Initial evidence

[Amanah]

If you heard a teaching that any of the following could be evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost, what would you think, how would you respond

Speaking in Tongues

1. Acts 2:4 - And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
2. Acts 10:44-47 - While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word... For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
3. Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Prophecy

1. Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Spiritual Gifts

1. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 - But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal... For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

So, for example, if God used someone to perform a notable miracle, but they had never spoken in tongues.

Jesse White Teaching that any of the nine spiritual gifts are evidence of infilling of the Holy Ghost:

**

https://youtu.be/9gvxwNppxgg?si=foKIQCcDQFpREAQe

**

[Amanah]

Elder Esaias:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Acts 19 they spoke with tongues, so it can't be used to say tongues is not the initial evidence.

Acts 10 they spoke in tongues and magnified God. Seems essentially the same thing in Acts 19, as their Spirit inspired praising of God could certainly be called prophesying.

1 Corinthian 12-14 is in the context of people who already have the Spirit and are being used in different ways in the meeting. Paul isn't talking about initial evidence here.

So what is left? It is true God can even make a donkey prophesy in a human language, but I cannot but see the normative rule is tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, just going by what Scripture says.

Joel said people would do various things as a result of the Spirit being poured out, but one thing he said they ALL would do is "prophesy", which according to Peter meant speaking with other tongues. So I have to stick with that.

[Amanah]

Bro TM

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Sister Amanah,

I think this is an excellent subject to study and possibly debate. I sometimes wonder if this doctrine has been properly vetted. Regardless of whether you believe the initial evidence doctrine to be true or not, it is helpful to vet the doctrine from a scriptural standpoint.

I think it is commonly accepted that tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost (at least in oneness Pentecostal churches). However I can’t think of any scripture that says directly that it actually IS the initial evidence. There is anecdotal evidence, or perhaps even empirical evidence.

In my opinion, to properly vet the doctrine, we should provide direct, literal, scriptural evidence that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

If that is not possible, (I don’t believe it is) we should systematically move on to other evidence that is not as direct. The absence of literal evidence doesn’t prove that the doctrine would be false, in my opinion, it would be the strongest evidence, but possibly not the ONLY evidence.

So to get started. Can anyone quote scripture that directly and literally says that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro TM

Okay. It appears that you have given the subject its own thread.

It is my opinion, regardless of whether or not the initial evidence doctrine is true, that there is far too much emphasis put on speaking in tongues in the modern Pentecostal church. I think it would be beneficial to thresh out the truth from scripture. Paul did quite a bit of teaching on the subject of tongues. I think a lot of that teaching is ignored.

For instance, I was in a camp meeting service where a preacher asked all that were praying (in a post preaching/altar call type of scenario) to quit praying and then he would count to three 1-2-3 at which point everyone in the congregation would speak in tongues. Notice that I did not say receive the Holy Ghost. Is that scriptural? Is it contrary to scripture? Where does this land as a doctrine in the grand scheme of things?

Is speaking in tongues the same as receiving the Holy Ghost?

[Amanah]

Here is an argument against "speaking in tongues" being the sole evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost: (devils advocate)

Diversity of spiritual gifts: 1 Corinthians 12-14 emphasizes the variety of spiritual gifts, including tongues, prophecy, healing, and more. Paul notes that not all believers possess the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:29-30), implying that tongues may not be the sole or primary evidence of Spirit reception.

Fruits of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23 highlights the fruits of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, and self-control, as evidence of the Spirit's presence. This suggests that character transformation and moral growth may be more significant indicators of Spirit baptism than speaking in tongues.

Tongues as a secondary gift: 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 portrays tongues as a secondary gift, subordinate to prophecy and intelligible communication. This suggests that tongues may not be the primary or initial evidence of Spirit reception.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Here is an argument against "speaking in tongues" being the sole evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost: (devils advocate)

Diversity of spiritual gifts: 1 Corinthians 12-14 emphasizes the variety of spiritual gifts, including tongues, prophecy, healing, and more. Paul notes that not all believers possess the same gifts (1 Corinthians 12:29-30), implying that tongues may not be the sole or primary evidence of Spirit reception.

"Faith" is also included, so by this argumentation not every believer has faith. Ergo, the argument is refuted.

Fruits of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23 highlights the fruits of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, and self-control, as evidence of the Spirit's presence. This suggests that character transformation and moral growth may be more significant indicators of Spirit baptism than speaking in tongues.

Having more significant indicators of Spirit baptism later on in one's Christian life has nothing to do with an "initial evidence". It should be noted that "evidence" is not "certain and undeniable and absolute proof". It should also be noted that Calvinism and TULIP are not Biblical and not apostolic, so a person may very well receive the Spirit and then later on fall off the wagon. So the "fruit of the Spirit" argument doesn't affect initial evidence one way or the other.

Tongues as a secondary gift: 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 portrays tongues as a secondary gift, subordinate to prophecy and intelligible communication. This suggests that tongues may not be the primary or initial evidence of Spirit reception.

The fact that something is "secondary" or "subordinate" to something else does not indicate anything about whether it comes first or is normative. For example, the rank of private is secondary and subordinate to the rank of sergeant, but nobody that I know of ever became a sergeant without first being a private.

In fact, just being an inductee is certainly subordinate to being a "marine" (inductees are not considered marines until AFTER they have completed boot camp), yet every marine begins as an inductee, and without being inducted you aren't and never will be a marine.

[Tithesmeister]

I had this debate with my (biological) sister. She is life long UPCI. Of course she believes the initial evidence doctrine.

Many times I’ve heard it said that “we receive the Holy Ghost just like they did on the day of Pentecost. So I asked her . . .

Do we have the “cloven tongues like as of fire”?

Do we hear a “sound from heaven”? Or are we making the sound ourselves?

Are we prophesying to others in a language that they understand? (I also acknowledge that the miracle is understood to be one of “hearing in our own language” by some.)

So maybe it’s a little different? Than it was in Acts 2?

[Amanah]

I've been upset ever since I saw the YouTube video I linked in the initial post. That video was written and produced by CACI leadership.

I just now messaged my Elder (Pastor) who is formerly UPCI to ask him about it, and he replied that he would have to study it out and get back with me.

When I was new to Pentecost in an independent Apostolic Church, we had many people receive the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues, it was common.

Truth be told, it's becoming rarer to see this now. People generally receive the Holy Ghost at conferences now.

The UPCI Church I left to join CACI is stagnant, vs. my current church which is full of young families and growing.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I've been upset ever since I saw the YouTube video I linked in the initial post. That video was written and produced by CACI leadership.

I just now messaged my Elder (Pastor) who is formerly UPCI to ask him about it, and he replied that he would have to study it out and get back with me.

I can understand your disappointment. Wouldn’t you think that on such a fundamental doctrine, they would study it out BEFORE they taught it? Otherwise I need to watch the video. I thought it was unavailable.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I can understand your disappointment. Wouldn’t you think that on such a fundamental doctrine, they would study it out BEFORE they taught it? Otherwise I need to watch the video. I thought it was unavailable.

Leadership taught it, my Pastor never has.
I only heard it for the first time recently.

I found the video. I think he took it offline to edit it, then put it back up.

https://youtu.be/9gvxwNppxgg?si=w5uS2sr5Rbkno6nC