Saved at faith or initial evidence?

[houston]

Some people's beliefs I find to be disturbing. I would like to discuss one of them today.

Some here believe that a person is saved at the point of faith. They ALSO believe in initial evidence doctrine. SHALABOSHA!

How do you reconcile the two? If a person is saved at faith- THAT is when they received the Holy Spirit, for there is no salvation without the Holy Spirit. I've seen a few posts where someone has stated that a person is saved at faith but they'd encourage them to receive the Spirit. That's a contradiction (in my simple mind).

[obriencp]

uh-oh... here we go again

I, through my studies, have been able to separate glossolalia (tongues) from being born of the spirit although I was raised to believe the initial evidence doctrine (you're not saved/filled with the Holy Ghost unless you've spoken in tongues). I'm not saying they can't happen simultaneously, but there is not enough scriptural support to judge all non-tongue speakers as unsaved.

Most on this board will disagree with me, but if you press the issue and begin to debate with scripture, undoubtedly there will be contradictions if one holds to the initial evidence stance.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by obriencp

uh-oh... here we go again

I, through my studies, have been able to separate glossolalia (tongues) from being born of the spirit although I was raised to believe the initial evidence doctrine (you're not saved/filled with the Holy Ghost unless you've spoken in tongues). I'm not saying they can't happen simultaneously, but there is not enough scriptural support to judge all non-tongue speakers as unsaved.

Most on this board will disagree with me, but if you press the issue and begin to debate with scripture, undoubtedly there will be contradictions if one holds to the initial evidence stance.

"Initial Evidence" doctrine needs to be clearly defined before we go any further.

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by houston

Some people's beliefs I find to be disturbing. I would like to discuss one of them today.

Some here believe that a person is saved at the point of faith. They ALSO believe in initial evidence doctrine. SHALABOSHA!

How do you reconcile the two? If a person is saved at faith- THAT is when they received the Holy Spirit, for there is no salvation without the Holy Spirit. I've seen a few posts where someone has stated that a person is saved at faith but they'd encourage them to receive the Spirit. That's a contradiction (in my simple mind).

You are spot on. It is impossible to be saved "at faith" and receive the Spirit at another time.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

"Initial Evidence" doctrine needs to be clearly defined before we go any further.

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

Initial Evidence Doctrine (defined)- Speaking in tongues is the universal initial evidence that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost.

A doctrine absent from all church history UNTIL 1901.

How can pentecostals really criticize groups like 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons when they are so similar in that they come out of no where after hundreds of years of church history and say "we've found THE TRUTH" everyone else missed....and without our truth (read particular doctrine) you're going to hell.

Not much difference to me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Initial Evidence Doctrine (defined)- Speaking in tongues is the universal initial evidence that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost.

A doctrine absent from all church history UNTIL 1901.

How can pentecostals really criticize groups like 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons when they are so similar in that they come out of no where after hundreds of years of church history and say "we've found THE TRUTH" everyone else missed....and without our truth (read particular doctrine) you're going to hell.

Not much difference to me.

So then all doctrine is to be judged by whether it was taught by the majority of professing christian groups?

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

The terminology can be a tricky one. I believe the terms "filled" and "baptized in the Spirit" have been flip-flopped over the years. Even the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit is sometimes used to mean that you've been saved, but now you have access to the gifts (tongues, prophesying, etc) because you now have been given the "Gift of the Holy Ghost/Spirit."

According to some, there have been a few baptisms and still one to come. God's wrath and the flood baptism on the earth (cleansing the earth of wickedness). Spiritual Baptism on Pentecost (all now have access to the spirit through faith IE not exclusive to prophets). And, last but not least, the baptism of Fire which is the world being destroyed by fire and brimstone.

If you believe the world was baptized in spirit one time on pentecost (not that we all have it automatically, but that it's available upon repentance and true faith), then we simply receive the spirit when we're saved, but not technically baptized. Not sure yet where I stand on the terminology of it all.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

Some people's beliefs I find to be disturbing. I would like to discuss one of them today.

Some here believe that a person is saved at the point of faith. They ALSO believe in initial evidence doctrine. SHALABOSHA!

How do you reconcile the two? If a person is saved at faith- THAT is when they received the Holy Spirit, for there is no salvation without the Holy Spirit. I've seen a few posts where someone has stated that a person is saved at faith but they'd encourage them to receive the Spirit. That's a contradiction (in my simple mind).

We need to clarify. Do they say saved BY faith or AT faith?

Do they say we HAVE to have the baptism of the Spirit to be saved? Or we can have it as a second blessing by God and is evidenced by tongues?

Having asked that I want to point out that the bible teaches we are saved BY Faith, however Ive yet to see anywhere that this is characterized as being saved AT faith or at the initial moment we place faith in Jesus Christ

Side note. I was telling a brother about my Methodist heritage and how generations ago they used to tell newly converted believers to wait in God in prayer for a confirmation of their salvation.

[obriencp]

on a side note... i believe the AofG view contradicts itself in the terminology.

If by one spirit we're baptized into the body and they say you're in the body when your saved (pre-tongues), then you can be in the body of Christ because of the spirit (salvation w/o tongues), but haven't been baptized in the spirit (evidence of tongues)...

I understand what they mean that they separate salvation from an empowerment or overwhelming, but the wording is funny.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Having asked that I want to point out that the bible teaches we are saved BY Faith, however Ive yet to see anywhere that this is characterized as being saved AT faith or at the initial moment we place faith in Jesus Christ

If being saved is being regenerated into a state of being spiritually alive or having obtained eternal life...

John 3:15-6, 36, 5:24, 6:33-35, 6:40, 6:47, 11:25, 20:31
Acts 11:18 referring to Cornelius believing, having his sins remitted (prior to water baptism) and had Holy Ghost poured on him.