Allow me to Think Abstractly for a Moment

[helen_febus]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I don't think tongues is the HG....it is evidence of the HG...The HG is Christ in us....

Amen

[helen_febus]

Originally Posted by jagwinn

I was blessed this past week by attending the National Deaf Evangelism Conference in Indianapolis!

To hear Deaf saints speaking in tongues, speaking a language they did not know, was awesome.
92 Deaf were there, 6 Deaf preachers and 205 people with a burden for Deaf ministry. God is real, God is good!

On an aside, when I pray or praise the LORD, tongues comes upon me when words fail to express my heart. The Holy Ghost praying in groanings and tears that which He, knowing the heart, knows of what I should pray.

Tongues to me is awesome, and if you agree or disagree makes no difference to my testimony.

.

Great testimony, praise God

[helen_febus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The thing that was asserted was that Peter knew that Cornelius and friends had received the gift of the Holy Ghost BECAUSE they spoke with other tongues. It implies that the baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by speaking with other tongues. It is the visible sign of being filled by an invisible God. Added to Acts 2 and Acts 8 and Acts 19, it is added weight to the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues. It leaves no doubt in the mind of the believer because they know they have received the promise of the Father when they spoke with tongues the first time as they prayed.

Amen

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Hebrews 11
By Faith We Understand
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We're all very familiar with this scripture.

So, with that said, why do we feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

I've read this post a dozen times, and, no matter how abstractly I consider it, I can't, for the life of me, understand how the author can make the leap from Hebrews 1:1 to questioning whether or not there is an initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

The whole context of Hebrews 1:1, as Rev DWW has already pointed out, is that true faith is evidenced by action: Abel built an altar; Enoch had a testimony; Noah built an ark; Abraham became a pilgrim; Moses forsook Egypt; etc...

The only reason to feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is the Scripture's testimony on the topic. Pentecostals have concluded that "other tongues" are the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; most Baptists disagree with that conclusion.

Are there really Pentecostals who believe that receiving the Holy Ghost is such a non-event that there is no initial evidence of the event?

Salvation is by faith, and every aspect of the faith that brings salvation is accompanied by both initial and ongoing evidence of that faith. You believe in your heart and you confess with your mouth...

It's a bizarre world when Pentecostals create "abstract" arguments against speaking with other tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I've read this post a dozen times, and, no matter how abstractly I consider it, I can't, for the life of me, understand how the author can make the leap from Hebrews 1:1 to questioning whether or not there is an initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

The whole context of Hebrews 1:1, as Rev DWW has already pointed out, is that true faith is evidenced by action: Abel built an altar; Enoch had a testimony; Noah built an ark; Abraham became a pilgrim; Moses forsook Egypt; etc...

The only reason to feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is the Scripture's testimony on the topic. Pentecostals have concluded that "other tongues" are the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; most Baptists disagree with that conclusion.

Are there really Pentecostals who believe that receiving the Holy Ghost is such a non-event that there is no initial evidence of the event?

Salvation is by faith, and every aspect of the faith that brings salvation is accompanied by both initial and ongoing evidence of that faith. You believe in your heart and you confess with your mouth...

It's a bizarre world when Pentecostals create "abstract" arguments against speaking with other tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

It is bizarre, Maple Leaf. And so, so sad. I would imagine Jesus is sad too, when people insist on 'leaving Him in the grave'. And I believe that's what they do, when they don't want to follow through on what Peter told them they MUST do....

[rgcraig]

don't think tongues is the HG....it is evidence of the HG...The HG is Christ in us....

This is exactly how I believe. I think many of you are taking this the wrong way.

What I'm asking is do you not feel that the Holy Ghost comes into your life/heart when you ask forgiveness of your sins and are baptized? When you speak in tongues IS the evidence that He abides within you.

I cannot read into any of that scripture that I'm not saved until I speak in tongues.

I'm instructed to REPENT and be BAPTIZED in Jesus' name. Then, I'm promised that I shall RECEIVE the Holy Ghost. When I repented and was baptized in Jesus' name you cannot tell me that HIS spirit didn't dwell in me.

The scripture says that if I do those two things, then I WILL receive the Holy Ghost. PERIOD. When I speak in tongues, it then is a witness and evidence that the Holy Ghost lives in me.

I cannot wrap my mind around a God that would send me to hell after I repented and was baptized in Jesus' name, but hadn't publically spoken in tongues yet.

The true faith is evidenced by action, the action is repenting and being baptized, then the gift is received. If I repent and have been baptized in Jesus' name, am I not one of His?

The only reason to feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is the Scripture's testimony on the topic. Pentecostals have concluded that "other tongues" are the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; most Baptists disagree with that conclusion.

We are also concluding that after we have followed Paul's instructions of repenting and being baptized, that if the gift that was promised to us is not received by speaking in tongues, we are still lost.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Phil Stearns

I believe that tongues are the initial evidence that one has received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Do you?

NO!


If your logic leads you to believe that unless believers in the Gospel of Christ speak in tongues they're going to hell, then I am not in agreement with you at all.

No way!

Nada!

Not here!

I WILL NOT ADD TO THE BIBLE!

[Nperscomp]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

This is exactly how I believe. I think many of you are taking this the wrong way.

What I'm asking is do you not feel that the Holy Ghost comes into your life/heart when you ask forgiveness of your sins and are baptized? When you speak in tongues IS the evidence that He abides within you.

I cannot read into any of that scripture that I'm not saved until I speak in tongues.

I'm instructed to REPENT and be BAPTIZED in Jesus' name. Then, I'm promised that I shall RECEIVE the Holy Ghost. When I repented and was baptized in Jesus' name you cannot tell me that HIS spirit didn't dwell in me.

The scripture says that if I do those two things, then I WILL receive the Holy Ghost. PERIOD. When I speak in tongues, it then is a witness and evidence that the Holy Ghost lives in me.

I cannot wrap my mind around a God that would send me to hell after I repented and was baptized in Jesus' name, but hadn't publically spoken in tongues yet.

The true faith is evidenced by action, the action is repenting and being baptized, then the gift is received. If I repent and have been baptized in Jesus' name, am I not one of His?

We are also concluding that after we have followed Paul's instructions of repenting and being baptized, that if the gift that was promised to us is not received by speaking in tongues, we are still lost.

AWESOME POINT

For His yolk is easy, right?

The Bible states that, like someone stated earlier, tongues is a sign for the unbelievers, not the believers (1 Corinth 14:22). So, the way we feel the need to hear someone speak in tongues as proof to ourselves they have the holy spirit, is not biblical.

Tongues is definitely evidence, no argument about that! However, remember Paul's instructions to the church, (1 Corinthians 14:27-28) "No more than two or three should speak in an unknown language. They must speak one at a time, and someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. But if no one is present who can interpret, they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately."

[whoami]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I cannot wrap my mind around a God that would send me to hell after I repented and was baptized in Jesus' name, but hadn't publically spoken in tongues yet.

I don't understand this either.

[Bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I've read this post a dozen times, and, no matter how abstractly I consider it, I can't, for the life of me, understand how the author can make the leap from Hebrews 1:1 to questioning whether or not there is an initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

The whole context of Hebrews 1:1, as Rev DWW has already pointed out, is that true faith is evidenced by action: Abel built an altar; Enoch had a testimony; Noah built an ark; Abraham became a pilgrim; Moses forsook Egypt; etc...

The only reason to feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is the Scripture's testimony on the topic. Pentecostals have concluded that "other tongues" are the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; most Baptists disagree with that conclusion.

Are there really Pentecostals who believe that receiving the Holy Ghost is such a non-event that there is no initial evidence of the event?

Salvation is by faith, and every aspect of the faith that brings salvation is accompanied by both initial and ongoing evidence of that faith. You believe in your heart and you confess with your mouth...

It's a bizarre world when Pentecostals create "abstract" arguments against speaking with other tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Great post! Ditto and bravo!!