Pentecostal view of the holy spirit.

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with.

Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Although Southern Baptists generally do not practice speaking of tongues in public worship, many apparently practice speaking of tongues in private. A recent LifeWay study reported that half of SBC pastors believe that God gives some Christians a private prayer language.
Mar 30, 2016

This was in 2016 and I am told it's around 65% [2 out of 3] today 2024.

Many believe the Holy Ghost is received upon belief in the gospel message. However, scripture reveals this is not the case. What scripture does reveal, and confirm is speaking in tongues is the sign that accompanies the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:1-4, 8:12-17, 10:44-48, 19:1-6) And according to Paul being indwelt with the Spirit is required in order to be saved. (Rom. 8:9)

• “And they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, …” (Acts 2:4) Peter specified what bystanders were seeing and hearing WAS the Holy Ghost that Jesus had shed forth as promised. (Acts 2:33)
• The disciples knew the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost when they heard them speak in tongues. (Acts 10:46)
• The Samaritans believed and obeyed the gospel message, yet did not receive the Holy Ghost. A natural question arises. How did the people know that they had not received the Holy Ghost? Peter and John came days later to assist in their receiving the Holy Ghost. Also, ask yourself. What did Simon SEE that convinced him that the Samaritans had received the Holy Ghost? (Acts 8:12-18) In light of the consistent reference to speaking in tongues elsewhere in scripture the answer becomes clear.
• Consider two things the Apostle Paul’s question to the 12 Ephesians reveals; Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? It reveals the Holy Ghost is not always spontaneously received upon belief. And that people know when the Holy Ghost has arrived in their body. Again, consistent with scripture, the undeniable sign is speaking in tongues. “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues…” (Acts 19:1-7) Note as well the account specifically numbers the individuals indicating not just some but ALL had the same experience. (verse 7)
• Also, remember Jesus words in Luke 11:13. He said those who have not received the Holy Spirit should ask the Father for the gift. Jesus' words prove once again that a person can know without a doubt whether or not they have the Holy Spirit.

God's word states there is one common salvation and everyone is to earnestly seek out the truth that was first delivered to the saints/disciples. (Jude 3) The biblical record is clear. The truth concerning tongues as the sign of receiving the Holy Spirit is revealed through the detailed record of the disciples and others (120) at Pentecost, (Acts 2:2-42) and on at least 2 other occasions, (Acts 10, 19) and is alluded to in the Acts 8 account. We are told to study the word in order to get a clear understanding of God’s principles. There will always be 2-3 witnesses/scriptures in the word that confirm if one’s understanding on any given topic is the actual truth. (2 Cor. 13:1, Matt. 18:16) The foregoing information pertaining to tongues being the evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost/Spirit meets that criterion.


Spiritual Gift of Tongues:
Many fail to realize the distinction concerning speaking in tongues. Paul’s discourse about Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12) was presented to born again believers all of which had previously manifested tongues upon receiving the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Paul provides insight concerning speaking in tongues in prayer to God for personal edification. (1 Cor. 14) Whereas, not all will operate in the Spiritual gift of tongues requiring interpretation to edify others.

I can't prove it, but will take an educated guess. In my experiences, there are a lot of charismatics who like to fellowship with baptists. Nothing wrong with that. I have noticed that another big church in my area would come to our evening services at an evangelical (doctrinally baptistic) church. They attended all our special events, my singles ministry and we all knew each other. Some were open about their beliefs and others kept it to themselves.

After a time, some want to serve in leadership positions for various reasons. Rather than being forthright and saying, *"doctrinally I am a Pentecostal," then being rejected as a candidate as a Sunday school teacher, group leader, or paid staff position, they keep their mouth shut or lie. Note that we are not talking about an ecumenical church. There were a handful of people from all backgrounds competing for leadership positions. I even had to warn one who was appointing leaders of a practicing lost Roman Catholic who infiltrated our church who wanted a teaching position. It's not confined to charismatics, but that's what I've seen most, probably because of the large population of those denominations.

I'm not lumping charismatics in general into this category, but I admit that I've seen it happen many times in independent Baptist churches, one mega church that got out of the Southern Baptist convention and followed Andy Stanley.

I have seen a church that was the oldest Baptist church in this part of the state get infiltrated by a slick talker who undermined the preacher and eventually took over the church in a very devious way. Nobody knew his doctrinal beliefs until he had split the church and taken over. One of many examples.

A Pentecostal friend who attended a Baptist church, Baptist congregation in Fairmont WV was the only one who knew his pastor was a Pentecostal preacher posing as a Baptist while he pastored the congregation.
I've had plenty of charismatic friends/ family, but they get to know me they know what I believe. If I were to apply to candidate to take a leadership position in a new church, I would show the courtesy of being forthright, frank and honest to the pastor from the start. There are a lot of people who are not. They aren't all charismatic. There are a lot of baptist infiltrators who don't even have the right gospel I've met. I've caught a pagan homosexual witch who was praying to an idol . She no longer had influence of children in the mega church. She left right away. Likewise on and on.

You pointed out a problem, which is one of many, in the S. Baptist fellowship. Perhaps this is a common problem. I should not be surprised. Thank you for the information. It confirms a lot of my observations over my lifetime.

So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

Been doing some reading lately on the whole tongues thing. Coming from a baptist background much of this philosophy is new to me, hopefully actual Pentecostals will reply. As I understand it most mainstream Pentecostals seem to believe there's two forms of the holy spirit. One that occurs at salvation and the other an occur at any time, and is supposed to manifest itself as tongue speaking to empower the individual. If I were to paraphrase, is it like being registered with the holy spirit at first and the recieving of actual power comes later as a sign you move on to ministry?

Seems there's a common view amongst baptists thinking pentacostals make tongues vital to salvation, but from what I've dug up, only a small handful of sub-categories seem to believe this and few of them seem to come out and say it. Closest I can find appear to say "Speaking in tongues is the only way to be absolutely sure you're saved." which I don't agree with. Though the notion of two different aspects of the holy spirit would explain some things in book of acts. So I'm guessing the attitude of Pentecostals claiming your only saved if you speak in tongues is a false stereotype?

My initial reaction was well, if anyone would not be making up Speaking in Tongues, it would be someone who was Cessasionist. So I thought it could only be God to change them.

1. Not God necessarily. God gave the supernatural ability to speak FOREIGN LANGUAGES to those who had never spoken them. Proof? See Acts 2 for at least 15 languages and dialects never spoken by Galileans.

2. It is admitted by all modern tongues speakers that they do not speak distinct foreign languages. Several careful linguistic studies -- even by committed Pentecostals -- have confirmed this.

3. Presently, the modern tongues speakers have started calling their babbling "a prayer language", but Christ used plain words to teach us how to pray. He Himself prayed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. So only the "super spiritual" today have a special language for prayer. Which makes the majority of Christian "second class".

4. What is really disturbing is that Roman Catholics -- who practice a false religion -- have also spoken in "tongues". Would the Holy Spirit even be involved? Think about it.

5. "Ecstatic utterances" (similiar to glossolalia or babbling) have been known to have been spoken by pagans a long time ago. Shamans and witch doctors have also spoken such utterances, and we know that they communicate with evil spirits.

6. If God was involved, English-speaking missionaries who went to foreign lands would hav all received the supernatural ability to speak Chinese, or Swahili, or Hindi. Instead they had to labor for many years trying to learn the language they needed.

6. Baptists were generally sound in their beliefs (and I am very familiar with Baptist beliefs). Ever since the Charismatic Movement began, some Baptists thought they should get on this band-wagon and start speaking in tongues.

7. Personally I would love to meet someone who knows they have the ability to speak a foreign language as given by God. They would be fully conscious of this, so their interpreter would be a native speaker of that language and he would interpret for an English-speaking audience, while the natives heard the Gospel in their own language.

I understand many think the Gifts have finished but it's good to see that the majority of the SBC finally got caught on Fire for God.

And the gifts are not finished. But biblical tongues are finished.

The gifts are not finished, but tongues are, even though they also are a gift of the Spirit? You can't have it both ways.