Initial evidence

[Amanah]

One of the CACI Elders wives liked the FB post and sent me this link in agreement.

https://alifeofholiness.wordpress.co...taqcd4wE7wHHbw

**

An excerpt from her book:

"There is a lot of confusion out there regarding speaking in other tongues. Some people believe tongues is necessary for salvation, some believe that tongues is a gift that only certain people receive, some believe that tongues is a prayer language, and some believe tongues is demonic.

The truth is, the infilling of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues is the evidence of that."

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

One of the CACI Elders wives liked the FB post and sent me this link in agreement.

https://alifeofholiness.wordpress.co...taqcd4wE7wHHbw

**

An excerpt from her book:

"There is a lot of confusion out there regarding speaking in other tongues. Some people believe tongues is necessary for salvation, some believe that tongues is a gift that only certain people receive, some believe that tongues is a prayer language, and some believe tongues is demonic.

The truth is, the infilling of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues is the evidence of that."

That's good news

[Tithesmeister]

We still have no direct evidence of speaking in tongues being the initial evidence. It may be helpful to wonder why prophesying is not considered the initial evidence. Prophesying certainly accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost in several instances in the New Testament.

What if they are both evidence? I think we have as much scriptural evidence for prophesying being a sign. And Joel said your sons and daughters will prophesy. He didn’t say they would speak in tongues.

I’m just trying to thoroughly vet the doctrine.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Pls seriously help me pray about this. I believe God can turn this around. I believe God can bring a revelation of truth, agree with me in Jesus name.

Praying in Jesus name

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

We still have no direct evidence of speaking in tongues being the initial evidence. It may be helpful to wonder why prophesying is not considered the initial evidence. Prophesying certainly accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost in several instances in the New Testament.

What if they are both evidence? I think we have as much scriptural evidence for prophesying being a sign. And Joel said your sons and daughters will prophesy. He didn’t say they would speak in tongues.

I’m just trying to thoroughly vet the doctrine.

TM, the narrative in the Bible is not a set of stories units, listing all details of all events happening in it so you can do criminal-style investigation, or worse, mathematical proofs. It is narrative, ancient theological narrative. If what you are looking for is a perfect uniform listing of evidences on every single story unit, you won't find it.

You need to see what Luke is trying to communicate to you, and what he references to when he skips details and instead just allude to something. Here is the hint: all conversions in Acts have an implicit reference to the experience in Acts 2. Chapter 1 and 2 of Acts is the foundation of the Biblical theology of the rest of the book, and you can understand that by study Acts as an ancient narrative of an author called Luke with his narrative style.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

TM, the narrative in the Bible is not a set of stories units, listing all details of all events happening in it so you can do criminal-style investigation, or worse, mathematical proofs. It is narrative, ancient theological narrative. If what you are looking for is a perfect uniform listing of evidences on every single story unit, you won't find it.

You need to see what Luke is trying to communicate to you, and what he references to when he skips details and instead just allude to something. Here is the hint: all conversions in Acts have an implicit reference to the experience in Acts 2. Chapter 1 and 2 of Acts is the foundation of the Biblical theology of the rest of the book, and you can understand that by study Acts as an ancient narrative of an author called Luke with his narrative style.

So. Give me stronger evidence that tongues is the initial evidence than the evidence for prophecy. I’m not saying tongues is not the initial evidence. What I am saying is that there is no evidence from scripture that tongues is THE initial evidence. And I’m not just talking about Acts. I’m talking about the entire Bible.

Here’s why. If it is so important that we each individually speak in tongues, why doesn’t the words of God say that explicitly?

Another thing: Does speaking in tongues mean you are saved?

[Amanah]

The fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in the context of Acts 2 is speaking in tongues as the manifestation of the Spirit's outpouring on the day of Pentecost. Regarding your question about salvation, speaking in tongues does not save you. However, in the context of Acts 2, those who received the Spirit and spoke in tongues were the disciples who had followed Jesus' command to wait for the Spirit's outpouring. And we know that the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, guaranteeing our resurrection to eternal life (Ephesians 1:13-14).

In response to your request for stronger evidence, I would point to the following:

Consistency: Speaking in tongues is consistently associated with receiving the Spirit in Acts (2:4, 10:46, 19:6).

Peter's statement: Peter explicitly links speaking in tongues to the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-21). And in Acts 11:15-17, where Gentiles received the Spirit and spoke in tongues, prompting Peter to recognize that God had accepted them

While the Bible may not explicitly state that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence, the cumulative evidence shows that it is the significant consistent manifestation of the Spirit's outpouring.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 in the context of Acts 2 is speaking in tongues as the manifestation of the Spirit's outpouring on the day of Pentecost. Regarding your question about salvation, speaking in tongues does not save you. However, in the context of Acts 2, those who received the Spirit and spoke in tongues were the disciples who had followed Jesus' command to wait for the Spirit's outpouring. And we know that the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, guaranteeing our resurrection to eternal life (Ephesians 1:13-14).

In response to your request for stronger evidence, I would point to the following:

Consistency: Speaking in tongues is consistently associated with receiving the Spirit in Acts (2:4, 10:46, 19:6).

Peter's statement: Peter explicitly links speaking in tongues to the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-21). And in Acts 11:15-17, where Gentiles received the Spirit and spoke in tongues, prompting Peter to recognize that God had accepted them

While the Bible may not explicitly state that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence, the cumulative evidence shows that it is the significant consistent manifestation of the Spirit's outpouring.

Pretty nice.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Yes, I'm not denying that. If someone hears our church speaking in tongues from distance, they just hear incomprehensible noise, however, we have heard testimonies of an Arabic unbeliever being in that many-speaking-in-tongues scenarios but much closer to the speakers, and understanding Sis Jennifer (to say a name) glorifying God in Arabic.

My point is that if the scenario on the Day of Pentecost was like a typical incident scenario where crowds slowly gathers, and curious Albert goes to the front to check it out, and hears sis Jennifer speaking in Arabic, and then Smith goes too and hears sis Sherri speaking in Chinese, and then they go back and comment about it, as other people do the same, you don't have to have a miracle on the listener. Just a typical dynamic can explain it.

If I stick to the actual grammar of Luke's record, I must conclude EACH visitor heard THE DISCIPLES (plural, THEM, not some, not one, but the whole group) speaking in that visitor's language. In order to conclude differently, I have to play loose with the text and discount the idea that the account is meant to be taken exactly as written.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

We still have no direct evidence of speaking in tongues being the initial evidence.

I think we do. I think I provided enough evidence to conclude tongues is the initial sign or effect that occurs when a person receives the Spirit. I think EVERY OTHER OPTION has either much less support, or none at all, besides what-ifsm.

The Bible is clear that when people receive the Holy Ghost, SOMETHING happens that is:

Observable to onlookers, regardless of the onlookers' opinions or beliefs;

Consistent across experiences to be reliable as an indicator;

And is only ever actually described as "speaking with other tongues", regardless of what other phenomena may or may not occur.