The Initial Physical Evidence

Are there any Pentecostals who do not believe that speaking in tongues is the inititial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

[Digging4Truth]

I do believe that the word bears out that tongues is often a physical evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

If you don't mind me asking.

Do you feel that the word demonstrates that tongues is absolutely the physical evidence required to be seen before it is known that one has received the Holy Ghost?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I do believe that the word bears out that tongues is often a physical evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.If you don't mind me asking.

Do you feel that the word demonstrates that tongues is absolutely the physical evidence required to be seen before it is known that one has received the Holy Ghost?

This is how I see it - which would mean the Holy Ghost can dwell in you before you speak in tongues. Tongues is just the evidence.

[Joelel]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

This is how I see it - which would mean the Holy Ghost can dwell in you before you speak in tongues. Tongues is just the evidence.

Where does the bible say it's the evidence ?

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I do believe that the word bears out that tongues is often a physical evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

If you don't mind me asking.

Do you feel that the word demonstrates that tongues is absolutely the physical evidence required to be seen before it is known that one has received the Holy Ghost?

Tongues as "the initial physical evidence" is nothing more than an assumption being made based mainly on the event in Acts 2. It is not an actual doctrine in scripture. While I do believe that tongues are the initial evidence, it is nothing more than an assumption, i.e. that just because this appears to have been what happened in Acts 2 that this is to be considered the norm. THERE IS NO PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS TONGUES IS THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Chan

Tongues as "the initial physical evidence" is nothing more than an assumption being made based mainly on the event in Acts 2. It is not an actual doctrine in scripture. While I do believe that tongues are the initial evidence, it is nothing more than an assumption, i.e. that just because this appears to have been what happened in Acts 2 that this is to be considered the norm. THERE IS NO PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS TONGUES IS THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

This is exactly the way I feel.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Chan

Tongues as "the initial physical evidence" is nothing more than an assumption being made based mainly on the event in Acts 2. It is not an actual doctrine in scripture. While I do believe that tongues are the initial evidence, it is nothing more than an assumption, i.e. that just because this appears to have been what happened in Acts 2 that this is to be considered the norm. THERE IS NO PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS TONGUES IS THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.

At some point I really hope I learn how to interact with the line of thought that says "No where in the bible does it say [insert any exact set of words strung together]".

We must engage the Spirit to lead us and guide us in the scriptures, otherwise we will be ever studying and never coming into any knowledge of truth.

Many parse the scriptures to wrestle with whether you must be Born Again, then among those, wrestling may involve whether being born again involves a birth of water and a birth of spirit, then among those who believe in a birth of spirit, we will wrestle with whether tongues are an initial physical evidence of this new birth.

Apparently the bible ALONE can be a "party zone" for the wisdom of men and their philosophies to have endless rhetoric. Apparently, the answer involves something more than JUST the SCRIPTURES.

I am hopeful that most of us will come to appreciate the "two key" system God has provided; they that will serve me MUST serve me in Spirit AND in Truth.

Originally Posted by tbpew

At some point I really hope I learn how to interact with the line of thought that says "No where in the bible does it say [insert any exact set of words strung together]".

We must engage the Spirit to lead us and guide us in the scriptures, otherwise we will be ever studying and never coming into any knowledge of truth.

Many parse the scriptures to wrestle with whether you must be Born Again, then among those, wrestling may involve whether being born again involves a birth of water and a birth of spirit, then among those who believe in a birth of spirit, we will wrestle with whether tongues are an initial physical evidence of this new birth.

Apparently the bible ALONE can be a "party zone" for the wisdom of men and their philosophies to have endless rhetoric. Apparently, the answer involves something more than JUST the SCRIPTURES.

I am hopeful that most of us will come to appreciate the "two key" system God has provided; they that will serve me MUST serve me in Spirit AND in Truth.

We must always be careful about our claim that the Bible says this or that - and I don't mean necessarily a particular combination of words. The fact of the matter is that tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism is an assumption that people are making - an interpretation of scripture. There's nothing wrong with that but we really do need to be clear that what we're saying is really our interpretation of scripture and not the scripture itself. As for this so-called "two key" system, what are you talking about? Where does the Bible say God has provided a "two key" system? Your statement is an example of what I'm talking about. You said God provided a "two key" system yet there is nothing in the Bible that indicates He did any such thing. You must admit that your notion of a "two key" system is really nothing more than your interpretation if scripture.

You said, "We must engage the Spirit to lead us and guide us in the scriptures, otherwise we will be ever studying and never coming into any knowledge of truth." This is apparently a sarcastic barb posted in your objection to my statement "Tongues as "the initial physical evidence" is nothing more than an assumption being made based mainly on the event in Acts 2. It is not an actual doctrine in scripture. While I do believe that tongues are the initial evidence, it is nothing more than an assumption, i.e. that just because this appears to have been what happened in Acts 2 that this is to be considered the norm. THERE IS NO PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS TONGUES IS THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST."

Yes, one role of the Spirit is to lead us into all truth. That does not, however, give us the right to claim that the Bible says something it does not say. We might feel a particular interpretation of scripture is what the Spirit is showing us but we must admit that it is still nothing more than an interpretation of scripture. To elevate our interpretations to the level of scripture, as you appear to be suggesting, is essentially the Roman Catholic heresy of elevating Church tradition to (or above) the level of scripture.

I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between scripture and a mere interpretation of scripture.

[tbpew]

Chan,
my reply was completely established in years of listening to countless students of the word either use microscopic greek text and tenses OR folks who say, "show me where the bible says".

The two key system (that you assume I invented from interpretation) was based on the witness I included with the statement; they that worship me (I used the word "serve") must worship me in Spirit and Truth.

That, Chan, using my vast skills of interpretation, is TWO things.

The Spirit leading and guiding us in all truth is TWO things at work TOGETHER--TRUTH and SPIRIT.

The letter really does kill, but is the letter BAD? of course not.

That was my point. Thank you for being sorry about my condition involving interpretation.

I have NOT found any way to read words without interpreting their message to me, the reader. Once interpretation is needed, I need to seek the second key (the Spirit) to lead me.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by samp

Are there any Pentecostals who do not believe that speaking in tongues is the inititial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

I do not think the ACOP believes in the initial evidence?????????? The Bethel folks from Evansville started teaching this in the early 50's it led them away from the Pentecostal movement.