance as to your beliefs, other than with your statement of faith; as you have mentioned, your churches views are certainly in opposition to mainline Pentecostal thought and as the notion that tongues is necessary for salvation, this was simply laid to rest years ago and no-one really has any interest with this particular view any more – in fact, I’m surprised that you are actually promoting this very old and tired viewpoint.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, you would have undoubtedly faced the brunt of opinion by the Pentecostal congregations in your part of the world. I would have thought that you would have realised that your particular perspective with “one must speak in tongues to be saved”, that this will always keep you on the outer as the vast majority of Pentecostals will always see your perspective as being a heresy and thus your credibility within Pentecostal circles will suffer accordingly.

If you were to present the position that every believer should be seeking to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), then in my view, the unfortunate development where this important distinctive doctrine of the Pentecostal churches is seemingly waning, then this would in my view give your ministry credibility. Even though I agree with the classic-Pentecostal position that tongues is not a necessary evidence for salvation, I am still in the opinion that no Pentecostal congregation should ever allow any believer who does not speak in tongues to hold a substantial office. In my view, if someone claims to be a Pentecostal and does not speak in tongues, then they simply cannot be deemed to be Pentecostal.

So I certainly consider that tongues is an important aspect of the Christian walk and that every believer at the moment of salvation should be taught that they can avail themselves of the incredible Spirit-driven ability to pray in tongues and for that matter that they should be seeking to quickly prophesy.

 

[Biblicist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

This does not go to say that Paul or any other Biblical author believes that tongues is intrinsically associated with salvation. Even many classic-Pentecostal academics who believe that the BHS (along with the evidence of tongues) is subsequent to salvation, they will usually acknowledge that Paul does not make any such link between the reception of the Spirit and with tongues. They tend to rely on Lukes accounts particularly in Acts but this is merely a misreading of the text. Over more recent years, a trend has developed where some place Paul against Luke in that Luke in their view is definitely connecting tongues with salvation – but again, they are misreading Lukes historical record. As such we have a supposed "Lukan approach" and a seemingly apposing "Pauline approach" with regard to the connection of tongues to the BHS.

I have noted that most of your 'proof' texts are also taken from Lukes account in Acts.

For Paul, along with the Biblical record, there is definitely the expectation that believers should (and would) seek to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues), but neither Paul, nor or any other writer declares that only those who speak in tongues are born again. Again, this is the position of the AOG internationally.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Luke735]

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.

As such you will just have forgive the fact that I do not have the time to go through your posts point-by-point to rebut or agree where appropriate.

I instead am Urging all who look at this topic you have a long think about HOW THEY KNOW THEY IN FACT ARE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST WITHOUT ANY TANGABLE PROOF OTHER THAN....A FEELING.


REGARDING THE CONTINUAL REFERRING TO SCHOLARS FOR VALIDATION OF YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM:

I would like to draw your attention to Jonh chapter 7: When Jesus was discussing Spiritual things take a look at what occurred.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
THE SCHOLARS OF JESUS DAY HAD THE SAME PROBLEM THAT EXISTS TODAY:
Joh 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
Joh 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

NOTE HOW THEY HAD BASED THERE THEIR BELIEF ON A FALSE ASSUMPTION

Joh 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him.
Joh 7:44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
Joh 7:45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, WHY HAVE YE NOT BROUGHT HIM?
Joh 7:46 The officers answered, NEVER MAN SPAKE LIKE THIS MAN.
Joh 7:47 Then answered them the Pharisees, ARE YE ALSO DECEIVED?
Joh 7:48 HAVE ANY OF THE RULERS OR OF THE PHARISEES BELIEVED ON HIM?
Joh 7:49 BUT THIS PEOPLE WHO KNOWETH NOT THE LAW ARE CURSED.


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:

Joh 7:50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)
Joh 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
Joh 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
Joh 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.

God Bless
Luke 7:35

 

[Biblicist]

How do you know you are filled with the Holy Ghost

That’s 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 70’s 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.

 

[Biblicist]

THE SCHOLARS OF JESUS DAY HAD THE SAME PROBLEM THAT EXISTS TODAY:

I’m 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.

Don't forget, as you are placing yourself against Pentecostal scholarship, I could just as easily post a copious amount of verses which discuss the problem with those who see themselves as knowing more than anyone else - but of course, this would be rather silly of me and a rather cheap debating technique.

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:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Luke735]

That’s 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 70’s 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.

So prior to speaking in tongues how did you know you were filled with the Holy Ghost? .....(SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE PLEASE) If you have one!!!