Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

What took place at Pentecost reminds me of the dedication of the temple. Unique signs that were not duplicated later.

Not sure why.

Twas the dedication of the new temple
1 Cor. 3:16

[Bro Flame]

Tongues being the evidence of Spirit baptism is fundamental to our faith. It's something we've always seemed to stand by, even if other things brought disagreements to the table.

However, when thinking of it, the trend of wanting to questions the validity of tongues as the initial outward sign isn't all that shocking. I'm sure many people would never have thought that standards, convictions, and prohibitions against television, theaters, women wearing pants, cutting their hair, and wearing jewelry, man having facial hair, etc., would never happen, either.

But it has. And those trends are only worsening.

Something on the inside changes before it ever reflects on the outer. Once the outward is relaxed in reflection to the inward, other doctrinal views will always weaken. I've seen it happen.

This is no different.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

BIG difference between the two.

If tongues are just one of the signs, and not THE (initial) sign that always accompanies Spirit infilling, then the doctrine of “tongues as THE evidence” is false, is error.

It seems to me this is the line drawn in the sand regarding tongues- A sign or THE sign.


Without question in the book of Acts, tongues are atleast A sign, but are they ALWAYS THE sign, THE “proof”, THE evidence one is being Spirit filled?

I always marvel at why this is so hard to understand. Church (ekklēsia - a calling out) is established and we can’t understand it.

Act 2:33....Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I always marvel at why this is so hard to understand. Church (ekklēsia - a calling out) is established and we can’t understand it.

Act 2:33....Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

This makes a good point.

What did they hear?

Cretes and Arabians, do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

They heard God magnified in their own native language. This is why Charles Parham believed in verifying the language being spoken so that they could be sent to the corresponding country to become a missionary there. For example, they spoke Chinese they would be sent to China.

What did they see?

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Cloven tongues like as of fire.

Both of these being seen and heard are a little different than what typically occurs as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost today.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This makes a good point.

What did they hear?

Cretes and Arabians, do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

They heard God magnified in their own native language. This is why Charles Parham believed in verifying the language being spoken so that they could be sent to the corresponding country to become a missionary there. For example, they spoke Chinese they would be sent to China.

What did they see?

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Cloven tongues like as of fire.

Both of these being seen and heard are a little different than what typically occurs as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost today.

Please explain why that is, and what it means for us today.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Found it brother, in the Azusa Papers by Seymour:

Thanks for posting this. I had never heard of this. The incident of this occurring that I referred to was one in a biography of Benjamin Urshan (if I recall correctly). It recounts the occasion when Andrew Urshan returned to Persia after receiving the Holy Ghost (and speaking in tongues) in the USA. He was in hot water with his (Presbyterian) family in Persia. It was scandalous, it was heresy, and needless to say, Brother Urshan had some ‘splainin’ to do.

He opened the meeting by reading some scripture and singing some hymns. Then . . .

The Holy Ghost fell.

The family spoke in tongues and . . .


Cloven tongues of fire appeared on them.

This is from memory. The book was a loaner. I may not have it absolutely correct. But I highly recommend the book. It is extremely interesting and relevant to the climate today as far as Christian/Muslim relationships are concerned.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Please explain why that is, and what it means for us today.

I’d love to Esaias. Unfortunately I don’t know the answer. It is only an observation.

Does it seem to be accurate?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This makes a good point.

What did they hear?

Cretes and Arabians, do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

They heard God magnified in their own native language. This is why Charles Parham believed in verifying the language being spoken so that they could be sent to the corresponding country to become a missionary there. For example, they spoke Chinese they would be sent to China.

What did they see?

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Cloven tongues like as of fire.

Both of these being seen and heard are a little different than what typically occurs as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost today.

They probably saw them speaking in tongues because they asked about it. Hearing and seeing, just like we do today.

Because 2 Chronicles is such a strong parallel, they probably heard them saying the same thing as in 5:13 - “and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever:”

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

They probably saw them speaking in tongues because they asked about it. Hearing and seeing, just like we do today.

Because 2 Chronicles is such a strong parallel, they probably heard them saying the same thing as in 5:13 - “and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever:”

I dunno. In my world you hear speech and you see what appears. I think they probably did likewise.

Just my opinion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I dunno. In my world you hear speech and you see what appears. I think they probably did likewise.

Just my opinion.

They asked how they heard every man in their own tongue - hear.

They asked why the people were acting drunk - see.

They didn’t ask about fire.