Initial evidence

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

We still have no direct evidence of speaking in tongues being the initial evidence. It may be helpful to wonder why prophesying is not considered the initial evidence. Prophesying certainly accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost in several instances in the New Testament.

What if they are both evidence? I think we have as much scriptural evidence for prophesying being a sign. And Joel said your sons and daughters will prophesy. He didn’t say they would speak in tongues.

I’m just trying to thoroughly vet the doctrine.

I think I'm missing something. You do not believe tongues is the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

I think I'm missing something. You do not believe tongues is the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

You are indeed missing something. I have never said that I don’t believe tongues is the initial evidence. I have said that we need to properly vet (or verify) the doctrine. Sort of like Paul commended the Bereans for doing.

I believe that we place far too much emphasis on speaking in tongues.

For instance, I was in a camp meeting after preaching, people were praying, possibly receiving the Holy Ghost, certainly speaking in tongues, and the evangelist called for attention. He instructed everyone to quit praying, be quiet, pay attention. And then at the count of three, everyone (thousands) in the congregation would begin speaking in tongues. (He did NOT say that they would receive the Holy Ghost.) This actually contradicts the teachings of Paul.

[Tithesmeister]

1Cor.14

[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Ponder the relevance of this scripture to the discussion.

[Tithesmeister]

Tongues were literally the third sign in the sequence of signs in the upper room. There was a sound from heaven. There were tongues like as of fire. They were filled with the Holy Ghost. Then they spoke in tongues.

Which is consistent with Joel’s prophecy. As one of several signs (which he didn’t explicitly prophesy of).

I’m glad to see that Amanah doesn’t equate speaking in tongues with being saved, because that would seem to be contrary to scripture. However, if speaking in tongues is the initial evidence, wouldn’t it be inconsistent to believe that speaking in tongues would NOT mean that you are saved?

[Amanah]

In Acts 2:4-12, the disciples speak in tongues, this speaking in tongues is a form of prophetic utterance.
The prophetic utterance in Joel 2:28-29 is connected to speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4-12 by Peter.
Peter's declaration "this is that" (Acts 2:16-21) explicitly connects the speaking in tongues to Joel's prophecy, indicating that the event is a fulfillment of the prophesied utterance.


Tongues provide evidence of receiving the Spirit
(Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, Acts 19:6).
They that are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God (Romans 8:14).
The Spirit is the earnest (down payment or guarantee) of your inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14, 2 Corinthians 5:5).
And, those who endure to the end are resurrected to eternal life (Matthew 24:13, Romans 8:13, Revelation 2:10).

Maybe you have to receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues to understand this.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In Acts 2:4-12, the disciples speak in tongues, this speaking in tongues is a form of prophetic utterance.
The prophetic utterance in Joel 2:28-29 is connected to speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4-12 by Peter.
Peter's declaration "this is that" (Acts 2:16-21) explicitly connects the speaking in tongues to Joel's prophecy, indicating that the event is a fulfillment of the prophesied utterance.

Tongues provide evidence of receiving the Spirit.
They that are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God.
The Spirit is the earnest of your inheritance, and, those who endure to the end are resurrected to eternal life.

I don’t think there is any dispute about the receiving of the Spirit and it being the earnest of our inheritance. Of course the same Spirit that rose Jesus from the dead will quicken our mortal bodies.

However, you seem to be equating speaking in tongues as being the same as having the Spirit. However you also claim that just because you have spoken in tongues does not mean you are saved. If it is evidence that you have received the Holy Ghost on one hand, but it is not evidence that you are saved on the other? This seems to me to be inconsistent doctrine.

[Amanah]

Maybe Don can join us on this thread for added insight.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Maybe Don can join us on this thread for added insight.

The more the merrier.

[Amanah]

Speaking in tongues is evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6), but it does not automatically guarantee salvation.

The Spirit's primary role is to transform us into Christ's image (2 Corinthians 3:18, Romans 8:29). If we speak in tongues but do not allow the Spirit to transform our lives, we may not be saved.

We must:
Bear fruit (Galatians 5:22-23)
Walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:25)
Live a life surrendered to God (Romans 12:1-2)

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Speaking in tongues is evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6), but it does not automatically guarantee salvation.

The Spirit's primary role is to transform us into Christ's image (2 Corinthians 3:18, Romans 8:29). If we speak in tongues but do not allow the Spirit to transform our lives, we may not be saved.

We must:
Bear fruit (Galatians 5:22-23)
Walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:25)
Live a life surrendered to God (Romans 12:1-2)

Do you believe a person who is filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues can go to hell ( if he dies in that condition)?