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?

[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.

[Nahum]

There are a lot of folks that believe that.

[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.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

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.

Who are the ACOP?

Digging4truth, my goal isn't to discuss whether there is or isn't an initial physical evidence. I'm just wondering if there is a significant portion of pentecostals who do not embrace the doctrine.

[crakjak]

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?

Is there any evidence that scripture places the same importance on "initial physical evidence" as do many Pentecostals? I have evidenced folks who spoke in tongues experience immediate and dramatic strength for a changed life.

I have evidenced the same drama in the lives of folks who "accepted" Jesus and immediately had startling strength for a changed life.

And have also observed both without any immediate change, at least observable.

So I really don't focus on "initial evidence", present the Word and let the Holy Spirit do what He does better than I could ever do, lead and guide into all truth. If they come to Jesus in faith they are in a great position.

An individual can be perfect at any stage in the process of moving into the "image of Jesus". You can yell at a plant, "Grow, you gotta GROW! But the plant will only grow as it is watered and nurtured and given lotsa time.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by samp

Who are the ACOP?

Digging4truth, my goal isn't to discuss whether there is or isn't an initial physical evidence. I'm just wondering if there is a significant portion of pentecostals who do not embrace the doctrine.

Apostolic Church of Pentecost, Small's group from Canada. TB is a member of this group. I do not think TB believes this however?

Is TB someone on this forum?

Does anyone know any other Pentecostals who do not embrace the doctrine of initial physical evidence?

[MrsMcD]

I was taught that you do not have the holy spirit unless you have spoken in tongues. Anybody else?