Tongues as the evidence of the Holy Spirit is not Biblical

[AAA]

Mod...I hope it is OK to repost this...I have some questions that need to be answered from both sides and this was very well written..Thanks.

This post come from: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=18749

Posted by : ~Lorelei on 1-07-2002.

RE: Tongues as the evidence of the Holy Spirit is not Biblical

How can you prove scripturally that tongues is the evidence of the Holy Spirit if there is no reference that states this fact? You can't say because that is how they did it in the book of Acts, when you will find only 3 references to someone speaking in tongues at the moment of salvation. How then, can one attest that ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, one must speak in tongues at the moment of salvation?

Some people have tried to say that Acts 11:15 states that we all receive the Holy Spirit the way the Apostles did, but let's look at these verses.

Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning."
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with[1] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'
17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

The emphasis in context was not "how" they received the Holy Spirit, just that they actually did receive it. They were Gentiles and until this time, the Spirit had only been given to Jews and Samaritans (half breed Jews). Yes, they did speak in tongues, and why do you think it was such a surprise to everyone? Why do you think that it is now that Peter is remembering what "the Lord had said". Because not everyone did speak in tongues when they receieved his message before, but these people did! Why? To prove to the Jews that it was of God. (As Paul said, tongues were for a sign! 1 Corinthians 14:22)

Note that Peter says:

the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning

He doesn't say "the Holy Spirit came on them as he does on everyone else". There is a great difference and a special significance to these verses.

Here are 4 places in Acts where it does not say the people spoke in tongues when they were saved. Acts 2:38-47; Acts 4:4; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16:30-34

There are only 3 references that say that they did. Acts 2:1-16 (the apostles) Acts 10:42-48; Acts 19:1-7

So where does it say that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit? If it is only "implied" then why isn't it "implied" in all circumstances?

I can find no Biblical evidence as to this fact, therefore it is not scriptural and therefore is a false doctrine.

~Lorelei

AMEN!

I have read through all of the answers to her post and I have read many books, tracts, papers trying to prove this "Tongues as evidence" doctrine, but I am renewing this post because I am wanting to see if any of you believe: Tongues as an evidence for recieving the Holy Spirit and if so can you prove it biblically?

The largest group in the U.S.A that believes this doctrine is the United Pentecostal Church (Read my post: "Oneness Pentecostal Cult" http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37411.

Posted by AAA in "Oneness Pentecostal Cult".

"3. They deny that a believer can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues. It is the gift of GOD through faith that puts us into contact with the BLOOD of JESUS by the power of God's GRACE through the working of the Holy Ghost.

In short, they (Oneness Pentecostals) say: If you have not spoke in tongues, you do NOT have the Holy Ghost and without the Holy Ghost, you are NOT a child of God."

The Oneness Pentecostals say there are THREE different typs of tongues...
1. Is the tongues when some gets saved and the HOLY GHOST comes with-in the believer-Tongues as the evidence of recieving the Holy Spirit.
2. The Gift of tongues used in an assembly with interpretation..
3. Tongues as a Prayer lagauge...

Are there different types of tongues?

I really want to know: How do we refute such a doctrine as this, from the biblical standpoint???

Do you know of any other books that will teach against thisDoctrine?

1. "Jesus Only churches" by E. Calvin Biesner...
2. "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity" by Gregory Boyd...
3. Name one more????????????????

Thanks for your help............

:godisgood:

 

[Darron Steele]

The Bible also teaches against this belief.

"1COR 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1COR 12:30 have all gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (ASV).​

The implied answer from the surrounding context is `no.' Even in the New Testament era, not every Christian spoke in tongues.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Tongues as the evidence of anything since the Apostle's generation, is tongues as the evidence of sure falsity, for a Christian not to be fooled by.

 

[John of Japan]

I went to Japanese language school with Pentecostals. Everybody had to study, and nobody got Acts 2 tongues. :smilewinkgrin:

This is an echo of what happened after the "Azuza Street Revival," when the early Pentecostals sent out missionaries expecting them to speak in foreign languages (at least they were exegetically honest in their embrace of Acts 2)--but it didn't happen! :type:

 

[John of Japan]

Are there different types of tongues?

I really want to know: How do we refute such a doctrine as this, from the biblical standpoint???

Do you know of any other books that will teach against thisDoctrine?

1. "Jesus Only churches" by E. Calvin Biesner...
2. "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity" by Gregory Boyd...
3. Name one more????????????????

Thanks for your help............

:godisgood:

The Charismatic Movement, by John R. Rice.

 

[Dustin]

Mod...I hope it is OK to repost this...I have some questions that need to be answered from both sides and this was very well written..Thanks.

This post come from: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=18749


AMEN!

I have read through all of the answers to her post and I have read many books, tracts, papers trying to prove this "Tongues as evidence" doctrine, but I am renewing this post because I am wanting to see if any of you believe: Tongues as an evidence for recieving the Holy Spirit and if so can you prove it biblically?

The largest group in the U.S.A that believes this doctrine is the United Pentecostal Church (Read my post: "Oneness Pentecostal Cult" http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37411.



The Oneness Pentecostals say there are THREE different typs of tongues...
1. Is the tongues when some gets saved and the HOLY GHOST comes with-in the believer-Tongues as the evidence of recieving the Holy Spirit.
2. The Gift of tongues used in an assembly with interpretation..
3. Tongues as a Prayer lagauge...

Are there different types of tongues?

I really want to know: How do we refute such a doctrine as this, from the biblical standpoint???

Do you know of any other books that will teach against thisDoctrine?

1. "Jesus Only churches" by E. Calvin Biesner...
2. "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity" by Gregory Boyd...
3. Name one more????????????????

Thanks for your help............

:godisgood:

They also believe in baptismal regeration which is an ancient holdover from Roman Catholicism. They're also very dogmatic on the mode of baptism, immersion ONLY in "Jesus's Name" ONLY and then you speak in tounges or you are NOT by any other means saved. It's rank Pelagianism.

They used to be Wesleyan holiness folks. I think that the fruit of the so-called "holiness" movement (Pentecostalism) speaks volumes about the theological errors they embrace. "Holiness" theology is directly linked to John Wesley's brand of Arminianism, which was highly influenced by Eastern Orthodox mysticism, hence the exhaltation of "signs and wonders".

:BangHead:

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Darron Steele]

They also believe in baptismal regeration which is an ancient holdover from Roman Catholicism. ...

Actually, Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals rejected the Trinity because Roman Catholicism teaches it and they do not find it explicit in Scripture. They believe in the full Divinity of Jesus Christ in a way other than the Trinity.

Their beliefs on `salvation by completed baptism' comes from the 1769 King James Version of Acts 2:38. That is actually their central verse. Further, many Apostolic Pentecostals will not use anything other than the King James Version and prefer that others not either.

 

[BobRyan]

They also believe in baptismal regeration which is an ancient holdover from Roman Catholicism.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

You signature says you are the resident Presbyterian here -- how in the world does infant baptism make any sense at all without baptismal regeneration --which is exactly why the RCC started it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals rejected the Trinity because Roman Catholicism teaches it and they do not find it explicit in Scripture. They believe in the full Divinity of Jesus Christ in a way other than the Trinity.

Do you believe they can be saved and still reject the Trinity?

 

[Dustin]

You signature says you are the resident Presbyterian here -- how in the world does infant baptism make any sense at all without baptismal regeneration --which is exactly why the RCC started it!

In Christ,

Bob

It has to do with covenants, not baptismal regeneration.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[DQuixote]

Whatever Biblical tongues were (was), Paul sought to quiet the confusion in the Corinthian church by pointing out that the greatest spiritual gift was to be able to share the message that Christ had arrived with the Kingdom message for the Jews, and now salvation by grace through faith had come to everyone else (including Jewish converts), the marvelous GIFT of God, with Paul as God's advocate, in the Name of Jesus!

Nothing was written down until Paul's letters arrived, followed sometime later by the gospels. The early church was growing based upon the oral testimony of reliable witnesses as to the advent, message, and ministry of Jesus. These reliable witnesses had to teach what? The doctrine according to Paul, NOT the doctrine of the OT or the Kingdom message for the Jews! In how many languages? Whoa! Was that a switch or what? No wonder the Jewish hierarchy got lockjaw!

What's at work here? The Holy Spirit.

In 13:8-10 what does Paul say? Why would it fade away? Because folks could read Paul's letters! They no longer had to rely upon accurate presentation by word of mouth, or some speaker who wasn't quite getting it right, or some guy who stood up babbling just as the pastor was making his 5th point! The preacher, the pastor, the evangelist, now had the written word and could exegesis all da live long day do-dah do-dah, glory hallelujah!

Can you imagine the excitement among the brethren when a letter from Paul arrived? Wow! Pow! "Get everyone together! It's a letter from Paul! Meeting at 6:30 in Fellowship Hall! Pastor and guest evangelist, who walked here (from X with Letter Z) on the program!"

Electricity in the air!!!!

 

[tragic_pizza]

Dustin is not the only Presbyterian here.

And he's right.

 

[Dustin]

Dustin is not the only Presbyterian here.

And he's right.

Shame on me for forgetting.