Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Votive Soul, Pressing On and Good Samaritan,

The key word is precedent. If you look at the first two syllables, they give a strong hint as to the definition. I’ll post a definition from Miriam Webster.

precedent adjective
pre·​ce·​dent | \ pri-ˈsē-dᵊnt , ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 1 of 2)
: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
precedent noun
prec·​e·​dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind
a verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

Notice that the FIRST definition has to do with prior in time. Hence my remark that “other tongues” were preceded by “cloven tongues”. So just on the strength of being a precedent we could not truthfully say that one was greater than the other, at least not according to the literal definition of the word.

It could be debated that the wind blowing where it listeth is prophetic concerning the “sound from heaven”.

We have mentioned a couple of instances of tongues of fire being reported in the last century or so. In this case the tongues of fire would be a precedent in all definitions of the word.

The OP asked was tongues “a sign” or “the sign”. I believe the honest answer is that tongues were a sign. Votive Soul listed other signs. If there are other signs it would necessarily mean that tongues are a sign. They are without a doubt the most common sign. They may be the only sign that ALWAYS accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost but I don’t think it is accurate to say they are the ONLY sign.

It would perhaps be helpful to post a scripture that says that “without speaking in tongues we cannot be saved”, kind of like the one that says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His.

We say that we should seek after the Holy Ghost, and we should , but we often, if the truth be told, seek after the sign of the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues).

According to Peter in Acts 2, if we repent and are baptized in Jesus name, we are promised the “gift” of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I wonder if we should just trust God to fulfill His promise instead of trying to take our “gift” that he has promised.

Here's the thing:

1.) The rushing mighty wind and the cloven tongues like of fire were not the results of someone receiving the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they do not set precedent for what happens afterward someone receives the Holy Spirit today.

2.) The rushing mighty wind and cloven tongues of fire were unique one time events because this was the first time the Holy Spirit was poured out. It was an inaugural event, which need never be replicated, as these two events had prophetic meaning and fulfillment of OT typology. So, again, no need to point to these things as precedents.

3.) Anything happening one time and one time only, is not sufficient to establish precedent in any legal sense, which is what we are trying to do (that is, establish the Scriptural rule that regulates what happens when someone receives the Holy Spirit), especially when a better, more consistent precedent that has occurred more than one time, is already present. like speaking with other tongues.

So, just grabbing any definition of the word precedent from a dictionary is insufficient. We need to use the correct definition of the word, and the correct definition of precedent in this instance is that which establishes precedent in a legal sense.

Therefore:

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.[1] The use of precedent provides predictability, stability, fairness, and efficiency in the law.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

You see that a principle or rule is established that then influences future decisions in a way that provides predictable, stable fair, and efficient understanding of what happens when someone receives the Holy Spirit.

4.) Lastly, none of us knows anyone, including ourselves, who received the Holy Spirit, any other way than by speaking with other tongues.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I wonder what would happen if we quit "explaining" the Holy Ghost baptism "with tongues"? Did the early church prep people with an explanation of what to expect?

Now that’s an interesting concept. After all I don’t remember the apostles telling converts to “loose that tongue” and similar coaching. Sometimes I wonder just who is giving the “utterance”.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

God ACCEPTS EVERY ONE that fears him and does what’s right-Acts 10.

With that said, Why is there so many modern day Corneliuses, that fear our Saviour and do what’s right(many no doubt moreso that many Pentecostals), and yet they haven not spoken with tongues....
Has God not accepted them, just as He did Cornelius?

Will he NEVER accept them?





The Spirit fell on Cornelius(without his crew SEEKING the Holyghost or seeking an outward sign/evidence of tongues) because God accepted him, according to Peter.
This was even BEFORE baptism.
Peter never told Cornelius to repent(probly because he didn’t have anything to repent from) and be Jesus name baptized for the remission of his sins, before the Holyghost FELL on him. God simply accepted him, Peter let him know he was accepted to come through the door, Jesus, and then bam the Spirit fell on him. No seeking.

James, you are misunderstanding what Simon meant when he said God accepts everyone from any nation who fears Him and works righteousness.

This acceptance was not in regards to declaring someone saved as a recipient of eternal life. The acceptance was in regards to Simon's vision in which Simon refused at first to believe that Gentiles could be saved.

So, the acceptance is that all humans the world over, who fear God and have a heart toward Him, in whatever nation, like Cornelius, who was a GOD-FEARER, an official category of believer, as much a Jew, Zealot, Pagan, Hellenist, Sicari, and etc., are candidates for salvation and eternal life if they will but receive the Gospel Simon Peter preached.

If they do not receive that Gospel, it's because they don't fear God or care about righteousness.

So, Cornelius wasn't saved just because He feared God or worked righteousness, any more than any other person today or from any other prior era, because we know that fearing God and doing works of righteousness do not garner salvation. They do however cause the Spirit to draw near and lead someone to Jesus. But if Cornelius had rejected Simon's words, he would have never received the Holy Spirit and would have been an eternal goner.

http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bi...he-god-fearers

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Here's the thing:

1.) The rushing mighty wind and the cloven tongues like of fire were not the results of someone receiving the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they do not set precedent for what happens afterward someone receives the Holy Spirit today.

2.) The rushing mighty wind and cloven tongues of fire were unique one time events because this was the first time the Holy Spirit was poured out. It was an inaugural event, which need never be replicated, as these two events had prophetic meaning and fulfillment of OT typology. So, again, no need to point to these things as precedents.

3.) Anything happening one time and one time only, is not sufficient to establish precedent in any legal sense, which is what we are trying to do (that is, establish the Scriptural rule that regulates what happens when someone receives the Holy Spirit), especially when a better, more consistent precedent that has occurred more than one time, is already present. like speaking with other tongues.

So, just grabbing any definition of the word precedent from a dictionary is insufficient. We need to use the correct definition of the word, and the correct definition of precedent in this instance is that which establishes precedent in a legal sense.

Therefore:



https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

You see that a principle or rule is established that then influences future decisions in a way that provides predictable, stable fair, and efficient understanding of what happens when someone receives the Holy Spirit.

4.) Lastly, none of us knows anyone, including ourselves, who received the Holy Spirit, any other way than by speaking with other tongues.

Brother, there are several inconsistencies in your post. Take your time editing it before I respond.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I wonder what would happen if we quit "explaining" the Holy Ghost baptism "with tongues"? Did the early church prep people with an explanation of what to expect?

Although, I don't think it necessary to explain tongues in order for someone to recieve the Holy Ghost, I do find it hard not to mention without omitting scripture. I do think that some people make others feel like tongues is their membership card into the church, rather than pointing people to being followers of Jesus. We should be teaching that the Holy Ghost is a promise to be expected.

Could it be that we lack a Peter and John annointing to deliver instead of making people feel like they have not arrived yet. It was not until Peter and John laid hands on some that they were filled. I know genunine people today that seek God in the alter, but it seems like they hit a wall before they pray through. I want to be a Christian who delivers.

[good samaritan]

I want to have a deliverence ministry. The apostles prayed for people and chains of sin and sickness just fell off. Today some people get coached into saying a few uncomprehendable words and they are told they got it. After they leave they go back to their sins and live their lives void of the power of God. I know this may not always be the case, but I don't ever want to see people decieved. I want to see revival like never before. Where people come in off the streets and they are filled with the power of God. Where drug addicts are rehabilitated instantaneusly by the renewing of the Spirit. etc... Oh how sweet it is to think about.

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can’t speak to that as I wasn’t personally there to witness any of it. It hasn’t been the case in my 30+ years in Pentecost.



I would think that after the events taking place (with Jesus promising the Holy Ghost; 120 waiting in the upper room for it, ALL receiving the Spirit speaking in tongues; Paul meets John’s disciples and after instruction, they receive the Spirit speaking in tongues and immediately begin to be used in the gifts by prophesying) that it would be apparent what it was all about.

If people don’t personally grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, how does that negate truth?



Again, how does the failure of people in your eyes negate the truth of the Gospel? When did we think it was the proper thing to do to compare an individual life against truth?

2Ti 2:12-13 “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”

Is this scripture true or not?

The beauty of His love is the understanding the we can continue walking and praising Him after we have personally seen Him work in our own lives and have seen the things He has forgiven us of.

We have all made mistakes, some worse than others. They are all the same to God. None of these things negate the truth of the Gospel.

To you and JAY - Ok, I will agree that not EVERY sermon has been about speaking in tongues, however my point was that I was taught, as apparently most of us were, that the silence of the rest of the New Testament is because everyone already had it, but how many times have we been reminded of that experience? How many time have you personally spoke of it, why would the writers admonish for example the Galatians and never speak of speaking in tongues as the sign of new birth?. What I see is the writer admonishing the churches in their faith in Christ. I did a quick search and could not locate the scripture that says Tongues is “the evidence” of receiving the Holy Ghost. (If I missed it, let me know where)

I submit that tongues is A sign (see I Cor 14:22)

Jesus said “These signs shall follow them that believe...” the list includes speaking with new tongues and the handling of snakes. Not to offend anyone, but to point out that an elder in a church I attended stated that just because Jesus said we could didn’t mean we HAVE to handle snakes. That was one of the first times in my life that I questioned whether or not tongues was required.

What, I guess bothers me and I believe was expressed very well by GOOD SAMARITAN is that we seems to be focused on the the gift of the Holy Ghost and almost a hype focus on getting someone to speak in tongues, rather than the Giver of the Holy Ghost, and the fruit of the Spirit.

Too many times I have heard sermons about the HG rather than Jesus. If you read the sermons that lead to the out pouring, you will find that they were telling people about Jesus.

And I understand that my experiences are not everyone’s experiences, but the point of other people failing negating the truth wasn’t why I came to question things, it was MY failures. The fact that I have the HG and yet didn’t have the Love that Paul refers to in I Cor 13... what I discovered in me was that while I have the HG, I still struggle with hate, strife, etc. I found that Gods Love wasn’t pouring out of me...

So, I’ll ask the question does speaking in tongues always PROVE you have the Holy Ghost? Did we become as the Pharisees “always looking for a sign”. (Improper use of the scripture I know, because Jesus was on another subject), but are we trying to find a sign and calling it THE sign and the only way into the church “club” is you have to come in with tongues?

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Although, I don't think it necessary to explain tongues in order for someone to recieve the Holy Ghost, I do find it hard not to mention without omitting scripture. I do think that some people make others feel like tongues is their membership card into the church, rather than pointing people to being followers of Jesus. We should be teaching that the Holy Ghost is a promise to be expected.

Could it be that we lack a Peter and John annointing to deliver instead of making people feel like they have not arrived yet. It was not until Peter and John laid hands on some that they were filled. I know genunine people today that seek God in the alter, but it seems like they hit a wall before they pray through. I want to be a Christian who delivers.

Well said!

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I want to have a deliverence ministry. The apostles prayed for people and chains of sin and sickness just fell off. Today some people get coached into saying a few uncomprehendable words and they are told they got it. After they leave they go back to their sins and live their lives void of the power of God. I know this may not always be the case, but I don't ever want to see people decieved. I want to see revival like never before. Where people come in off the streets and they are filled with the power of God. Where drug addicts are rehabilitated instantaneusly by the renewing of the Spirit. etc... Oh how sweet it is to think about.

I have personally witnessed the same - focused on tongues as the Holy Ghost and not a repentant heart. I witnessed a person being “prayed through” and it wasn’t working. I mentioned to a friend near me watching the attempted break through - that the person hadn’t repented. The other workers after a while gave up and just walked away. I walked up and the person who was still in a prayerful spirit and I paused him and asked if he had repented of his sins and was ready to turn from sin. The answer was “No” and with that they walked away. So they were seeking the power without the repentant heart towards GOD.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

To you and JAY - Ok, I will agree that not EVERY sermon has been about speaking in tongues, however my point was that I was taught, as apparently most of us were, that the silence of the rest of the New Testament is because everyone already had it, but how many times have we been reminded of that experience? How many time have you personally spoke of it, why would the writers admonish for example the Galatians and never speak of speaking in tongues as the sign of new birth?. What I see is the writer admonishing the churches in their faith in Christ. I did a quick search and could not locate the scripture that says Tongues is “the evidence” of receiving the Holy Ghost. (If I missed it, let me know where)

I submit that tongues is A sign (see I Cor 14:22)

Jesus said “These signs shall follow them that believe...” the list includes speaking with new tongues and the handling of snakes. Not to offend anyone, but to point out that an elder in a church I attended stated that just because Jesus said we could didn’t mean we HAVE to handle snakes. That was one of the first times in my life that I questioned whether or not tongues was required.

What, I guess bothers me and I believe was expressed very well by GOOD SAMARITAN is that we seems to be focused on the the gift of the Holy Ghost and almost a hype focus on getting someone to speak in tongues, rather than the Giver of the Holy Ghost, and the fruit of the Spirit.

Too many times I have heard sermons about the HG rather than Jesus. If you read the sermons that lead to the out pouring, you will find that they were telling people about Jesus.

And I understand that my experiences are not everyone’s experiences, but the point of other people failing negating the truth wasn’t why I came to question things, it was MY failures. The fact that I have the HG and yet didn’t have the Love that Paul refers to in I Cor 13... what I discovered in me was that while I have the HG, I still struggle with hate, strife, etc. I found that Gods Love wasn’t pouring out of me...

So, I’ll ask the question does speaking in tongues always PROVE you have the Holy Ghost? Did we become as the Pharisees “always looking for a sign”. (Improper use of the scripture I know, because Jesus was on another subject), but are we trying to find a sign and calling it THE sign and the only way into the church “club” is you have to come in with tongues?

I don’t believe that there is anyone, including myself, who doesn’t know what struggle and failure feels and looks like.

But, if we want to be honest about it, we spend far more time doing other things than spending time with God - alone. Think of the journey we can take actually dedicating one hour of our time to Him each day.

Consider Psalm 71:3 “Be thou my strong habitation, whereunto I may continually resort: thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress.”

The operative word is “continually”. It is not possible to continue to struggle when you have “continually” on your side.

And, again, there is no circumstance, person, or situation that has the right to negate or cloud the truth of the Gospel or any scripture in the Word of God. We really have no excuses.