A Distinction In Speaking in Tongues

[Wansvic]

Scripture reveals and confirms speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in a person. It was prophesied by Joel that God would pour out His Spirit on ALL FLESH, and Peter said what the people were hearing was the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:16-17, 33) Peter states that receiving the Holy Ghost is a gift available to all those whom Jesus’ calls. (Acts 2:38-39)

The Apostle Peter proclaimed the appointed message to the Jews first:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38-39

Peter carried the message to the Gentiles as well. And when they received the Holy Ghost everyone spoke in tongues. (Acts 10:44-48)

The Samaritans, a mixed breed of Jew and Gentile, hear the same message through Philip the evangelist. (Acts 8:12-17) The group believes, and submits to water baptism in the name of Jesus. However, Philip realizes they did not receive the Holy Ghost. STOP.

Ask yourself how Philip knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost? Clearly something was missing. It is revealed when Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of hands he offered money. (Acts 8:18) Again, ask yourself how Simon knew someone had received the Holy Ghost after having hands laid upon them.

Lastly, the Apostle Paul comes across some disciples at Ephesus. The first question he asks is “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” If there was no identifiable sign, how were the people expected to know if they had received the Holy Ghost? (Acts 19:3-9)

Paul provided the disciples with accurate information that they believed and obeyed. After the 12 received the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues Paul stayed in Ephesus and taught others as well. (Acts 19:8) Many refused to believe Paul and spoke evil of that way so he departed from them. (Acts 19:9)

Note as well, God is the only one that can take control of the tongue.
"For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame;" (James 3:7-8) However, with God all things are possible. (Matt 19:26)

In addition, on the Day of Pentecost a flame resembling a cloven tongue appeared above each person when the Spirit entered their body and they began speaking in tongues.

The visual flame accompanied by speaking in tongues proved God had filled each person. The born again Christian’s body is God’s tabernacle. Notice the OT parallel below:

• The Israelites knew when God was present in the darkness of night by the pillar of flame that appeared above the Old Testament tabernacle. (Exodus 25:8, 22, 29:43,40:34-38) The flame was the undeniable evidence that God’s Holy Spirit was present.
• The image of the cloven tongue can easily point to the dual purpose for manifestation of tongues: The initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and the Spiritual gift of tongues.

SPIRITUAL GIFT OF TONGUES: (Not all operate in this gift)

Paul’s discourse about Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12) was presented to those who had already spoken in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Only after receiving the Holy Ghost will there be the possibility of being used to operate in the Spiritual gifts that manifest in order to edify church members.

The Holy Spirit initiates the flow of spiritual gifts from within the believer to edify other believers and unbelievers alike. (1 Cor. 12:11) The born again Christian is a conduit between the Holy Ghost and others for the specific purpose of bringing God’s will to pass.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Lastly, the Apostle Paul comes across some disciples at Ephesus. The first question he asks is “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” If there was no identifiable sign, how were the people expected to know if they had received the Holy Ghost? (Acts 19:3-9)

And when they responded that they had not even heard of whether there be any Holy Ghost, it was obvious by their words that they had the received the Spirit of truth. They didn't lie.

 

[Wansvic]

And when they responded that they had not even heard of whether there be any Holy Ghost, it was obvious by their words that they had the received the Spirit of truth. They didn't lie.

You are missing the point. Paul would not have asked, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?", if the Holy Ghost is in fact received the instant a person believes the gospel. The account itself disputes this misconception. The 12 men did not receive the Holy Ghost when they heard the message, nor at the point of being re-baptized in water in the name of Jesus. They received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues when Paul laid hands upon them.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

They received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues when Paul laid hands upon them.

The gift of speaking in tongues is the gift that the LORD gave to the those created in his likeness and image, the ability to communicate using the spoken word.

I take it you have never heard of the "forbidden experiment".

 

[pinebeach]

Scripture reveals and confirms speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in a person. I

Actually, a changed heart and Christlikeness is the sign the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in a person.

And..........................we see so little of that.

 

[Reddogs]

Actually, a changed heart and Christlikeness is the sign the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in a person.

And..........................we see so little of that.

Very true, many claim a clean heart and right spirit, but show no fruits, and continue with the same old unclean spirit of another origin...

 

[Wansvic]

The gift of speaking in tongues is the gift that the LORD gave to the those created in his likeness and image, the ability to communicate using the spoken word.

I take it you have never heard of the "forbidden experiment".

The gift given was the Holy Spirit. The sign that the gift was given was speaking in tongues. That's bible.

 

[presidente]

Scripture reveals and confirms speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in a person. It was prophesied by Joel that God would pour out His Spirit on ALL FLESH, and Peter said what the people were hearing was the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:16-17, 33) Peter states that receiving the Holy Ghost is a gift available to all those whom Jesus’ calls. (Acts 2:38-39)

The Bible does not actually teach that tongues is a sign to other believers that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, it might have helped Peter and those of the circumcision to realize what God was doing. But Paul says that tongues is a sign to them that believe not.

What Peter quoted from Joel was about prophesying, also, Joel did not specify speaking in tongues. The gift of the Spirit is for as many as the Lord shall call. Peter doesn't say speaking in tongues is for all whom the Lord shall call.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38-39

This is the promise of the Spirit, of which speaking in tongues is a manifestation. This is not a promise of tongues for all.

Peter carried the message to the Gentiles as well. And when they received the Holy Ghost everyone spoke in tongues. (Acts 10:44-48)

If you actually read the passage it does NOT say that everyone spoke in tongues. It says they spoke in tongues and magnified God. IF half spoke in tongues, and half magnified God in Greek, the wording of the passage still fits.

The Samaritans, a mixed breed of Jew and Gentile, hear the same message through Philip the evangelist. (Acts 8:12-17) The group believes, and submits to water baptism in the name of Jesus. However, Philip realizes they did not receive the Holy Ghost. STOP.

Ask yourself how Philip knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost? Clearly something was missing. It is revealed when Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of hands he offered money. (Acts 8:18) Again, ask yourself how Simon knew someone had received the Holy Ghost after having hands laid upon them.

Maybe they spoke in tongues. Maybe some did and some prophesied, and some magnified God, or whatever else happened. But if you are using this passage as evidence that all believers can potentially speak in tongues... and it doesn't have evidence of speaking in tongues in it, that doesn't make sense. That's circular reasoning.

Lastly, the Apostle Paul comes across some disciples at Ephesus. The first question he asks is “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” If there was no identifiable sign, how were the people expected to know if they had received the Holy Ghost? (Acts 19:3-9)

Paul provided the disciples with accurate information that they believed and obeyed. After the 12 received the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues Paul stayed in Ephesus and taught others as well. (Acts 19:8) Many refused to believe Paul and spoke evil of that way so he departed from them. (Acts 19:9)

You skipped some details. He baptized them, laid hands on them and then what did they do?

The spake in tongues and prophesied.

So if all spoke in tongues and prophesied, that fits the wording of the passage. If you are taking the very passages you are using to argue that tongues is some kind of exclusive initial evidence and reading the idea of tongues as initial evidence into the passages, that is circular reasoning.

I think one of the arguments for it from days gone by was 'two or three witnesses of scripture'-- that there is a witness in Acts 2, in Acts 10/11 and Acts 19. But if Acts 10/11 and 19 equally fit a scenario where not all actually speak in tongues, then there is not much to the argument.

Let's compare the argument to someone who insists that if one physically goes to Mt. Sinai, one will hear the audible voice of God. He argues.

Argument 1-- Hearing God on Mt. Sinai
"1. Moses went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
2. The children of Israel went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
3. Elijah went to Mt. Sinai/Mt.Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.

Therefore, if you go to Mt. Sinai, you are 100% guaranteed to hear it too! Sign up now for your trip to the the real Mt. Sinai!"

Now let's compare that to the initial evidence argument.

Now let's compare this for the argument for tongues as initial evidence

"Argument 2- Tongues as Initial Evidence
1. In Acts 2, they were baptized and filled with the Spirit and they all spoke in tongues.
2. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all magnified God.
3. In Acts 19, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all prophesied."

You can see the parallels in the argument, and the argument is tighter for the first argument, since Moses and the Israelites did hear God, and it isn't clear if all in Acts 10 and 19 individually spoke in tongues.

Let's consider also those passages where the disciples say that it would be better that the ointment poured on Jesus be sold and given to the poor. If you read one gospel 'the disciples' said this. But in John, we see that Judas actually spoke it. He may have done it as a member of the group or even as a representative of the group, and hence 'the disciples', but according to John, Judas spoke the words. So why would a passage that says that 'they' spoke in tongues and prophesied have to mean that each individual had to every one speak in tongues down to the last name? Again, if one prophesied and the other spoke in tongues, or if some in the group did these things as representatives of the group or as members of the group, wouldn't the wording of the passage also be true?

Also notice the Joel prophecy singled out _prophesying_, which we also see in that passage in Acts 19.

Then there is a scripture that says 'Not all speak in tongues do they?' in I Corinthians 12, leaving those who insist on the initial evidence doctrine arguing that he doesn't really mean that, what he really means is some specific type of speaking in tongues that not all do. That makes it even weaker than the Sinai argument.

God is not obligated to speak out loud and let someone hear Him if that person goes to Mt. Sinai. Why would God be obligated to enable each individual to speak in tongues?

I've also heard the teaching that you get baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues and it is a 'gateway' to gifts of the Spirit. You might prophesy or heal or interpret tongues. And while that may happen in that sequence for some Christians, there is no guarantee of that in scripture.

It also does not align with everyone's experience. Smith Wigglesworth, according to his sermons turned into books, was holding healing meetings and seeing healings before he spoke in tongues. He arranged them. The guy who was going to minister healing didn't show up, and he ended up doing it and got into it that way. And his wife was involved in an offshoot of the Salvation Army.

General Boothe of the Salvation Army had told of a vision he had. Some of the Holiness folks had visions. There was healing going on around the turn of the century and before that before the Pentecostal movement emerged. People didn't have to speak in tongues to operate in healing.

Also, I know a brother who has interpreted tongues at an A/G who has never spoken in tongues. He was open to it, but it never happened. He had a post-salvation experience that he believes was being baptized with the Holy Spirit. I did ask him if he ever had the experience of someone else interpreting a tongue before he could and giving the same experience. Yes, he had, as other people who interpret tongues have also experienced.

And there are churches that believe in empowerment by the Spirit who don't believe in initial evidence, and that doesn't keep them from prophesying or getting words of knowledge.

Have you ever heard the expression, 'You can't put God in a box?'

 

[PaulThomson]

Scripture reveals and confirms speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in a person.

This is wrong from sentence one. It us not “the sign”. The Holy Spirit was given to the disciples on resurrection Sunday evening when the believed Jesus was risen and confessed Him as Lord, and Jesus breathed on them and they received the Holy Spirit. They were not speaking in tongues on Resurrection Sunday evening.

Jhn 20:20
And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
Jhn 20:21
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you
Jhn 20:22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

 

[PaulThomson]

Actually, a changed heart and Christlikeness is the sign the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in a person.

And..........................we see so little of that.

No. The Corinthian church had many members who were far from Christlikeness because they were not walking in the Holy Spirit they had been given when they believed Paul’s gospel.

 

[pinebeach]

No. The Corinthian church had many members who were far from Christlikeness because they were not walking in the Holy Spirit they had been given when they believed Paul’s gospel.

You did not understand what I said. A changed heart and Christlikeness is the sign the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in a person.

Every single church that exists today has members and sometimes many members who are very far from exhibiting Christlikeness. That has nothing to do with what I said in response to the op saying the 'sign' that the Holy Spirit indwells a person is speaking in tongues.

Scripture reveals and confirms speaking in tongues is the sign that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in a person.

I was responding to the tongues claim which that particular op claims. I am somewhat taken aback you don't seem to believe that a person who actually is indwelt by the Holy Spirit will exhibit Christlikeness. I am talking about someone who turns from sin and want to follow Jesus, not someone who wants to blab in tongues and claim a healing ministry or whatever.

That, is the person who is filled with the Holy Spirit. It is alarming and serious that people can actually have gifts and still be rejected by Jesus one day.

I'm not going to debate with you. I don't think what I said is hard to understand and frankly if you don't agree and think the Holy Spirit is only about spiritual gifts, I see that as your own person understanding but it is not mine.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

The gift given was the Holy Spirit. The sign that the gift was given was speaking in tongues. That's bible.

While I thank you for sharing your perspective on the gift of speaking in tongues nor do I dispute that the breath of life is a gift; I am not sure whether you are saying that the gift was the breath of life that the LORD placed in the nostrils of man, and our ability to communicate using the spoken word was a sign of that gift.

If that accurately reflects what you are saying, I do not think you are wrong for having your prophecy of scripture, but would say that it leads one to the conclusion that man was created "speech-ready".

However, that was also the pillar of the evolution of the species doctrine which held that only man had the ability to speak due to his physiological anatomy which resulted from his evolution into a more complex primate. The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and collaborating institutions had long argued that the larynx and vocal tracts of non-human primates were simply too rigid or structured differently to produce the audible spoken word.

Now why would evolutionary anthropologists test what the empirical evidence had shown couldn't be true, or I should say what motivated them. If non-human primates lacked the physiological anatomy to produce the audible spoken word, then ask yourself this simple question, why was the scientific research community funding the research projects tempting to teach non-human primates to communicate using the spoken word?

As I stated, I agree that all creatures of flesh in whose nostrils is the breath of life have a holy spirit; the fact that we have the breath of life does not infer by implication that man could obtain the ability to communicate using the spoken word simply because he has the physiological anatomy necessity to produce the audible word.

The ability to speak does not occur simply by hearing the spoken word, it is a gift since language acquisition requires that the child not only hear the spoken word but that they have interaction with someone speaking to them in order to communicate using the spoken word.

Had man evolved from non-human primates, they would have lacked the ability to develop the ability to communicate using the spoken word since language acquisition must occur during what is called the critical period of develop or else it is lost permanently. With no one there to provide that necessary interaction, communicating using the spoken word would never have originated , that is why it is a gift that continues today by the process known as "faith to faith"

But then again, my prophecy of scripture might be wrong and the ability to communicate using the spoken word evolved.

 

[Wansvic]

You did not understand what I said. A changed heart and Christlikeness is the sign the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in a person.

Every single church that exists today has members and sometimes many members who are very far from exhibiting Christlikeness. That has nothing to do with what I said in response to the op saying the 'sign' that the Holy Spirit indwells a person is speaking in tongues.


I was responding to the tongues claim which that particular op claims. I am somewhat taken aback you don't seem to believe that a person who actually is indwelt by the Holy Spirit will exhibit Christlikeness. I am talking about someone who turns from sin and want to follow Jesus, not someone who wants to blab in tongues and claim a healing ministry or whatever.

That, is the person who is filled with the Holy Spirit. It is alarming and serious that people can actually have gifts and still be rejected by Jesus one day.

I'm not going to debate with you. I don't think what I said is hard to understand and frankly if you don't agree and think the Holy Spirit is only about spiritual gifts, I see that as your own person understanding but it is not mine.

The accounts in the Book of Acts indicate tongues is the initial physical evidence that the Holy Ghost has arrived in one's body. Whereas, exhibiting Christlikeness witnesses to the enduring presence as the born again person matures in the Lord.

Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Acts 10:46: "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God".
Acts 19:6: "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied".

Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4: Describes the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, setting the precedent.
Acts 15:7-11: Peter recounts the experience of the Gentiles speaking in tongues, calling it evidence that they received the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 14:18: Paul indicates his personal use of this gift ("I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all").
Mark 16:17: "And these signs shall follow them that believe... they shall speak with new tongues".

 

[Wansvic]

The Bible does not actually teach that tongues is a sign to other believers that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, it might have helped Peter and those of the circumcision to realize what God was doing. But Paul says that tongues is a sign to them that believe not.

What Peter quoted from Joel was about prophesying, also, Joel did not specify speaking in tongues. The gift of the Spirit is for as many as the Lord shall call. Peter doesn't say speaking in tongues is for all whom the Lord shall call.


This is the promise of the Spirit, of which speaking in tongues is a manifestation. This is not a promise of tongues for all.


If you actually read the passage it does NOT say that everyone spoke in tongues. It says they spoke in tongues and magnified God. IF half spoke in tongues, and half magnified God in Greek, the wording of the passage still fits.



Maybe they spoke in tongues. Maybe some did and some prophesied, and some magnified God, or whatever else happened. But if you are using this passage as evidence that all believers can potentially speak in tongues... and it doesn't have evidence of speaking in tongues in it, that doesn't make sense. That's circular reasoning.



You skipped some details. He baptized them, laid hands on them and then what did they do?

The spake in tongues and prophesied.

So if all spoke in tongues and prophesied, that fits the wording of the passage. If you are taking the very passages you are using to argue that tongues is some kind of exclusive initial evidence and reading the idea of tongues as initial evidence into the passages, that is circular reasoning.

I think one of the arguments for it from days gone by was 'two or three witnesses of scripture'-- that there is a witness in Acts 2, in Acts 10/11 and Acts 19. But if Acts 10/11 and 19 equally fit a scenario where not all actually speak in tongues, then there is not much to the argument.

Let's compare the argument to someone who insists that if one physically goes to Mt. Sinai, one will hear the audible voice of God. He argues.

Argument 1-- Hearing God on Mt. Sinai
"1. Moses went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
2. The children of Israel went to Mt. Sinai/Mt. Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.
3. Elijah went to Mt. Sinai/Mt.Horeb and heard the audible voice of God.

Therefore, if you go to Mt. Sinai, you are 100% guaranteed to hear it too! Sign up now for your trip to the the real Mt. Sinai!"

Now let's compare that to the initial evidence argument.

Now let's compare this for the argument for tongues as initial evidence

"Argument 2- Tongues as Initial Evidence
1. In Acts 2, they were baptized and filled with the Spirit and they all spoke in tongues.
2. In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all magnified God.
3. In Acts 19, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and at least some if not all of them spoke in tongues and at least some if not all prophesied."

You can see the parallels in the argument, and the argument is tighter for the first argument, since Moses and the Israelites did hear God, and it isn't clear if all in Acts 10 and 19 individually spoke in tongues.

Let's consider also those passages where the disciples say that it would be better that the ointment poured on Jesus be sold and given to the poor. If you read one gospel 'the disciples' said this. But in John, we see that Judas actually spoke it. He may have done it as a member of the group or even as a representative of the group, and hence 'the disciples', but according to John, Judas spoke the words. So why would a passage that says that 'they' spoke in tongues and prophesied have to mean that each individual had to every one speak in tongues down to the last name? Again, if one prophesied and the other spoke in tongues, or if some in the group did these things as representatives of the group or as members of the group, wouldn't the wording of the passage also be true?

Also notice the Joel prophecy singled out _prophesying_, which we also see in that passage in Acts 19.

Then there is a scripture that says 'Not all speak in tongues do they?' in I Corinthians 12, leaving those who insist on the initial evidence doctrine arguing that he doesn't really mean that, what he really means is some specific type of speaking in tongues that not all do. That makes it even weaker than the Sinai argument.

God is not obligated to speak out loud and let someone hear Him if that person goes to Mt. Sinai. Why would God be obligated to enable each individual to speak in tongues?

I've also heard the teaching that you get baptized in the Spirit and speak in tongues and it is a 'gateway' to gifts of the Spirit. You might prophesy or heal or interpret tongues. And while that may happen in that sequence for some Christians, there is no guarantee of that in scripture.

It also does not align with everyone's experience. Smith Wigglesworth, according to his sermons turned into books, was holding healing meetings and seeing healings before he spoke in tongues. He arranged them. The guy who was going to minister healing didn't show up, and he ended up doing it and got into it that way. And his wife was involved in an offshoot of the Salvation Army.

General Boothe of the Salvation Army had told of a vision he had. Some of the Holiness folks had visions. There was healing going on around the turn of the century and before that before the Pentecostal movement emerged. People didn't have to speak in tongues to operate in healing.

Also, I know a brother who has interpreted tongues at an A/G who has never spoken in tongues. He was open to it, but it never happened. He had a post-salvation experience that he believes was being baptized with the Holy Spirit. I did ask him if he ever had the experience of someone else interpreting a tongue before he could and giving the same experience. Yes, he had, as other people who interpret tongues have also experienced.

And there are churches that believe in empowerment by the Spirit who don't believe in initial evidence, and that doesn't keep them from prophesying or getting words of knowledge.

Have you ever heard the expression, 'You can't put God in a box?'

Peter specified that what the people heard at Pentecost was in fact the arrival of the Holy Ghost whom Jesus had poured out.

Acts 2:33
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."


Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4: Describes the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as SETTING THE PRECEDENT.
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:4

Note: It is the Spirit of God that initiates the experience!

Acts 15:7-11: Peter recounts the experience of the Gentiles speaking in tongues, calling it evidence that they received the Holy Ghost. "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, AND magnify God. .." (Acts 10:44-46)

Acts 19:1-7: I questioned God about why He inspired Luke to record the number of men Paul preached to in verse 7. I was sure it held great significance. And what I believe God showed me made perfect sense. The account indicated that 12 men would continue to preach what the 12 apostles had begun at Pentecost. Consider as well that what Luke recorded actually transpired some 20+ years after Pentecost. It proves Paul's message was no different than what was first presented by Peter.

"He (Paul) said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, AND prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve."


1 Corinthians 14:18: Paul indicates his personal use of this gift ("I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"). Paul was referencing personal prayer and singing in tongues, not being used to operate in the Spirit Gift of Tongues for edification of church members.

Mark 16:17: "And these signs shall follow them that believe... they shall speak with new tongues".
The accounts in the Book of Acts indicate tongues is the initial physical evidence that the Holy Ghost has come to dwell in one's body. (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6)

 

[lrs68]

Every time in the Book of Acts someone was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit this was the sequence of events.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues

 

[presidente]

Peter specified that what the people heard at Pentecost was in fact the arrival of the Holy Ghost whom Jesus had poured out.

Acts 2:33
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear."

Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4: Describes the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as SETTING THE PRECEDENT.

That's your assertion, but Paul asks, "Not all speak in tongues do they?"

Acts 15:7-11: Peter recounts the experience of the Gentiles speaking in tongues, calling it evidence that they received the Holy Ghost. "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, AND magnify God. .." (Acts 10:44-46)

'Them'... they did this. Not every single individual has to speak or perform both actions to fit the wording of this passage. Just as when the disciples asked 'why this waste', that doesn't mean all of them had to say the exact words in unison. John lets us know Judas spoke the words.

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, AND prophesied.

If six of them spoke in tongues and six prophesied, the wording would still be true. If all of them did both, the wording would still be true.

1 Corinthians 14:18: Paul indicates his personal use of this gift ("I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"). Paul was referencing personal prayer and singing in tongues, not being used to operate in the Spirit Gift of Tongues for edification of church members.

The ability to speak in tongues is a gift. It isn't earned. It comes by grace. It isn't by human ability. It comes through a special grace of the Spirit, so how could this not be an example of a 'gift of tongues.' Conceptually, what you are saying does not make sense.

Paul's writings do not mention some kind of separate tongue that everyone can speak in that is different from a gift of the Spirit. That idea is not in the Bible. Paul also treats uninterpreted tongues used in prayer that edifies oneself as the same sort of tongue that is interpreted to edify the assembly. Look at the wording of I Corinthians 14.

Mark 16:17: "And these signs shall follow them that believe... they shall speak with new tongues".

These follow the group. But it doesn't say that every individual has to heal or he isn't a believer, or that every individual has to pick up a snake or he isn't a believer, or that every individual has to drink poison, or he isn't a believer, or that every individual has to speak in new tongues, or he isn't a believer.

 

[pinebeach]

The accounts in the Book of Acts indicate tongues is the initial physical evidence that the Holy Ghost has arrived in one's body. Whereas, exhibiting Christlikeness witnesses to the enduring presence as the born again person matures in the Lord.

Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Acts 10:46: "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God".
Acts 19:6: "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied".

Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4: Describes the baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, setting the precedent.
Acts 15:7-11: Peter recounts the experience of the Gentiles speaking in tongues, calling it evidence that they received the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 14:18: Paul indicates his personal use of this gift ("I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all").
Mark 16:17: "And these signs shall follow them that believe... they shall speak with new tongues".

Your deliberate redirction away from what actually happens is necessasry for your denomination but it is not scriptural.

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Eph. 1:13

That alone illustrates that your insistence of speaking in tongues being proof a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is doctrine from the pages of your Oneness Pentecostal sect. There is no indication that a person speaks in tongues the moment they accept Christ and understand He died for them.

So, what you are actually saying, according to you and yours, is that no one is saved unless they speak in tongues.

A person can look for the rest of their life and they will not found that written in scripture.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. I Cor.12

The blind leading the blind seems to manifest in different ways, at different times and for different reasons. You actually ignore what Paul writes and continue on with blinders like a donkey pulling a cart. The gospel of salvation is not speaking in tongues.

You believe in a false gospel if you think tongues are the central focus and go so far as to say that unless you speak in tongues you are not saved.

 

[pinebeach]

Every time in the Book of Acts someone was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit this was the sequence of events.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision that believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues

And you too. Paul says not all speak in tongues.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. I Cor.12

 

[lrs68]

And you too. Paul says not all speak in tongues.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues Do all interpret? 31Now eagerly desire the greater gifts. I Cor.12

Scripture doesn't contradict Itself because being filled with the Spirit by exemplifying tongues is not the same as having the Gift of Tongues.

 

[rewriter]

I have heard this teaching that speaking in tongues is a sign of being filled with the HS many times. My two big concerns are that Paul asks, in a way that implies the proper answer is no, if all believers speak in tongues (already referenced several times here), and secondly, that anthropology recognizes that while Christianity has speaking in tongues as a spiritual ability, so does Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism among other religions. It is just not as big a deal in these other religions as some Christians make it out to be in Christianity, but this also implies that either the HS fills followers of other religions also, or else tongues can be delivered by Satan and thus not all "Christians" speaking in tongues are filled with the HS, take your pick.