Tongues and Biblical Truth

[TheLayman]

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":

No one will go to heaven if they are not baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost with tongues.

So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

John 3:8, and Mark 16:17

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

John 3:8, and Mark 16:17

Thanks E.B. So, can I gather first that I am understanding the Oneness position? I will examine these passages. Would you care to elaborate on them at all with my question in mind? (If not, that's fine).

Anyone else?

Thanks,
TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

I need to add one question to this as I forgot there are different opinions on this. How do you define "tongues" as used in the Bible, and how did you come by this definition (and why is it "Biblical")?

Thanks

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

Please understand that there are differing schools of thought on this issue within Oneness ranks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Layman what is your religious position on tongues. I personally don’t care about a Oneness, Baptist, Trinitarian position. Because in every denomination or religious movement there are varying views. Even in the religious movement you are currently in there are those who disagree on different doctrines. So, please explain what is going on in the BIBLE when tongues are brought up. Also please explain why you are bringing these subjects out of the debate section?

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Please understand that there are differing schools of thought on this issue within Oneness ranks.

Really...that is learning something new, I had no idea that was the case. I thought in the AOG say 40 years ago (I'm a little longer in the tooth than you are) that there position was what I thought the Oneness position was which is a person most have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues if that person is saved. Now, I think I know since that time that there are some who hold that position and some who do not...or maybe there official position has changed or maybe I had that wrong to begin with.

That said I thought (apparently mistakenly) that all Oneness held that a person must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the Billy Graham thread when tongues where mentioned that's what I thought was being discussed! So please make sure I'm understanding you...are you saying that not all Oneness believe that you must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues...or did you mean something else? If I am understanding you...boy howdy...that is absolutely something I did not know and never heard.

TheLayman

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Really...that is learning something new, I had no idea that was the case. I thought in the AOG say 40 years ago (I'm a little longer in the tooth than you are) that there position was what I thought the Oneness position was which is a person most have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues if that person is saved. Now, I think I know since that time that there are some who hold that position and some who do not...or maybe there official position has changed or maybe I had that wrong to begin with.

That said I thought (apparently mistakenly) that all Oneness held that a person must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the Billy Graham thread when tongues where mentioned that's what I thought was being discussed! So please make sure I'm understanding you...are you saying that not all Oneness believe that you must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues...or did you mean something else? If I am understanding you...boy howdy...that is absolutely something I did not know and never heard.

TheLayman

The Pentecostal movement has always been divided on the question of whether the baptism with the Spirit (initially evidenced by speaking in tongues) is "essential for salvation". This division was in place before the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913 which is when most (trinitarian) historians date the advent of "Oneness Pentecostalism".

When the UPC was formed from a merger of several Oneness Pentecostal denominations, that division still existed. Thus, there have been two streams within the UPC and its offshoots: those who believe the Pentecostal baptism is essential, and those who believe it is merely preferable. Among trinitarian Pentecostals, the latter group has been the majority, whereas among Oneness Pentecostals the former group has generally been the majority.

Here on AFF the two views are usually referred to as the PAJC view and the PCI view, respectively (named after Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, and Pentecostal Church Incorporated, the two main groups who merged to form the UPC). Unfortunately, even those shorthand designations are misnomers, because both denominations (PAJC and PCI) had members in both theological camps.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Really...that is learning something new, I had no idea that was the case. I thought in the AOG say 40 years ago (I'm a little longer in the tooth than you are) that there position was what I thought the Oneness position was which is a person most have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues if that person is saved.

This is very odd. So, you are playing the giant, and we are the insects under your magnifying glass? Please forgive me in advance, but who cares about AoG, or Oneness movements? Even in your own religion of Threesism there are varying views and opinions of soteriology, and theology. The Bible states that a believer will speak with καινός γλώσσαις. But, please, explain what the verse means to you and your religion?

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Now, I think I know since that time that there are some who hold that position and some who do not...or maybe there official position has changed or maybe I had that wrong to begin with.

Interesting, we are the bugs scurrying around your feet. Or maybe the monkey dancing as you clap and spin the handle on your winding organ.
For us to both learn, you need to teach us, and therefore we can come out of the caves with trembling uplifted palms so you can feed us. So, please explain the two verses I originally posted to you. Spoon feed us.

Originally Posted by TheLayman

That said I thought (apparently mistakenly) that all Oneness held that a person must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the Billy Graham thread when tongues where mentioned that's what I thought was being discussed! So please make sure I'm understanding you...are you saying that not all Oneness believe that you must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues...or did you mean something else? If I am understanding you...boy howdy...that is absolutely something I did not know and never heard.

TheLayman

Oh, I'm sorry, please forgive me. It was I who posted that it was the initial evidence. Because that what the Bible says. Not some religion, not some organization, and not some council filled with religious statist dupes.

When you posted the thread you were addressing my words.

But yet, please spoon feed that all may learn.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

The book of Acts contains the majority of the proof texts, texts from the gospels about the baptism of the Spirit/comforter, a then a few other places in the epistles.

This forum abounds in discussions on this subject. It would be easy to search. The best discussions would be when this forum was at it height and there were many from both camps who were well versed on this subject. That would be when the forum started in 2007 til about ~2010 (maybe a little later)

The DA's office in the Debate section would also be a good place to start. Daniel Alicea caused a ruckus with many of the conservatives. He used many names: DAII, SDG, for starters. I think at one time he was confined to the DA's office.