Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[JamesGlen]

BIG difference between the two.

If tongues are just one of the signs, and not THE (initial) sign that always accompanies Spirit infilling, then the doctrine of “tongues as THE evidence” is false, is error.

It seems to me this is the line drawn in the sand regarding tongues- A sign or THE sign.


Without question in the book of Acts, tongues are atleast A sign, but are they ALWAYS THE sign, THE “proof”, THE evidence one is being Spirit filled?

[JamesGlen]

This line in the sand means a great deal. I want to bring folks to church with me. I want to reach the sinner, and make disciples. If the doctrine of tongues as THE must be evidence is error, I don’t want to make disciples of a false doctrine. If it is true, I do want to make disciples of this doctrinal truth. Same goes with my family, my children grasping what is, or is not the truth on this subject.

To me, this “quandary” carries a great deal of “weight”.

[consapente89]

Evidence and Proof are not the same.

The initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. A good study of John 3 will reveal this. It is the initial evidence as witnessed throughout Acts.

Tongues is NOT proof! Not everyone who speaks with tongues has received the Holy Ghost. Proof comes over time through the witness of a godly life.

When someone has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost they will speak in tongues initially. The Spirit will then lead them according to their willingness to walk in truth and holiness. God will work through them and they will bear fruit. These evidences of the Holy Ghost are not stand alone, but when combined they offer undeniable proof that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Evidence and Proof are not the same.

The initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. A good study of John 3 will reveal this. It is the initial evidence as witnessed throughout Acts.

Tongues is NOT proof! Not everyone who speaks with tongues has received the Holy Ghost. Proof comes over time through the witness of a godly life.

When someone has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost they will speak in tongues initially. The Spirit will then lead them according to their willingness to walk in truth and holiness. God will work through them and they will bear fruit. These evidences of the Holy Ghost are not stand alone, but when combined they offer undeniable proof that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

This is good.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

This line in the sand means a great deal. I want to bring folks to church with me. I want to reach the sinner, and make disciples. If the doctrine of tongues as THE must be evidence is error, I don’t want to make disciples of a false doctrine. If it is true, I do want to make disciples of this doctrinal truth. Same goes with my family, my children grasping what is, or is not the truth on this subject.

To me, this “quandary” carries a great deal of “weight”.

This is the biggest issue of our time. Yet its not ours alone. Millions of Trinitarian Pentecostals and Charismatics believe the same thing. We have all examined the book of Acts history and come to the same conclusion.

In the early Church speaking in tongues was the evidence one had received the Holy Ghost. So its not just 12-16 million of Oneness people but rather hundreds of millions of believers around the world.

The big difference there is that WE understand the baptism or "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit is an essential part of salvation. They (in their doctrine) dont need to deal with the implications of this.

[Michael The Disciple]

It comes down to this. Was the book of Acts unique in its happenings? Or can we use what happened there as examples of the way God always works?

Its kind of like the constitution of the USA. Some scholars see it as a firm foundation a rock on which we stand. Others see it as subject to interpretation for all situations.

To me it strengthens my belief about tongues that 1 Cor. 14 is in the Bible. We are not left with the book of Acts only. It seems clear Paul was encouraging praying in tongues to the Church in general.

He taught to pray with the SPIRIT and with understanding. I take the epistles as truth for believers up until Jesus comes so moving from a book of Acts ONLY mindset will help us to see tongues as a normal part of the Christian life.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It comes down to this. Was the book of Acts unique in its happenings? Or can we use what happened there as examples of the way God always works?

Its kind of like the constitution of the USA. Some scholars see it as a firm foundation a rock on which we stand. Others see it as subject to interpretation for all situations.

To me it strengthens my belief about tongues that 1 Cor. 14 is in the Bible. We are not left with the book of Acts only. It seems clear Paul was encouraging praying in tongues to the Church in general.

He taught to pray with the SPIRIT and with understanding. I take the epistles as truth for believers up until Jesus comes so moving from a book of Acts ONLY mindset will help us to see tongues as a normal part of the Christian life.

Considering that Paul in both 1 Corinthians links tongues with praying in the Spirit, in Romans references the intercession of the Spirit on our behalf in prayer, and Jude follows up by commanding that we pray in the Holy Ghost to build our faith, I find it hard to reach any other decision than the churches generally spoke in tongues as a normative experience.

There is an argument that we place too much emphasis on these things, but the Apostles did not. However, this argument fails to take into account that the experience was normative and universal. This is no longer the case, and many wish to deny the experience altogether. Since we are having to constantly defend the practice from other "Christians", we must emphasize the fundamental teachings concerning the initiation of the converted into the church. Thus greater exposition on these things than the Apostles needed to provide the early church.

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Evidence and Proof are not the same.

The initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. A good study of John 3 will reveal this. It is the initial evidence as witnessed throughout Acts.

Tongues is NOT proof! Not everyone who speaks with tongues has received the Holy Ghost.

Cornelius has a Godly life before being Spirit filled. Like many others in our day, like Dr. James Dobson.

When someone has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost they will speak in tongues initially.

It is very evident that other Christians not having spoken in tongues, bare better spiritual fruit than many who have. This poses a bit of a problem, doesn’t it?.

are not stand alone, but when combined they offer

that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

Again, there are non tongue talkers that put some of us tongue talkers to shame when it comes to bearing fruit.

I have pondered in my mind, what was different about Cornelius AFTER he received the Holyghost? We must speculate I suppose....

What are your thoughts on that?
How are those that have spoken in tongues different from other sects that believe in and practice holiness, fruits of the spirit, etc?

And we’re any of Cornelius’ (pre Holyghost) fruit, Spiritual fruit, if he wasn’t born of the Spirit....how could they have been? What then was he “producing?”

[Scott Pitta]

John chapter 3 says nothing about glossolalia.

Paul discusses the use of vocal gifts in the church, but he does not mention anything about tongues being evidence of Spirit infilling.

[Jay]

James, there is no doubt about the character of Cornelius, just as there is none about Mary, Matthew, Peter, John, or Paul. It is not upon receiving the Holy Ghost that one rejects the sinful lifestyles of the past, though they will be fully revealed as the affront to Christ that the are.

Cornelius was for all of his good works still unsaved. This is evidenced by both his angelic visitation and the words of Peter. So it is with Dr. Dobson and other good men. The plan and standard has not changed a single iota, no matter how good a person is.

Yes, there are some who are unsaved that demonstrate admirable qualities, but even idolatrous religions may have an element of truth. The first two Noble Truths of Buddhism are true. Life is suffering, and this suffering is rooted in man's selfishness. This does not make their religion true, nor do these truths save them. Islam commands all men to submit unto God or be damned, but all of their submitting does not keep them from Hell. If these things are also true, why would a lifestyle of holiness, separated from the world, but not having attained the fullness of God's redemption, save anyone, no matter that they were called Christian. Jesus stated that in the day of judgment, there would be many sincere people, having testimony of their good works and believing in Him, that are rejected and called workers of iniquity.