Allow me to Think Abstractly for a Moment

[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?

[ILG]

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?

Because we're very self-centered. That way, we control who is in and out of the "kingdom".

[Margies3]

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?

we think in terms of the concrete. If there isn't evidence to prove something, how can we believe it?

I do believe that tongues happen today. I do NOT believe that tongues are the only evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit in someone's life. I lean much more towards "by their fruit you will know them". I've known too many people who can talk in tongues at the drop of a hat, but they're as mean as a snake and no more filled with the love of Lord and concern for souls than the mean dog who lives down at the junkyard. Something doesn't jive with that scenario.

[Sam]

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?

There are about 20 records of people being converted in the Book of Acts. In some cases it is recorded that these conversions were accompanied with or followed by water baptism and/or Spirit Baptism. In the cases where it is recorded that people received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit came upon them, or the Spirit fell upon them, or they "received" (made room for) the Holy Spirit, or they were filled with the Spirit) it mentions or infers that speaking with tongues accompanied or followed that experience. Based on these examples we have come up with the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. The "initial physical evidence" doctrine states that speaking with tongues is "the initial physical evidence" of receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism. Some Christians think that there is enough scriptural support for this doctrine and some do not. Most Apostolic/Charismatic/Pentecostal people believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine. Among those who believe in the "initial physical evidence" doctrine there is a small minority who believe that the Holy Ghost Baptism is the same as being born of the Spirit so these folks basically believe that unless a person has spoken with tongues, that person is not born of the Spirit or is not saved.

[Hoovie]

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?

Quite honestly: though I do not question that tongues can be a good thing, if we mean evidence as in absolute "proof" then the doctrine is faulty IMO.

[ManOfWord]

Because we were told that and taught that and also taught that anyone who didn't speak in tongues was going to hell!

[Jermyn Davidson]

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 used to feel that way, but now I don't.

In some ways, it can be a very reassuring part of a Christian convert's relationship with God.

"I know I'm saved-- I remember the day I spoke in tongues from Heaven above!"

Authentically speaking in tongues is such an awesome experience! Why wouldn't anyone not want to speak in tongues?

So let's help everyone out by telling them that they have to speak in tongues or they're not saved-- it will give them the impetus to seek a closer walk with God. The problem with this mindset is that it is unscriptural and actually can lead a person away from faith in Jesus Christ and His Word.


Still there is danger in seeking the reassurance of tongue-talking to soothe the Christian's mind when dealing with conviction from God over a sinful habit or when dealing with condemnation from satan.

Tongues can be mimicked-- with or without malintentions.

You can work yourself up into a tizzy and emotional high and it would be just you working yourself up while all the time you are thinking that you are getting "blessed from God."


Our confidence should never rest in speaking in tongues-- it should rest on the Word of God.


It takes a whole lot more faith to believe and follow God based solely on His Word when there aren't any signs and wonders.

[A.W. Bowman]

Just a note or two on the excellent posts made so far.

First, speaking in other languages, languages that are unknown to the speaker but not necessarily unknown to the hearers, is a sign not to the believers, but to the unbelievers. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

Second, speaking in other languages as it was manifested on the day of Pentecost, the language spoken by a believer who received the power of the Holy Ghost must be that of another human tongue, and not a special heavenly or a 'prayer' language. (Acts 2:6-12) That is considered babbling and a 'sign' that might well run a non-believer off. (1 Corinthians 14:23)

Third, the languages spoken were not 'unknown', as frequently translated into our English Bibles. The Greek words for 'unknown' are never associated with speaking with other tongues (languages). The English word, unknown', was added for clarification only, assuming that the languages spoken by the believers were 'unknown' to the speakers but not to those who heard them and/or identify the languages. So, we confuse the speaking in a prayer language with the sign gift of speaking in other human languages and even use the speaking in tongues as a sign to other believers that we are 'praying in the Spirit', while completely disregarding Paul's instruction on who, where, how, and why the "unknown tongues' are to be administered (1 Cor 14).

As a result, we have at least three modern-day apostolic doctrines that clearly differ from the historic apostolic records.

[pelathais]

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?

This context uses the faith of "the elders" (or the OT patriarchs - see Hebrews 11:2) as examples of the things that we are to emulate. These "elders" are not "made perfect" or "complete" without our faith and the testimony of our lives added to theirs.

Hebrews 11:39-40 indicates that these "elders" did not receive something called "the promise" (whatever that is) that the NT believer receives.

So, "abstractly" we do appear to receive a "promise" (whatever that might be) that is received in a manner similar to the "elders'" experience (at least in type). That is, "the substance" and the evidence of this promise is not "seen" by the natural man. It is a matter of faith.

To this we must add that this "promise" (whatever it is) was "seen" in another sense - Hebrews 11:13 - but this is clearly not a visual nor an auditory sensation. "Seeing" this "promise" from afar off indicates that this too was a matter of faith and not something that is evidenced plainly for the natural man to evaluate.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Quite honestly: though I do not question that tongues can be a good thing, if we mean evidence as in absolute "proof" then the doctrine is faulty IMO.

Just evaluating the testimony of those who have spoken "in tongues" and then later renounced their faith appears to indicate that this phenomena is not something that we can trust as being "proof" of someone's salvation.

The copious "speaking in tongues" observed in "gay" churches is just another example that confounds the "evidence of salvation" or "evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost that one must experience to be accepted as 'saved'" mantra of the Three Stepper crowd.

This agenda by the "Water & Spirit" or "Three Stepper" ("Acts 2:38 or hell!!!") crowd is clearly a failed program that only leads to the need for further deceptions and lies. Consider recent events in GA, for example.