Initial evidence

[Esaias]

Now, in the new testament a distinction is made between prophesying and speaking with tongues, where also speaking with tongues joined with interpretation of tongues equals prophesying. Which shows us that both are ecstatic utterances by the Spirit, prophesying being an ecstatic utterance in a language the speaker and the hearers understand, and tongues being an ecstatic utterance where the speaker and the hearers do not understand (thus requiring the interpretative gift).

However, 'prophesy' in the old testament appears to be somewhat broader in meaning. 1 Chronicles 25:1 indicates prophesying can be equivalent to 'making music in praise of God on instruments'. Jeremiah 14:14 indicates that prophesying can take the form of vision and 'divination' (casting a lot). The important thing to note is that Joel said all those who received the promised outpouring of the Spirit would prophesy. And, the interpretative problem you mention is created by the apostle Peter himself: under divine inspiration he identified the speaking in tongues that was occurring as the thing that Joel had said would occur. Or in other words, the apostle himself understood 'they shall prophesy' as being fulfilled by 'and they all began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

The old testament indicates there was to be a universally occurring, immediate effect of receiving the Spirit: 'they shall prophesy'. When this came to pass, the recipients 'spake with other tongues'. And furthermore, Peter said 'this is that': 'they began to speak with other tongues' is 'they shall prophesy' as meant by Joel.

We all agree that 'the new testament interprets and explains the old testament'. In this case, in regard to receiving the promised outpouring of the Spirit, the new testament interprets 'shall prophesy' as 'speak with other tongues'. And therefore the conclusion is established: the old testament teaches a universal initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, it identifies this evidence as 'they shall prophesy', and the new testament explains this as being fulfilled by speaking in other tongues when a person receives the Spirit.

Every time receiving the Spirit is mentioned, with one exception, we see the recipients speaking in tongues. There is a reason for that from a theological pov (Luke's intention in recording these events). And in the one exception (Paul's) it likewise doesn't actually say he DID receive the Spirit (though we assume he did and for good reasons) and furthermore we know he spoke in tongues a lot according to his own admissions found elsewhere. So then, the fact the book of Acts does not mention tongues in some particular instances cannot be taken to mean that tongues did not occur, unless we are going to be consistent and say receiving the Spirit did not occur, either.

*The 3000 were among those who heard the disciples speaking in tongues, and who were wondering what was going on. And the apostle identified for them the fact that what was going on (all these people speaking in tongues) was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy regarding the outpouring of the Spirit. He then proclaimed the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Christ, and they asked what they should do about that. They were told to repent and be baptised in the name of this resurrected and exalted Jesus Christ, and were told if they did that they too, would receive of the poured-out Spirit. They had already been told that the exalted Jesus 'hath poured out this which you both see and hear'. The fact they accepted the apostle's message and were baptised indicates they were anticipating and expecting to experience the same thing they had seen and heard happening with the disciples in the upper room. Why? Because they saw and heard them all speaking with tongues, were told this is the promised Spirit outpouring, that Jesus was causing it to happen, and they too could have this if they would repent and be baptised in the name of this same Jesus.

Now, where else in all of modern Christendom will you find anything even remotely similar to that?

[Esaias]

And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
(Numbers 11:24-29 KJV)

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
(1 Samuel 10:5-6 KJV)

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?
(1 Samuel 10:10-11 KJV)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Regarding the subject at hand, we are really adding to the Bible to assume that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Especially when we believe that the evidence of tongues is not evidence of salvation.

Strawman alert... strawman alert... strawman alert...

Nobody in this thread claimed that. The subject under discussion is "initial evidence", not "only evidence".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Rom.8

[11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

I think that God doesn’t condemn they who are filled with His Spirit.

1 Samuel 16:14 states that the Holy Ghost departed from off of Saul, and then God sent him an evil spirit. Too many scriptures allow for an individual to depart from God. While the Spirit of Truth will guide you into all Truth. A spirit of error will also complete its process. I don't mean to say that you can have it on one day and then loose it the next day. There are plenty of people who do a yabba dabba do and I love you. Clearly not the Holy Ghost utterance. The Spirit breathes wherever it wants. You hear its voice, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. I believe this is Jesus stating to a Judean leader that everyone who is born from the breath of the Holy Ghost will make the sound which the Holy Ghost produces, prophetically, scripturally, and yes, speaking in tongues. I see Jesus move in the lives of people with the Holy Ghost, and these people make some stupid moves, and some beautiful recoveries. I watched people with the Holy Ghost be led into false doctrines. Yet, through dedication to the Holy Ghost inside them, get back on the path.

Yet, I have witnessed full blown reprobates who were once filled with the power of God, to reject what they once had. Now, my experiences will never supersede the Word of God. Book, chapter and verse is paramount. Yet, I do believe that we have a basis for the teaching that a saint has free will. Which can guide them either through their own Garden of Gethsemane, and come out the victor. Or lose out to their own human will. We are filled with the Holy Ghost and Jesus is a Gentlemen. He will never through His Spirit force us to do what we obviously don't want to do.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, I’m not sure what you believe I believe about salvation. My understanding of salvation is pretty simplistic. If we repent, and are baptized, we shall be saved. I base this on Acts 2. It seems to me that many Apostolic Pentecostals don’t believe this. So allow me to explain.

In 2:38 if you have repented and been baptized, it says and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Many people view this as a commandment. I don’t think of it as a commandment. I think of it as a promise from God. Because of verse 29.

[39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


We have a promise.
Who made that promise?
And do we believe that promise?

I believe salvation is that simple. I do believe we can lose salvation. I believe Hebrews 6 makes that clear.

Regarding the subject at hand, we are really adding to the Bible to assume that speaking in tongues is THE ONLY evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Especially when we believe that the evidence of tongues is not evidence of salvation.

Ok, then we are pretty much on the same page. Yet, as Esaias pointed out no one ever said "only" evidence. Our argument is for an initial evidence being speaking in tongues.

[Tithesmeister]

It appears that Esaias equates speaking in tongues with prophesying. It seems to me that the speakers were prophesying by speaking in tongues (to the three thousand). But in this verse it seems that they were speaking in tongues and prophesying separately.

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.

This seems to be prophesying in addition to speaking in tongues. In other words a separate enunciation.

If the speaking in tongues that was given to the three thousand was prophecy, it would fulfill the prophecy of Joel. If the speaking in tongues was not understood by the hearers (in cases where there was no interpretation) it seems it would not qualify for prophecy (in the sense that it would be speaking for God). Because if God has a message for us it should be either in a language that we understand, or it should be interpreted into a language that we understand.

While I have heard of that being the case with speaking in tongues as we understand initial evidence, I have never understood the language and it is not interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation. Therefore it is not prophecy as far as I’m concerned.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I have a dear sister who believes the UPCI doctrine to a fault. I’m not condemning her for it. I used to be the same way. But if the Bible says the sky is blue, and the UPCI manual says it’s green? The sky is green.

So I asked her if a Methodist spoke in tongues, did they receive the Holy Ghost?
She answered yes. So I asked if they were saved. She said no.

She really believes they received the Holy Ghost. But still they are not saved. Interesting.

This seems to be the case with oneness Pentecostals who claim Azusa Street as their beginnings. It took me years to discover that the church at Azusa Street were trinitarian. But it seems that we believe they were saved. It seems highly inconsistent to me. Kind of like believing speaking in tongues is the initial evidence but only that you received the Holy Ghost. Not that you’re saved.

Now may be a good time for me to say that I do believe that we are to judge many things. I’m not a believer that we should not be able to judge matters. I do however believe that it is not my place to judge salvation.

Yet, your dear sister is adhering to the logical outcome. The Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II taught that if you were not Roman Catholic you were lost. Same with Eastern Orthodoxy. Why do they have these views of anyone who is not on their team will split hell wide? Blame it on their Lord and King. Jesus explicitly stated that the road leading to eternal life is strait. Which means hard to navigate. The entry way, is even worse, it is a pretty small opening. Then we get hit with "few will be even able to find it!" Come on! But, it is what it is. Therefore if you have two witnesses, both supposedly having the truth. One has to be right, but both can't be right. Judaism and Christianity can't both be right. Islam and Christianity, both can't be right. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both cannot be right. Our job is clear, to sweep around our own front porch and make real sure we get into the little small opening. But we still have to find it first. I believe your sister might be closer to that opening then most of us. I would like to believe with all my heart I'm looking and entering in at the tight entrance. But if my Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Jewish family members start talking like they're chipmunks? I pray to Jesus that they will allow themselves to be led all the way to Jesus name Holy Ghost power. That they would find the Apostolic Truth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It appears that Esaias equates speaking in tongues with prophesying. It seems to me that the speakers were prophesying by speaking in tongues (to the three thousand). But in this verse it seems that they were speaking in tongues and prophesying separately.

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.

This seems to be prophesying in addition to speaking in tongues. In other words a separate enunciation.

In Greek it's actually saying that they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Meaning the tongues was the vehicle and prophesying was the outcome.

That's just one way to interpret it. Don't anyone shoot me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It appears that Esaias equates speaking in tongues with prophesying.

It appears that Tithesmeister isn't reading all the posts. Because I am not "equating speaking in tongues with prophesying", period, full stop. Please re-read what was actually posted. I showed the following:

1. The Old Testament identifies "prophesying" as the universal experience of those who would receive the outpouring of the Spirit.

2. The book of Acts identifies "speaking with other tongues" as the fulfillment or actualizing of #1.

3. Therefore, "speaking with other tongues" is the universal experience of those who receive the outpouring of the Spirit.

4. NT distinctions between "prophesying" and "speaking with tongues" do not impair #1-#3 above, precisely because the OT does not have the category of "speaking with other tongues" as a discussion point, everything is subsumed under the OT category "to prophesy".

5. In Acts 19, they spake with tongues and prophesied. In Acts 10 they spake with tongues and magnified God. In Acts 2 they spake with tongues. People understood them to be magnifying God ("declaring the wonderful works of God"). It has been MY personal experience that everyone I have ever known who receives the Holy Ghost speaks with tongues, AND MAGNIFIES GOD/PRAISES GOD under the influences of the Spirit. Which means they are literally "speaking with tongues and prophesying", since prophesying is by definition "speaking by the impulse of the Spirit".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

If the speaking in tongues that was given to the three thousand was prophecy, it would fulfill the prophecy of Joel.

The bible doesn't say anything about the 3000 speaking with tongues, prophesying, or even whether or not any of them received the spirit at all. So suppositions about "if the 3000 did this, then X, but if that, then Y" are kind of pointless, aren't they? What we do know is they received the preached word and were baptised and became members of the community of the apostles.