Hi crew...
Quick introduction - I've been around the pentecostal/apostolic online community for over a decade now (born and raised in the UPCI). I still attend a UPCI church, but have recently gotten to the point where I can barely stomach the culture any longer. I've been praying and researching to gain a better understanding of where I should go from here...and base my Christian walk on the Word and not a cultural interpretation. It's only a matter of time until I'm not longer attending a UPCI church any longer...my biggest issue, honestly, is the fact that I cannot in good conscience invite my friends and family to attend this church, because I feel the culture and traditions actually hinder one's ability to embrace a true relationship with God.
Now, I know I'm opening up a can of worms. First - I'm asking this "anonymously" because there are people who know my usual screen name in real life, and I'm not ready to "reveal" my intentions publicly. Second - I figured even though it's been discussed ad naseum on FCF, NCF, and now here, maybe my dilemma will allow some to approach their explanations from a different angle than they have in the past. At the very least, I know I'm going to get a diversity of opinion.
I'm really, really struggling with the question of "tongues" being "evidence" of receiving the Holy Spirit. Yes, I know that there's no doctrine in the scripture that addresses "evidence" per se. And the idea of emphasizing an outward sign in conjunction with salvation appears to be contradictory to the doctrine of salvation by "grace through faith." But, I assume we can all agree that the Scripture teaches that "without the Spirit of Christ, we are none of his."
While I disagree with an emphasis on trying to get people to "speak in tongues," as the Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is an inevitable gift that we will receive if we repent and are obedient in our belief by being baptized...I cannot ignore the fact that
Acts 8 - even though the words "speaking in tongues" are not even uttered in this passage - it makes is so very clear that there most certainly is a very visible, powerful outward demonstration that occurs when the "Holy Spirit falls." (Why else would Simon have been so amazed and wanted to buy it? If they "receive the spirit" simply at belief and/or baptism, why else did the Scripture say that they hadn't yet received it?)
Sigh.
Now...all those above questions are for you folks who are convinced there is no outward, immediate sign that accompanies belief when receiving the Holy Spirit.
For those of you who are 100% convinced tongues are that sign...Now I cannot get past
1 Corinthians 14. I know our UPCI "dogma" teaches us that this is somehow distinguishing "tongues and interpretation" as something separate from the tongues that are experienced when we first receive the Spirit...but I cannot see anywhere in the Scripture where it indicates that there are going to be "two types of tongues." And, in fact, Paul acknowledges
in this very passage that tongues are for personal edification, except in cases where interpretation is provided, which allows it to be a corporate edification. "A person who speaks in tongues is strengthened personally..."
For those of you who are convinced that tongues are the 'sign' of the Spirit...WITHOUT trying to claim there are "two types" of speaking in tongues (because the scripture just does not support that without taking a huge leap), how do you read
1 Corinthians 14? (Is it even possible to get you to divorce the whole distinction we've created between the "tongues" for personal edification and the "tongues" for tongues and interpretation?) And HOW do you explain Paul's statement, "I wish you could all speak in tongues"...making it at least seem like not every believe in this congregation "could" speak in tongues.
I hate seeing such a huge contradiction in the Scripture and being unable to reconcile it. I cannot, in good conscience, say that you just silently and without any public demonstration "receive the Spirit" when you believe in your heart...the entire book of Acts just seems to make it so very clear that SOMETHING very visible, very tangible seems to happen every time people receive the spirit. And one of the only passages that doesn't mention tongues seems to be the strongest to support this. On the other hand, I read 1 Corinthians and see that Paul's explanation of the role of tongues is extremely different than the UPC's cultural interpretation.
God bless you all, and looking forward to some good responses.
Hybrid Mode
