Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by consapente89

It is the initial evidence. Not proof. All who receive the Holy Ghost WILL speak in tongues. However, I’ve heard enough devil possessed people speak in tongues to know that not all “tongues” come from the Holy Ghost.

So some people speak in tongues from God, and some speak in tongues from the devil... (I will concede this certainly may be the case)

I would just add that perhaps the majority of tongue speaking is neither.
Just watch the top 25 tongue speaking videos on You Tube. In my opinion, invoking God or the Devil gives too much credibility to many of those instances.

Additionally, there are many who will confess they have indeed SIT and felt it was them forming and speaking rather than God speaking through them.

So speaking in tongues may indeed be a sign, but it is subject to scrutiny and is to be judged by the hearers. It is, in fact, an unreliable measure of Holy Spirit infilling, and is not evidence that the speaker is being moved or influenced by God.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Is there any case where someone received and any other sign followed?

The vast majority of those recorded as being converted, there is no mention of tongues. Is a sign something we should look for?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

I am unsure, I am trying to get my answers from what I read in the Bible.

Do you believe tongues were present in Acts 8?

They may have been. It doesn’t say does it...

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

In your opinion any way....and I respect that.

It does however seem odd to me that a Paul would make a statement : “All do not speak in tongues”, at the risk of VERY POSSIBLY being misunderstood, when/if it was to be such an extreme thing as a heaven or hell issue of being born again.

(I realize this is not addressed to me...)

Good point. When Paul asked “Do all Speak with tongues” the Biblical inference is “No”. Yet the classical Pentecostal response is “Yes”.

Of course they would say “Yes” to the 1.0 Version (Evidence)
And “Yes” to the 2.0 Version (Speaking in tongues in prayer)
But “No” to the 3.0 Version (Gift of Tongues)

Yet Paul was not addressing only particular tongues, but the nature of tongues in general, and the perception that unbelievers may have if spoken in public assembly.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

So some people speak in tongues from God, and some speak in tongues from the devil... (I will concede this certainly may be the case)

I would just add that perhaps the majority of tongue speaking is neither.
Just watch the top 25 tongue speaking videos on You Tube. In my opinion, invoking God or the Devil gives too much credibility to many of those instances.

Additionally, there are many who will confess they have indeed SIT and felt it was them forming and speaking rather than God speaking through them.

So speaking in tongues may indeed be a sign, but it is subject to scrutiny and is to be judged by the hearers. It is, in fact, an unreliable measure of Holy Spirit infilling, and is not evidence that the speaker is being moved or influenced by God.

Flesh speaks gibberish and some call it tongues. I agree with everything in your post up until the last post. Tongues was evidence to the Apostles.

[Michael The Disciple]

1 Cor. 14:18-19

18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Why did Paul thank God he spoke in tongues more than they all? Was he walking in pride? Trying to put others down?

On the contrary it would seem he is trying to ENCOURAGE THEM to speak in tongues more than they were.

If he spoke in tongues more than they all and it was NOT IN THE CHURCH where was it?

Obviously in his private prayer time.

It seems either he was boasting or using himself as an example that the believer should take advantage of the benefit of praying in tongues. And if they all could NOT pray in tongues it would SEEM indeed he was boasting.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

The vast majority of those recorded as being converted, there is no mention of tongues. Is a sign something we should look for?

Also in the vast majority of the recorded conversions there is no mention of them receiving the Holy Spirit. Yet Paul said "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his".

But it just so happens in the cases where it DOES mention that they received the Holy Spirit every case but one specifically mentions that tongues followed.

In Acts 8 it is clear that the apostles could KNOW if someone who believed and even was baptized had received the Spirit. If it was automatic Phil would have known. To me this is critical evidence that there was expected a sign would be present.

[diakonos]

No one wants to address why there was a sign for the Apostles to see that others received the Holy Ghost?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Flesh speaks gibberish and some call it tongues. I agree with everything in your post up until the last post. Tongues was evidence to the Apostles.

Indeed for the Disciples, in two places it was a part of the accumulative evidence to onlookers that conversion had occurred and the Holy Spirit was now indwelling with these new people.

The acceptance of the gospel, confession, calling on the Lord Jesus, praising and magnifying God, prophesying, are also part of the accumulative “evidence” that true conversion has occurred and cannot be dismissed as insignificant or less miraculous than speaking in tongues. Sure these things can be “faked” just as tongues can also, though I would venture to say they are faked with no less ease or with more regularity than speaking in tongues.

IMO Tongues are very often something less than miraculous, even specific, easily replicated phrases and syllables becoming entirely learned behavior by individuals and entire church assemblies.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

So some people speak in tongues from God, and some speak in tongues from the devil... (I will concede this certainly may be the case)

I would just add that perhaps the majority of tongue speaking is neither.
Just watch the top 25 tongue speaking videos on You Tube. In my opinion, invoking God or the Devil gives too much credibility to many of those instances.

Additionally, there are many who will confess they have indeed SIT and felt it was them forming and speaking rather than God speaking through them.

So speaking in tongues may indeed be a sign, but it is subject to scrutiny and is to be judged by the hearers. It is, in fact, an unreliable measure of Holy Spirit infilling, and is not evidence that the speaker is being moved or influenced by God.

Do you believe the Bible in the context of your world view, or believe the Bible as it is written? i noticed you brought up Pentecostal Herald from 1945. Why would or should we care about some groups feelings on tongues? Are we Catholics and is that a decision from the Vatican? Or are we Chabadniks, and that is the thought of the Rebbe? Hoovie, you been posting since FCF? Right? Anyway, you know that not everyone who call themselves Pentecostals or Apostolics give a flying donut for whatever the "Merger Brethren" Harry Morse, or Azusa Street thought about Biblical Pentecostalism? Weren't you a Mennonite? Menno Simons, Conrad Grebel, and Huldrych Zwingli, do you accept everything they believe? Probably didn't even as a modern Mennonite. Yet, the same is true for all religions. All religions constantly reexamine, change. Some for the better, some for the worst, and some cease to exist.
Yet, the Bible isn't like trying to decipher linear A. It is pretty easy to understand, once you take it out of the hands of people pleasers, glad handing politicians, and ecclesiastical business men. The Spirit goes where it needs to as it decides, and you hear its voice in everyone who is born of that Spirit. Easy, stuff, a loose translation, but it still stays true to the original.
Uncle Thibodaux, and Cousin Bitty Joe didn't speak in tongues? They were sweeter than Old Meemaw's ice tea, the one that the spoon stood straight up in? Uncle and Cousin prayed, fasted, shed tears in the altar, snot bubbles in the prayer room, but didn't speak in tongues. We don't have to build a theology based on what never happened to loved ones. We don't have to wrest the scripture in an effort to get people in places they will never end up.

We just need to accept what Jesus said, and what Paul taught, and Paul spoke in tongues all the time. Anyway, Pentecostal organizations change with the culture around them. So, why should anyone care what they agree upon or disagree on?