As for the initial evidence of tongues, I have never tried to over emphasize this. I teach people faith, repentance, and Jesus name baptism. Act 2:38 says "ye shall" receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I don't think those in the upper room had any idea how the Holy Ghost was going to appear to them, but they only had faith that it was. I urge people to seek God and have faith to receive the Holy Ghost. It is not tongues we seek, but it is the Spirit of God. The tongues will confirm it when it happens. Tongues can become the objective rather than the byproduct.
I have wondered though if someone came in and repented of their sins and was baptized in Jesus name, if they began to supernaturally prophecy could that be evidence. I have never seen this happen, but it would make me wonder if it did. If the prophesying seemed authentic. I will not tell someone they do not have the Holy Ghost. If they profess having the Holy Ghost I will not argue, but I certainly couldn't approve or affirm it to them. IMO I believe the main purpose for tongues is affirmation.
I think you may have missed this Jason. Isnt this huge? IN THE BIBLE in the New Testament there are zero snapshots of anyone who received the Holy Ghost and then did something first besides speaking in tongues.
If there were do you think there would be such a thing as the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Of course not it would easily be refuted!
So we can go to the historical narrative in Acts and make a very strong case for our doctrine while all of Christendom cannot present such a case that shows someone was filled with the Spirit......and something ELSE occured.
Also, what was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? It was the same as his Gospel account - to set forth those things certainly believed by the apostolic church. Therefore his accounts are not merely accounts what happened, but selective accounts chosen to identify and illustrate key concepts, authenticating the apostolic ministry and message. It is the ONLY RECORD of post resurrection conversions. It MUST be considered normative for conversion, otherwise there is no way to objectively identify what "getting saved" looks like.
The other epistles, written exclusively to converted persons, are obviously meant to expand on, not refute or contradict, the record in Acts. Then, as now, the problems of false conversions and backsliding and deception were real. Then, as now, people could APPEAR to be converted who may not have been, and people could be led astray away from continuing in grace and falling into works or other heretical doctrines, while thinking they were genuine saints. Thus the epistles provide corrective teachings.
For example, John's epistles teach that anyone who thinks they are converted needs to verify their status with God, because people practicing sin HAVE NOT BEEN CONVERTED, regardless of what external "evidences" may have attended their so-called conversion (tongues, baptism, prayers, professions of faith, etc).
But that does NOT do away with those external, initial evidences of conversion.
Everyone agrees a confession of Jesus is part of conversion. But a confession of Jesus with no change in lifestyle means the person is unconverted
YET THIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ROLE OF CONFESSION IN CONVERSION. One cannot say "since many make a profession of Christ with no real repentance and faith, therefore a profession of faith is unnecessary to conversion."
Also, what was Luke's purpose in writing Acts? It was the same as his Gospel account - to set forth those things certainly believed by the apostolic church. Therefore his accounts are not merely accounts what happened, but selective accounts chosen to identify and illustrate key concepts, authenticating the apostolic ministry and message. It is the ONLY RECORD of post resurrection conversions. It MUST be considered normative for conversion, otherwise there is no way to objectively identify what "getting saved" looks like.
The other epistles, written exclusively to converted persons, are obviously meant to expand on, not refute or contradict, the record in Acts. Then, as now, the problems of false conversions and backsliding and deception were real. Then, as now, people could APPEAR to be converted who may not have been, and people could be led astray away from continuing in grace and falling into works or other heretical doctrines, while thinking they were genuine saints. Thus the epistles provide corrective teachings.
For example, John's epistles teach that anyone who thinks they are converted needs to verify their status with God, because people practicing sin HAVE NOT BEEN CONVERTED, regardless of what external "evidences" may have attended their so-called conversion (tongues, baptism, prayers, professions of faith, etc).
But that does NOT do away with those external, initial evidences of conversion.
Everyone agrees a confession of Jesus is part of conversion. But a confession of Jesus with no change in lifestyle means the person is unconverted
YET THIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ROLE OF CONFESSION IN CONVERSION. One cannot say "since many make a profession of Christ with no real repentance and faith, therefore a profession of faith is unnecessary to conversion."
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
And? Beyond what I wrote above Parham doesn't exactly have credibility, and the first girl who spoke in tongues later denied the authenticity of her experience.
No evidence that she did? But what IF she did? Everyday people fall away from Christ and renounce it denying anything about it being real. Does that mean Christ is not real?
No evidence that she did? But what IF she did? Everyday people fall away from Christ and renounce it denying anything about it being real. Does that mean Christ is not real?
No, but it is better if people make their cases off true information.
Agnes Ozman did not deny the authenticity of her experience, as far as I know. Instead, she joined the AoG and denied that tongues is always the evidence of receiving the Spirit.
It is my understanding she was a member of the AG when she died?
It is my understanding she was a member of the AG when she died?
I believe you are correct. She apparently came to believe that the Pentecostal baptism might not always produce speaking in tongues. I guess she should have joined the Christian and Missionary Alliance instead?
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
