Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Brody Pope | PentecostalTheology.com
I’ve noticed that their are many “ministers” who claim to be Pentecostal, yet they are denying that the INITIAL physical evidence of the infilling/baptism of the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. I’m use to seeing people who aren’t Pentecostal preach against it, but if you’re a member of the mainline Pentecostal churches, small Pentecostal conferences, or independent Pentecostal churches, then why would you deny Scripture? Why would anybody of any denomination deny Scripture? I see it rather easily.
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 7:52 AM]
Historical chart http://cupandcross.com/diamonds-in-the-rough-n-ready-pentecostal-series-renewed/
Peter A Vandever [03/12/2016 7:58 AM]
Alot of people here are NOT really Pentecostal!
Henry Volk [03/12/2016 8:01 AM]
https://theologyinperspective.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/the-origins-of-modern-tongue-speech-part-1/
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 8:11 AM]
Corey Forsyth Not much record about this in America. First person to speak in tongues in the Assemblies of God was William Jethro Walthall of the Holiness Baptist Churches of Southwestern Arkansas. Then we have the Molokan immigrants in L.A. (known to have spoken in tongues in Russia under the Old Faith movement there) and the Irvingite (known to have spoken in tongues at Edward Irving’s Scottish revival meetings). 1854 – V. P. Simmons and Robert Boyd who were Irvingites reported tongue speaking during Moody’s meetings. Of curse, there are many reported in various European countries all through church history, but as far as America goes this seems to be it (documented). Dr. HAROLD HUNTER builds an excellent case in The FORGOTTEN ROOTS OF THE AZUSA STREET REVIVAL http://cupandcross.com/the-forgotten-roots-of-the-azusa-street-revival/ A detailed account of the 19th century Irvingite Church and its founder Edward Irving; who they were, what they believed, and why they are considered the source of the modern tongues movement is found here http://charlesasullivan.com/1826/the-irvingites-and-the-gift-of-tongues/
Jimmy Humphrey [03/12/2016 8:12 AM]
I’m Pentecostal but I don’t believe speaking in tongues has to be “the initial physical evidence.” Indeed, Jesus said the sign of the baptism wasn’t any particular manifestation, but rather, it was the demonstration of power. “You will receive power…”
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 8:14 AM]
Jimmy Humphrey I am afraid this makes you NOT Pentecostal?
Corey Forsyth [03/12/2016 8:23 AM]
Well since Brody opened up the can of worms… LOL Let’s define tongues. Are we talking about a heavenly prayer language that is personal to each or are we talking about the Upper Room encounter where otherwise ignorant people begin speaking in foreign languages to spread the Gospel to other nationalities? The problem I have with tongues is the ease of manipulation and the focus put on it from an emotional standpoint. I do not deny the gift of speaking in tongues in existence or operation, however, I see a lot of gifts left out because they are as easily mimicked. And before anyone tries to bite with overly anxious fangs, I am not indicating that the majority of tongue talkers are fake but enough are that cause concern and caution from me. Let the hate begin… LOL
Brody Pope [03/12/2016 8:51 AM]
So its safe to say that if you don’t believe that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, then you’re not a TRUE Pentecostal.
Stan Wayne [03/12/2016 9:01 AM]
I agree with IPE and think without it the dilution of congregations into mainline evangelicalism is evident.
Unfortunately it is a doctrine based on reasoning from Acts 2, 8, 9, 10,11, 19 rather than overt statement
Christopher Hart [03/12/2016 9:28 AM]
I’m not sure where you have seen this, or if perhaps you have mistaken the position some hold (like myself). I do not any longer believe that Scripture teaches tongues as the (exclusive) initial evidence of a believer being filled with the Spirit. An evience, yes. The evidence, no.
However, I do believe tongues are available to all believers through Spirit fullness/baptism, and that they are intended to be normative in the Spirit filled life, as well as in the life and ministry of the church (along with all the other gifts). So, I certainly don’t preach or teach against tongues. Rather, like Paul, I would that all should speak in tongues.
Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 9:30 AM]
Perhaps this link will clarify that speaking in tongues is one of the fundamental differences of the Pentecostal Movement that began in the early 20th century.
https://ifphc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=history.main
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 9:41 AM]
Christopher Hart wrote “The Bible no where teaches that tongues are THE initial evidence of Spirit baptism” – WRONG!
Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 9:58 AM]
Brody Pope, to say, that a person is not Pentecostal because he or she does not understand or have acceptance for the traditional, Mainline view on, initial evidence, is not a fair statement. It seems, that it would be better, to say, “The believe of Holy Spirit baptism, without initial evidence of speaking in tongues, is non-traditional.”
Being Pentecostal, is much more than believing a specific point about tongues.
To say that someone does not believe the Scripture, based on the point of initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism, is reaching too far.
Yes, I believe that, speaking in tongues is the initial evidence.
With this statement, with this belief, we are stating, gently , yet very clearly, that if a person has not yet, had the experience of speaking in tongues, then they are not baptized in Holy Spirit.
This, does not mean, they are not Pentecostal. It means, they are not baptized in the Holy Spirit.
However, we must understand, that this belief in initial evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues, comes from, a testimonial, presentation of individual experiences, people in the Bible have had.
We can’t find a 1-2-3, step program, like we can for salvation. Therefore, this point will forever, be debated.
People will forever use, “Experience Theology” ( made-up term for clarity), for this point.
Brody Pope [03/12/2016 10:00 AM]
Its just something that’s got me concerned.
Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 10:07 AM]
The best historical, and biblical View, for answering the question, “Is tongues the initial evidence?”
John A. Lombard Jr. Speaking in Tongues: Initial Evidence of Spirit Baptism?
Timothy Carter [03/12/2016 10:17 AM]
To say, ” Tongues is not the initial evidence.” Based on personal experience is, a weak argument.
Just as much, as it is a weak argument come to say, ” tongues is the initial evidence.” Based on personal experience.
We need to focus on the Word not personal experience.
To say, ” Tongues is not the initial evidence, because, many people fake, speaking in tongue,” is a weak argument.
Preaching can be faked, just watch TBN. Does this mean that preaching is not real?
Miracles, can be faked, look at historical records. We will find, throughout history, that so-called, Miracle healers have been con men.
Does this mean that Miracles are fake? Absolutely, not.
We do not get our understanding, for the gift of Miracles, or the calling to preach, from experience. We understand and accept both of these as well as, all the others , as being, created, and ordained by God in Scripture.
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 10:43 AM]
Christopher Hart The passages from Acts and other NT books have been already supplied in this discussion – pls see above. There is also the historical contribution of Pentecostal authors and ministers in 19-20c. America who all agreed even before Parham and Seymour that the Bible is quite clear on speaking in tongues being the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. A few early examples were already listed here with dates, chart and full bibliography: http://cupandcross.com/diamonds-in-the-rough-n-ready-pentecostal-series-complete/
Thus, currently and historically, the modern day Pentecostal community around the globe has long agreed on the initial evidence from being the Biblical foundation of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost baptism. This agreement has further concurred with virtually all historical examples throughout church history that date as far back as the Day of Pentecost 2,000 years ago.
It is understandable that some may have an interpretation of these passages that deviate from the sound Pentecostal doctrine and its historical development. Such deviations are minor in comparison to the broader Pentecostal movement of almost 700-800 million strong. The ones who fall in this minority are more than welcome to start new threads on each of the passages they are concerned with and explain their deviating interpretation for the group to take under consideration.
Nelson Banuchi [03/12/2016 11:09 AM]
Questions: Does classical Pentecostalism teach that professing Christians who do *not* speak in tongues:
1. are carnal, not being filled with the Spirit?
2. live as sub-Christian believers?
3. raise doubt that they are even saved in the first place?
4. are more liable to easily fall into sin or apostasy?
Thanks!
Christopher Hart [03/12/2016 11:30 AM]
1. Yes — though depending on which vein, some would have emphasized their not being sanctified which would have meant to them not Spirit filled either.
2. No, but could mistaken for such.
3. No.
4. Yes, but again one side would emphasize sanctification on this point more than Spirit baptism itself.
Ben Wilson [03/12/2016 11:51 AM]
Here’s a list of mighty men/women of God, past and present, just bubbling over with the Holy Spirit. . . as evidenced by the fact that they all have spoken in tongues:
William Branham A.A. Allen Jim Bakker Tammy Faye Bakker Jimmy Swaggart Donny Swaggart Paul Crouch Jan Crouch Gene Scott Earl Paulk Benny Hinn Paula White Ted Haggard Roberts Liardon Bill Sharp Marvin Gorman Clarence McClendon Mike Murdock John Hagee John Paulk
Since it can’t be made from scripture, it certainly would be easier to make the argument that speaking in tongues is evidence that the speaker is chock full of the Holy Spirit. . . . . if a few more prominent Pentecostals/Charismatics listed above would have lived consistent overcoming Godly lives. . . . .
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 11:53 AM]
Christopher Hart There’s no problem with your interpretation except that it is your private interpretation and is invalid for the whole Pentecostal movement worldwide. That’s all!
John Kissinger [03/12/2016 12:02 PM]
Jimmy Humphrey Again wrong on McPherson and 4-square
Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:14 PM]
What the Foursquare church believes. https://www.foursquare.org/about/what_we_believe
The Baptism of the Holy Spirit
We believe that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is an experience that follows salvation. All believers have God’s Spirit within them. Holy Spirit baptism empowers believers to exalt Jesus, to live lives of holiness, and to be witnesses of God’s saving grace. We believe that those who experience Holy Spirit baptism today will experience it in the same manner that believers experienced it in the early church; in other words, we believe that they will speak in tongues—languages that are not known to them (Acts 1: 5, 8; 2:4).
Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:18 PM]
What the Assemblies of God believes. http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#7
7. The Baptism in the Holy Spirit
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry. •Luke 24:49 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 1:4 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 1:8 [KJV/NIV] •1 Corinthians 12:1-31 [KJV/NIV]
This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth. •Acts 8:12-17 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 10:44-46 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 11:14-16 [KJV/NIV] •Acts 15:7-9 [KJV/NIV]
With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as:
•an overflowing fullness of the Spirit, John 7:37-39 [KJV/NIV], Acts 4:8 [KJV/NIV] •a deepened reverence for God, Acts 2:43 [KJV/NIV], Hebrews 12:28 [KJV/NIV] •an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work, Acts 2:42 [KJV/NIV] •and a more active love for Christ, for His Word and for the lost, Mark 16:20 [KJV/NIV]
8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. •Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]
The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use. •1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV] •1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]
Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:20 PM]
What a local church practices may not be in line with the statement of belief of the denomination or movement. However, generally an affirmation of alignment with the statement of faith is required.
Terry Wiles [03/12/2016 1:25 PM]
What the Church of God in Christ believes http://www.cogic.org/our-foundation/what-we-believe/
THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST
We believe that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is an experience subsequent to conversion and sanctification and that tongue-speaking is the consequence of the baptism in the Holy Ghost with the manifestations of the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23; Acts 10:46, 19:1-6). We believe that we are not baptized with the Holy Ghost in order to be saved (Acts 19:1-6; John 3:5). When one receives a baptismal Holy Ghost experience, we believe one will speak with a tongue unknown to oneself according to the sovereign will of Christ. To be filled with the Spirit means to be Spirit controlled as expressed by Paul in Ephesians 5:18-19. Since the charismatic demonstrations were necessary to help the early church to be successful in implementing the command of Christ, we therefore, believe that a Holy Ghost experience is mandatory for all men today.
tj [03/14/2016 3:05 PM]
in I Cor 1:2 Paul says he wrote “to the Church of God which is at Corinth” and then in verse :10 he talks to the “brethren.” So Paul is talking to believers. In ! Cor 14:5 Paul says, “Now I wish you all spoke in tongues.” Paul is telling believers he wishes they all spoke in tongues – so not all believers did…or do. But then, thats just what the Bible says, you mansplainers have different views.
Rev. Jerry VanTilburg
I firmly believe the under lying reason for not believing in speaking in tongues as the initial physical evidence of be baptized in the Holy Spirit is unbelief. Everything else superfluous.
Nathan Hellrung
Do you believe that a believer must speak in tongues to truly be saved then?
Mary Ellen Nissley
Nathan, that’s a Jesus-Only belief. Most Pentecostals who believe in the initial evidence of tongues do not believe one must speak in tongues to prove their salvation.
Shannon P Smith
That seems like a contradictory statement. Isn’t “evidence” used as “proof”? Doesn’t “initial” make it the ‘proof that comes first’?
Not trying to troll, I’m just not sure that I understand what you are saying.
Mary Ellen Nissley
Shannon P Smith No. You don’t understand. The idea of tongues being the “initial evidence” is not the evidence of salvation, but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
And no, new believers do NOT automatically receive the Holy Spirit at salvation. Read Acts 8.
Shannon P Smith
Mary Ellen Nissley – do you believe the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation? Can someone be saved without the Holy Spirit?
Mary Ellen Nissley
Jesus said to his disciples that the Holy Spirit was WITH them, but was not yet IN them. Technically, they “had the Holy Spirit”, long before they were baptized in the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost.
No one can be born again without the activity of the Holy Ghost working in them. But the Holy Ghost works in us not only after we are born again, but before we are born again!
The Samaritans were truly born again before they received the Holy Ghost baptism. How do we know? Because of how the Apostles handled the situation.
Look at Acts 19. When Paul found believers who had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he asked them, unto whom then were you baptized? Evidently, the Holy Ghost baptism was expected to happen at the time of water baptism.
But those believers at Ephesus had not been baptized correctly yet in water… so Paul corrected that part… and the rest happened as was expected in the first-century church: the Holy Ghost fell upon them.
Back to Acts 8 and the Samaritans. The apostles did not correct the water baptism, because that part was done correctly.
Now, these were bona fide believers in Christ as the Messiah. That’s why their water baptism was valid.
HOW can one be born again, without having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as the Samaritans evidently were?
Now, if the apostles had the same theology most churches have today, they would NOT have gone down there to pray for them to receive the Holy Ghost! Instead, they would have gone down there to reassure them that they automatically had received the Holy Ghost, without any outward evidence!
But notice, the apostles had no such doctrine.
Louise Cummings
The Bible tells you how to be saved. The Jesus told Hid disciples to tarry in Jerusalem until they be Endued with Power From On High. Then they did what He said. And The Holy Ghost came and they all were Filled. He said when He Comes You will have Power to Heal in Jesus Name and all things Jesus said they would do. Because He was The Comforter Jesus said He would Sene. He said When He Comes He shall Guide You into All Truths And Righteousness. The Bible Said ye must be born again. You must do that to get to Heaven. But don’t you want the Comforter to guide you. To cast out Devils. All the things Jesus said you could do with the Holy Ghost.
Jon Ray
John Ruffle It seems historically that when we turn from classic Pentecostal theology to a broader theological view we lose all of our Pentecostal theology and start theologizing about things that have nothing to do with our faith John Conger John Ruffle CrossTheology Ricky Grimsley
CrossTheology
I personally would not have made it into a doctrine. I’m hesitant about it. I do absolutely believe that often it was the initial sign but not always. For others it was prophecy etc. 🙂
Jon Ray
You wouldnt make speaking of tongues a doctrine? #strange
John Ruffle
“Just do it!”
Jon Ray
Not so fast John Ruffle CrossTheology If you start taking away the doctrine of speaking in tongues from Pentecostalism, what do you have left beside jumping around?
CrossTheology
I’m talking from a Christian perspective, not from a Pentecostal-denominational perspective 🙂
Varnel Watson
I’ve longed argued that Pentecostals who deny speaking in tongues as important are simply Charismatics. I’ve commented on your blog before article that said this is true Pentecostalism or something similar that had nothing to do with true Pentecostalism. IMO a Pentecostal without tongues is just glorified baptist and I can elaborate why. But when writing blogs under the title Pentecostal perhaps we should depend on a more deep Pentecostal research and not on mare evangelical or even catholic sources CrossTheology
CrossTheology
Are you referring to this article, Troy Day? https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/what-do-pentecostals-believe/ Otherwise I don’t know what you are talking about…
Varnel Watson
Yes Tom thanks. I am a Pentecostal and this does not even begin to describe what I believe 🙂
CrossTheology
I grew up in Pentecostal churches and I study at the AoG seminary in Brussels. Of course you can have a different opinion. 🙂
Tim Renneberg
I’m not sure that the denial of initial evidence… or placing less significance on tongues (prayer language or otherwise) places one in the Charismatic camp. Pentecostals trace their origins (North American pentecostals) to Charles Parham in Topeka, Kansas and the Azusa St. Outpouring. Charismatics trace their roots to the late 50s and early 60s renewal in the Catholic and Anglican church. Both camps generally have very strong “initial evidence of tongues” beliefs/statements.
Mary Ellen Nissley
Tim Renneberg, Pentecostal roots go much further back than the 1906 Azusa Street outpouring. The Second Great Awakening saw some pentecostal activity… and out of that came the “Grandmother of the Pentecostal Movement”, Maria Woodworth Etter. In her meetings during the 1880’s, there were dramatic healings, trances, prophecies and tongues. And the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) has its roots in a movement that began in the Appalachians, in the 1880’s, completely isolated from Etter’s influence. This movement began experiencing tongues at least a decade before Azusa Street happened.
Mary Ellen Nissley
And I don’t care what “camp” deniers of the initial evidence of tongues want to be placed in. It’s false doctrine.
If the apostles had held the doctrine that one can receive the Holy Ghost without any outward evidence, they would never have made that trip to Samaria in Acts 8.
Tim Renneberg
Did you read my post? It seems like you missed the point.
Mary Ellen Nissley
After I posted my reply, I read back over the conversation and realized I didn’t quite stay on point there… sorry.
And you are correct, both those who self-identify as Charismatic and those who call themselves Pentecostals really usually do have a strong belief in the initial evidence of tongues.
I come from a very strong Mennonite (anti-Pentecostal) heritage, into the old-fashioned Pentecostals… but I spent about 4 years in the Kenneth Hagin camp just to try to save my marriage (it didn’t work.) So I have experience in three major camps.
Tim Renneberg
4 years is a long time to spend in the Hagin camp… a plethora of error/false teaching to wade through there
Mary Ellen Nissley
Sigh. I sat there like a good little girl, flipping madly through my Bible, reading all the verses the Holy Spirit was reminding me of, that contradicted what they were preaching. It was a harsh training ground.
Varnel Watson
All good points Tim Tom Seems though that denying the evidence carries much more theological weight than over accenting the doctrine of tongues BTW prayer language is a term of 70s charismatics and was rarely connected with the origins of modern day Pentecostalism
David M. Hinsen
Interesting
Varnel Watson
Brody Pope brought this important topic to the group’s attention. It’s his birthday today
David M. Hinsen
Happy birthday Brady Pope
Brody Pope
If you deny speaking in tongues being the initial physical evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, you’re not a Pentecostal.
Varnel Watson
it’s not enough to just believe it either. You have to experience and practice it…
David M. Hinsen
Amen
Varnel Watson
A step further: tongues are the exclusive initial evidence of a believer being filled with the Spirit. I see this was discussed at one point with Christopher Hart
Tim Renneberg
If we are equating the baptism of (in) the Holy Spirit and the filling of the Spirit, than yes, tongues are the initial physical evidence, but not necessarily the only evidence, and it shouldn’t be the only evidence.
Michael Marquez
Agreed. All mainline Pentecostal bodies AOG, COG, COGC, COGP, IPHC, ICFG, PCOG, etc etc taught that tongues was the initial evidence of being Baptized in the Holy Spirit. That belief changed with the Charismatic Movement.
Varnel Watson
What virtually all Pentecostal denominations believe concerning Speaking in Other Tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all-pentecostal-denominations-believe-concerning-speaking-in-other-tongues-as-the-initial-evidence-of-the-baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/
Dan Irving
Yes; most of the major Pentecostal denominations affirm Tongues as Initial Evidence in their Statements of Faith. However, walk into many of AOG, COG, etc. etc., churches today, and they will oppose you. The doctrine is becoming increasingly unpopular among both clergy and laity.
Varnel Watson
Wish that was the case with entire sanctification Terry Wiles
Terry Wiles
Lol. I would compile a similar list concerning sanctification but I have yet to come to an understanding about what certain groups believe. I.e. Their doctrinal statements make little sense to me except they believe something subjective happens sometime to some people.
Varnel Watson
Cant wait for this one. Been waiting for a while to see it
Anonymous
this is ALSO a great one you should know from your grandma Philip Williams I am really not certian at this time Bishop Bernie L Wade from which Pentecostal tradition Link Hudson derives – most certainly he does not adhere to the cog teaching of initial evidence and believes you can turn tongues on/off or pause at times; the GBI claim also failed as apparantely they are pre-trib and he is not… JUST something to think about by TerryandNita Wiles https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all-pentecostal-denominations-believe-concerning-speaking-in-other-tongues-as-the-initial-evidence-of-the-baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/
Anonymous
Troy Day Do you think the speaking in tongues in I Corinthians 14 is the same as ‘initial evidence.’
It is very clear from I Corinthians 14 that there are occasions when one COULD speak in tongues where one SHOULD NOT from I Corinthians 14:28. Paul would not have told a man to keep silence if he were not capable of doing so, would he?
As far as I know, the COG does not have any official doctrinal stand on not being able to stop if you speak in tongues. The Congregational Holiness had something in their member booklet about not believing that one could speak in tongues ‘at will’, as if that were different from speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. But not all the members held to this viewpoint.
It was at that point that I realized that Pentecostals aren’t all on the same page when it comes to how speaking in tongues functions. You are in the A/G, though, and the ‘prayer language’ approach seemed to be the dominant approach, at least the idea that you could pray in tongues if you wanted to.
Smith Wigglesworth was a Pentecostal, and he thought his one-off experience was initial evidence, but he couldn’t replicate it later. When he was later able to pray in tongues when he wanted to, he considered that to be the gift of tongues.
Also, the COG has a doctrinal statement that is ambiguously worded enough that it might include post-tribbers, IMO. It is definitely premil. The A/G statement can fit mid or post-trib also.
“The second coming of Christ includes the rapture of the saints, which is our blessed hope, followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on earth for one thousand years.”
They’d kick out a preacher who is amil though, or so I hear, or at least if he writes a book promoting it.
But they don’t care if you attend. I am not ordained through either denomination. I would not want to claim to believe doctrinal details not in scripture. I also wouldn’t want to obligate myself with man’s requirements in such a way where I could not partake of holy communion with a clean conscience if I travel to Asia and go to these same types of churches over there. I’m pretty sure I’ve had trace amounts of alcohol in communion at a GBI in Indonesia. A fellow expat commented on the alcohol content of the wine at Yoido Full Gospel in South Korea. I figured that was the case but didn’t know much about what wine tasted like, being raised Pentecostal. I was surprised because even a lot of the Presbyterians in that country are teetotalers.
Anonymous
Link Hudson are you still speaking in tongues ?
Anonymous
Troy Day I do, but not right this second.
Anonymous
Link Hudson you misunderstood my question do you recognize it as a valuable doctrinal teaching of cog; do you adhere to it per yalls minutes practical commitments for each church member requirements or however you may call them – how do you propose to start/stop speaking in tongues uttered by the Spirit per Bishop Bernie L Wade question he asked you yesterday? Tongues is much more holistic than you seem to give it credit – and I mean the sign of tongues as initial evidence since we are not yet talking about the 1cor 14 gift of tongues here just yet
Anonymous
Troy Day I have not joined a COG congregation as a member over practical commitments.
How do I propose to stop speaking in tongues? I propose doing what the Bible teaches. Paul told the speaker in tongues in a certain situation to keep silent. It is obvious from I Corinthians 14 that the speaker has some control over it. At the least he can stop. Whether he can speak in tongues any time he wants to pray in tongues…. the passage isn’t clear on that, and hearing people talk, their experiences are different. Wigglesworth seemed to think his ability to pray in tongues when he wanted, an ability he gained after his first experience with speaking in tongues, was the gift of tongues. He separated initial evidence from the gift of tongues. In my experience, they seem to function the same way. After that first experience, which was singing in tongues for me, followed by speaking in tongues, I could speak in tongues in prayer after that. I couldn’t before.
I think some of the denominations have had leaders who made their experience doctrine. I don’t know of any Pentecostal denominations that have a statement against speaking in tongues ‘at will’ in their books except for the Congregational Holiness, and I saw one of their manuals back in the early 1990’s, so I don’t know about now. That was probably the experience of those involved in writing the book.
The idea that if you can speak in tongues at a given moment, that you MUST do so to be obedient or that you have no other choice can lead to disorder in the church. If someone stands up and starts speaking in tongues whenever someone starts to teach the word of God and there is no interpretation…. that sort of thing. Some people attribute that to the flesh or worse.
Tongues is a gift to be stewarded, like other gifts. One who can operate in it can choose to obey the commandments of the Lord and keep silent in a I Corinthians 14:28 situation. If we continue the prophet, the prophet speaking has the ability to be quiet and let someone else who gets a revelation speak. If he objects to that idea and says he cannot stop, he should read on, ‘For the spirts of the prophets are subject to the prophets.’
Anonymous
So WHO is to stop people from speaking in tongues? Bishop Bernie L Wade Should we have a special usher or officer to watch over this? Link Hudson How can you stop the Holy Spirit of speaking – I presume you are not talking about the Gift of the Holy Spirt but the initial evidence as introduced by this OP – and pls stop copy posting the same thing over and over If it was confusing the first time posting it, it probably still is
Anonymous
Troy Day the infilling of the Holy Spirit is a transaction that is controlled by the Holy Spirit as we surrender our will to His. Bondservants to Jesus Christ are obedient to His will and His way. It is not a negotiation. God is not running a Democracy. That is the vie from my porch…
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade so is speaking in tongues NOT a Democracy
Anonymous
Troy Day lol. Depends on who is speaking.
Anonymous
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/why-tongues-the-initial-evidence-doctrine-in-north-american-pentecostal-churches/
Anonymous
Why do you assume that those who deny it, disregard scripture? There is not a shred of evidence in all of scripture that supports that tounges, falsely called “ecstatic utterances” is the initial evidence of salvation…
Anonymous
Kyle Williams SALVATION? who assumes that? Why are you alwys presenting some classical strawman no one is aruging ? Did you ever read the article by TerryandNita Wiles before commenting ? SUCH a Typical jyper calvinator forum tactics
Anonymous
Troy Day I did read the article and that’s why I phrased the question the way that I did.
In scripture, baptism with/in the Holy Spirit is nothing more or less than Regeneration. The article posits that speaking in tounges is the initial evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit. To say that someone is not Spirit baptized is to say they are as much a child of the devil.
Plus in scripture, tounges is always a known language. No exceptions.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams the article in question titled
WHAT VIRTUALLY ALL PENTECOSTAL DENOMINATIONS BELIEVE CONCERNING SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES AS THE INITIAL EVIDENCE OF THE BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT?
compiled by our faithfull member TerryandNita Wiles expliccitely states and I quote
We believe that we are not baptized with the Holy Ghost in order to be saved (Acts 19:1-6; John 3:5).
Where do you get the rest is a mystery https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-virtually-all-pentecostal-denominations-believe-concerning-speaking-in-other-tongues-as-the-initial-evidence-of-the-baptism-with-the-holy-spirit/?fbclid=IwAR2Ou2XkttatNbs-Qnq9smwA5ixBSEr6c_RH0OkDawez8m9GcEd5vWq_35I
Anonymous
Kyle Williams your straw man (I am confident is unintentional) is that most historic (and modern) Pentecostals do not equate regeneration with Spirit baptism. It is subsequent to regeneration. Spirit baptism is for empowerment for mission, not for new birth according to classic Pentecostalism. Classic Pentecostalism makes a distinction between the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit (which happens at regeneration, is salvific, and is received by faith alone) and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (for empowerment). So a Pentecostal (who knows the historic Pentecostal doctrine) does not think that just because you don’t speak in tongues you don’t have the Holy Spirit, you have just not been filled or baptized with the Spirit.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams the largest obstacle that conservative Evangelicals, especially Reformed folk, have with understanding Pentecostalism is that they assume Reformed definitions of these words which are not universally held by the Church at large.
Anonymous
Kyle Williams Oneness Pentecostals are basically the only ones that teach that you are not a Christian until you speak in tongues and they only make up .01% of global Pentecostalism.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips I understand that. My contention is how pentecostals define the baptism of the Spirit
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips Kyle you do NOT understand that because that is ABSOLUTELY incorrect – Oneness Pentecostals are basically NOT the only ones Link Hudson Bishop Bernie L Wade
Anonymous
Troy Day still waiting on that “oneness” definition
Anonymous
Troy Day I am talking about as a percentage of Pentecostals. The majority of Pentecostals do not teach that you have to speak in tongues to be saved. I am referring to PEW research data. Unless you have statistics to the contrary.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips what percentage of Pentecostals would you say clearly? POST the link to PEW where you are getting this pls
Anonymous
Bishop Bernie L Wade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1lyhY6hRtI
Anonymous
Troy Day I have heard of a fringe Pentecostal preacher here or there who wasn’t Oneness Pentecostal who thought if you did not speak in tongues you aren’t saved. But it seems really rare, and fringe. I don’t know of any non-Oneness Pentecostal denomination that teaches that.
Joshua Peter Phillips I read some years back that Oneness was 5% of Global Pentecostalism. Do you think the numbers have changed, or does the 1% include Pentecostals and Charismatics, including the large grouping of Roman Catholic Charismatics?
Anonymous
Link Hudson yeah that is exactly what I am getting at. You have fringe Pentecostals that will teach something different but it’s exactly that, fringe. They are not representative of the movement.
And you are right, I was including the broader Renewalist movement in that. But even 5% is such a small minority that they don’t represent Classic Pentecostalism.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips still waiting for that PEW Link brother
Anonymous
Troy Day Sorry, I am working right now, so I had to do the digging when I am not talking with a client. I was mistaken on the source. Its been a while since I researched the topic. It is actually from the World Christian Database (which requires a login) but I got the information from Allan Anderson’s book, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. Here is a link where is you can read a summary. https://www.andrewkgabriel.com/2017/09/26/how-many-pentecostals/
Anonymous
That gives you the statics on Oneness Pentecostals. Then I took a look at the top Pentecostal denominations worldwide and looked at their doctrinal statements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pentecostal_and_Full_Gospel_Churches. Once you read each of their doctrinal statements what you find is that the Trinitarians almost universally teach salvation by faith and Spirit baptism as subsequent to conversion. It is only the Oneness churches that teach tongues as the sign of the actual indwelling and regenerating work.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips none of the is PEW brother 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day I understand, that is why I said I was mistaken. The data is there nonetheless.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips WIKI is no data source 🙂Andrew Gabriel @ one point posted in his group – he is a Canadian charismatic who does not subscribe to our classical Pentecostal beliefs Melvin Harter
Anonymous
Troy Day 1. the sources that are referenced from wiki are directly from the denominational websites, therefore they are not made-up data. 2. Andrew Gabriel is a member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, a classical Pentecostal denomination with ties to the AG. 3. I merely provided a link to his website because it supplies the info from Allan Anderson’s book without you having to go out and purchase it yourself (if you don’t own it already). 4. The background of Andrew Gabriel is irrelevant to the accuracy of the information provided. 5. I have at least provided statistics to back up my claim. You have provided nothing except for anecdotes.
Anonymous
Troy Day I had not mentioned Pew research.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips There are independent Oneness. ‘Apostolic’ is a common label they use in that movement. Is there any way to tell how many Oneness don’t show up in the denominational lists?
I am surprised that Foursquare is so big. I’d only heard of their congregations in California and Hawaii in the US. I’ve spent more time in the eastern part of the country with many years in Hawaii. There are at least a few megachurches that are affiliated with Foursquare in Hawaii, one of which was planted out of a mother church. A couple of the megachurches seem more seeker sensitive evangelical. Many years back, Foursquare partnered with GPDI in Indonesia, one of the very old Pentecostal denominations. I wonder if they grew a lot by including existing large denominations under their umbrella.
Anonymous
Link Hudson I know they also have a significant presence overseas.
Anonymous
Joshua Peter Phillips I was looking at Wikipedia. It doesn’t give an overview of where they are. The Foursquare missions site doesn’t seem to have much information either. The denomination is in the hundreds of thousands in the US, in western states mainly.
One of the Wikipedia links, the one of ‘Apostolic’ doesn’t link to a page on a Oneness group. I wonder if that is their estimate of the number of independents.
As far as history and heritage goes, Forsquare not really a denomination I’d want to have my identity all wrapped up in. COG is the same way to a lesser degree. McPherson, female founder, marriage situations, scandal. The COG had snake handling and some emotionalism. I’ve gone to both at different times, though, but they didn’t push or promote denominational identity in the Foursquares I was in. I heard in one if someone spoke in tongues or prophesied in the congregation, they’d haul him out.
I spoke with one pastor, and he thought if someone got a prophecy, they should pass it to a pastor who would let the senior pastor choose whether it could be shared or not. He said they did that on Church on the Way. I liked Jack Heyford’s teachings that I heard, but I don’t see how that fits with I Corinthians 14. It isn’t traditional standard practice of the denomination.
Anonymous
Link Hudson it was Joshua Peter Phillips who said PEW but it wasnt pew – he had it from somewhere else We have moved on… WikiTheology actually sounds even worse than CharismaMAG Lee Grady / The Mordecai Project
Anonymous
Troy Day still waiting on anything from you.
Anonymous
what Henry Volk proposed on [03/12/2016 8:01 AM] here broders the heretical Kyle Williams
https://theologyinperspective.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/the-origins-of-modern-tongue-speech-part-1/
Anonymous
Peter Vandever Link Hudson TerryandNita Wiles Henry Volk Neil Steven Lawrence John Mushenhouse Dale M. Coulter James Philemon Bowers J.D. King Paul L. King Frank Macchia Henry Volk Bishop Bernie L Wade I would also like to bring in this discussion an idea I was cornered with at a conference not long ago NAMELY the conneciton of Pual’s Corinthian tongues and the glasolalia of the Delphi prophetesses
https://charlesasullivan.com/7985/delphi-prophetesses-christian-tongues/
Anonymous
aparently Kyle Williams one Wm. Norman Saxon wrote a 34p booklet that aligns with your rejection of Pentecostal evidence
The gift of tongues has been rightly called the counterfeit gospel. It has led modern churches to dismiss the law and the prophets — to forget the faith once delivered to the saints. The ecstatic excitement of Charismatic Pentecostalism is sweeping the world in literal fulfillment of the Lord’s description of those who seek signs and wonders (Matt. 12: 39).
The origin of speaking in estatic or unknown tongues antedates Christianity by centuries but its pagan background is utterly unsuspected by those who are caught up in the euphoria of neo-Pentecostalism. In fact the source of this ancient religious rite has stirred curiously little concern among Christians in general — that is until the phenomenal spread of the tongues doctrine during the latter half of the 20th Century. Its growing incursion into many congregations among the more sober mainline denominations has raised the consciousness of even nominal Christians. The non-churched public is amused and titillated by the lingering scandals of nationally-known televangelists — all of whom are Charismatic Pentecostals.
The resurgence of this oracular phenomenon has been called the most significant religious development since the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. Unless you have been paying particular attention to what has been happening in the Christian churches in recent years you may be somewhat astounded to discover how far and wide the doctrine of tongues or glossolalia has spread. Religious statistics estimate the number of Charismatic and Pentecostal adherents at about 50 million in the United States and 275 million around the world placing it among the most rapidly growing flanks of Christianity.
In the Pentecostal movement the Spirit is regarded as being communicated by and ecstatic experience. But in the Apostolic and Reformation view the Holy Spirit is communicated through the Word of God — not some audio-visual sign.
Paul and the Oracles of Delphi is a timely study of an ancient enigma.
staple back
34 pages
Paul and Oracles of Delphi,William Norman Saxon,paul and the oracles of delphi,william norman saxon,Pentecostal, movement,Apostolic,16th Century Protestant Reformation,Holy Spirit,speaking in tongues, estactcism,counterfeit gospel,Charismatic Pentecostalism,Assemblies of God,glossolalia doctrine, BS00266,ecstatic ravenings,priests,prophets,charlatans,hellenic world,greece,greeks,paul,pagans,christians,native of tarsus,denominational churches,estatic speech,pythia
https://artisanpublishers.com/paul-oracles-delphi-does-tongue-movement-have-pagan-background-p-25691.html
Anonymous
Troy Day You should be honest with your accusations. You know article does not align with my viewpoint. I believe in speaking in tongues. I am also an admin and founder of the Cessationism v. Continuationism forum where I have posted many articles defending continuationism.
The Bible does not teach that one cannot be filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues. There were believers in Acts who prophesied when the Spirit came on them. The case that tongues is the exclusive physical evidence of being baptized with the Holy Spirit rests on a rather fuzzy interpretation. God does as He pleases.
John MacArthur preached a sermon in the early 1990’s, which he posted on YouTube, had a sermon in which he alleged that Paul was addressing pagan tongues and tried to associate them with the type of speech spoken by the Oracle at Delphi. I do not see the year this book was published. I wonder if this was his source. This sort of interpretation is inconsistent with a high view of scripture, since Paul would have to be mistaken and not know what he was talking about for the interpretation to make sense. That is not consistent with John MacArthur’s claims about his beliefs.
Another problem with associating tongues with the Oracle of Delphi is that Plutarch lived in the first century and worked right there as a priest at Delphi, and he defended the Oracle of Delphi for speaking in regular speech rather than in high Greek poetry. So the idea that Corinthians were modelling some kind of ecstatic babbling from the temple at Delphi, a bit over 100 miles away, does not fit the historical evidence about
Anonymous
Link Hudson The Bible does not teach that one cannot be filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues is wrong in many ways Bishop Bernie L Wade I suppose you can say that when you drop the word Holy before Spirit HOWEVER as for the Holy Spirit Neil Steven Lawrence Melvin Harter The Bible does teach that one cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues It is that so very simple in the BIBLE
Anonymous
Troy Day except that of all the cases mentioned in the Bible, a portion of them did not speak in tongues when receiving the Spirit Baptism. Therefore we can say it was the normative experience, but not mandatory.
Anonymous
Troy Day show where the Bible teaches that one cannot be filled with the Holy Spirit if he does not speak in tongues. Chapter and verse please.
Anonymous
Link Hudson I would use your own argument of slience – there is not a SINGLE place in the Bible where they were baptized with the Spirit without the initial evidence. Not a single one – SHOW ME baptism I will show you evidence
Anonymous
Troy Day the question is one of whether Biblucal cases like this bind the Spirit to act a certain way.
1. Moses went to Horeb/Sinai and heard the voice of God. 2. The nation of Israel went to Horeb/Sinai and heard the voicevof God. 3. Elijah went to Horeb/Sinai and heard the voice of God
Show me one case of a group or individual or group who went to Mt. Sinai who heard the voice of God.
Does this put a requirement on God to speak to everyone who goes to Mt. Sinai?
Acts 4:8 points out that Peter had been filled with the Spirit before preaching a message to the rulers. Paul also before declaring Elymas blind. Ch.13. Paul told the Ephesians to be filled wIth the Spirit speaking to themselves in Psalms hymns and spiritual songs Eph 5.
Before Pentecostal in Acts 2 Zecharias was filled with the Spirit and prophesied.
Anonymous
https://charlesasullivan.com/1904/glossolalia-ecstasy-tongues/
Anonymous
LET me remind the topic to Link Hudson PENTECOSTALS WHO DENY THE INITIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE INFILLING/BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES AS THE SPIRIT GIVES THE UTTERANCE
since you keep on posting 1 Cor 14 as a reference – where in that passage do you see tongues As INITIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THE INFILLING/BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES AS THE SPIRIT GIVES THE UTTERANCE?
Anonymous
In one of my posts, I said that Paul does not mention the idea of speaking in tongues as ‘initial physical evidence.’
Acts does not teach that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of baptism with the Holy Ghost either. We do see in Acts that on the day of Pentecost, they all spoke with tongues, probably speaking of the disciples that had been gathering in the upper room. In Acts 10 when the Spirit fell on the Gentiles, they spoke with tongues and magnified God. In Acts 19, Paul laid his hands on some disciples of John that he had just baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. It doesn’t specify that each individual prophesied and that each individual spoke in tongues, but that ‘they’ did these things.
Acts 8 mentions the Spirit falling upon Samaritans who received the Spirit, but it does not mention speaking in tongues.
That’s the evidence used to prop up ‘the initial evidence doctrine.’ As far as how speaking in tongues functions, the Bible doesn’t say whether anything about whether those in Acts 2, 10, or 19 had the ability to stop speaking in tongues if they wanted to. I Corinthians 14 does not address initial evidence, but it does indicate that speakers had the ability to refrain and should under at least one circumstance.
Some Pentecostals and many Charismatics seem to think as initial evidence tongues as when one gets his or her ‘prayer language’, kind of implying it is the same thing. Other Pentecostals don’t believe in getting a prayer language ‘at will’, but that seems to be a minority position that is dying out along with the idea that one has to have a very distinct one-time experience of ‘sanctification’ between coming to faith in Christ and being baptized with the Holy Ghost. (That step isn’t mention in Acts 19….. Where is it mentioned?) I suspect the Pentecostals who are against the ‘prayer language’ use of tongues (‘at will’) tend to be from the ‘zap’ sanctification school of thought.
Anonymous
Link Hudson IF I Corinthians 14 does not address initial evidence why you keep on re-posting your copy pastes on I Corinthians 14 which does not address initial evidence ?
Anonymous
Troy Day I’m typing stuff fresh.
I Corinthians 14 tells us a lot of what we can know from scripture on how speaking in tongues works.
My own initial experience with speaking in tongues aligned with later uses of it, which fall under I Corinthians 14 guidelines. I suspect that is the case with many other Pentecostals.
Anonymous
‘Deny scripture’ and not insisting that everyone who is baptized with the Spirit has spoken in tongues are not the same thing.
Interesting graphic, btw. Has anyone read a source on the ‘gift people’ except from a ‘Beniah at the Crossroads’ article? Has anyone here read Doughty’s writings on the topic. I was thinking that was in Maine in my vague recollection. He also said they were called ‘Gift Adventists.” I wonder if they had historical ties to Miller and the Adventist movement which emphasized the Second Coming and got into date setting. The Seventh-Day Adventists are an off-shoot of this movement, but I suspect the original group may not have had the emphasis on the seventh day or keeping quasi-kosher.
Anonymous
Link Hudson yes there is PLENTY of sources on the ‘gift people’ including Tomlinson and several others come to mind Bishop Bernie L Wade was Dake there too @ one time A.J. Bible ??? Or was he just @ Zion
Anonymous
Troy Day Did they use the title ‘gift people.’ There was apparently a movement where the people were called ‘gift people’ or ‘gift Adventists’ in the 1870’s. I was thinking I read about that being in Maine, though the chart says Rhode Island. I haven’t read that Beniah at the Crossroads article in a long time. Was Tomlinson included in that?
Was there any connection between Sanford’s group and that?
Anonymous
Link Hudson they did – any student of Pentecostal history know that HOWEVER they did not use it in the sense you are trying to force it – i.e. the gift and the evidence being one in the same praxis; It was not until PARHAM as Bishop Bernie L Wade well wrote in his book that TONGUES was formulated and recognized as initial evidence THEN Azusa followed
Anonymous
Troy Day I’m inclined to believe the Spirit can work in many ways… like empowering one individual once to speak in tongues, and another for a lifetime. I don’t see where the Bible backs up the idea that every believer must have a ‘prayer language’, though on the other hand, all things are possible to him that believes and we can pray in faith. I think it is as available as the working of miracles.
By ‘they did’ do you mean that Tomlinson interacted with those who were called ‘gift Adventists’, but themselves or others? Were they a part of the Adventist movement, or did they get the label because they shared an emphasis on the return of Christ? Is there a book you could point those of us who might be interested to that goes into detail on this?
Anonymous
Link Hudson I am entirely AMUSED that we have discussed this very graphic with you I dont know how many times I even read your own comments since 2015 under several instances and discussions including the graph – it is almost someone has taken your FB profile (or brain) is everything OK? Click twice if you’re being held hostage…
Anonymous
You might have posted it on a thread I commented on and I paid little attention to the picture. It’s possible I commented on the graphic. I don’t remember commenting on the graphic, but that is possible. I remember asking somewhere if people had more information on ‘Gift Adventists’. That might have been here. I got a link to the same Beniah at a Crossroads page that had piqued my interest and caused me to ask the question. Not sure if that was on this forum. But I don’t remember that being related to the graph.
Anonymous
Link Hudson No man I am looking @ the graph and a bunch of comments by you under it And today it is like youVE never seen it 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day I just see one recent comment on the page you linked to. If you are looking in Facebook, do you have a link you could share?
Anonymous
Link Hudson We will have to put one post together about the gift people and all FB comments – let’s see when we can do that today… Bishop Bernie L Wade have you mentioned them in your book?
Anonymous
Once again, experience does not take preeminence over scripture. More of the same.
Anonymous
Frances Merritt what are you talking about?
Anonymous
many more instances of those who didn’t; too many for an illustration like this. And there are too many people who babble incoherently (which is NOT Biblical “unknown languages”) and have never won a soul to Christ (Acts 1:8) and cause discord in churches (Prov. 6:16-19)
Anonymous
Steve Losee what do you mean by this? is it related to our OP here?
Anonymous
Steve Losee I went to a GBI Bethany meeting in the 1990s. They were hosting Roberts Liardon back when he pastored a church. The song leader instructed everyone to speak in tongues. I refrained out obedience to scripture.
I was surprised to hear a room of 5000 people all saying babababa or badabada (which sounds a lot like what I heard in the third Pentecost video from Sentul) at the same time.
Liardon scolded the congregation for speaking ‘baby tongues’ and demonstrated his ‘warring tongues’. The audience applauded.
Then at the end Liardon told them to raise their hands if they wanted to be baptized with the Spirit, not to think anything but to say whatever bubbled up out of their spirits. He told others to gather around them and speak in tongues.
if you try not to think and say whatever comes to you and you have people around you saying babababababa might you not also say baba baba baba, even if nothingsupernatural happened? Then they say “You got it.”
On the other hand I do not see Paul warning about or even hinting at fake tongues. So I do not want to be overly critical. But I also see a lot of Pentecostal and charismatic severally overemphasized speaking in tongues compared to what we see in the Bible
I am wary of some of the ‘coaching’ methods I have seen yo try to extract some sounds from someone to call speaking in tongues. I did not believe the Spirit of God needs that type of help
Anonymous
Link Hudson when exactly in 1990s.
Liardon split from Upsala around his I SAW HEAVEN BOOK
he had a major gay scandal afterword
to accepted back he stole/wrote GOD’s GENERALS
when he was NOT accepted back
he split and became Catholic
Micael Grenholm has the full story from Sweden
Anonymous
Troy Day never heard he went RCC. He isn’t thinking about trying to become a priest is he? I’d heard rumors about Liardon–friend of a friend who went to Bible College with him. I did not care much for WOFer theology but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was not impressed by his sermon. The scandal brokelater.
Anonymous
It was the position of Charles Parham that what he termed the “neo-Pentecostals” were seeking only speaking in tongues and not the “full gospel”. I expect there is much truth in his observation.
Anonymous
One is infilled at salvation. Baptism is a separate event and is from the outside in, as opposed to inside out.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey wouldnt infilling be from the outside in? Link Hudson Bishop Bernie L Wade Neil Steven Lawrence
Anonymous
Troy Day not necessarily.
Anonymous
Troy Day
To nitpick over language of inside-out or outside-in is  unnecessary since it is anthropomorphic language used to try to describe an omnipresent God interiorising himself in the believer.
It is safest to use scriptural language when speaking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit or the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
Pentecostal doctrine teaches:
1.  Salvation
2.  Sanctification
3. Baptism of the Holy Spirit (first time)
4. Subsequent in-filings of the Holy Spirit (including all further in-fillings of the Holy Spirit during the believer’s walk with Christ)
When seeking to answer the question of whether a believer has a portion of the Holy Spirit at the point of salvation; I believe it is safe to say based on the doctrine of Soteriology as well as Pneumatology – that because the Holy Spirit is the active agent in bringing salvation to the spirit/soul of the believer and injecting eternal life into the core of that new believer, that it would be underwhelming and melodramatic to say the new believer does not have a portion of the Holy Spirit fixing that new life inside.
To say it another way:
eternal life from God is placed and maintained inside the core of a new believer by the Holy Spirit – therefore the Holy Spirit maintains a portion of presence for this to occur.
The best illustration which I myself have used many times when teaching about the The Holy Spirit operation in:
Salvation, sanctification,Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and infilling of the Holy Spirit - is that of “the glass.”
1. Unbeliever = Clear glass with no water inside and dirt all around.
2. New believer = clear glass with new life (small amount of water at the bottom of the glass); glass still dirty.
3. Believer become sanctified = water rinses the surfaces of the glass thus cleansing it.
4. Believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit = water fills up the entire glass and it overflows.
(Overflowing = tongues and/or prophesying)
5. Believer experiences difficulties walking in the world = some water spills out of the glass leaving it not completely full.
6. Believer repentance and continue seeking God and His Holy Spirit fullness = water fills the glass back to overflowing.
Anonymous
/////// this is Pentecostal Link Hudson
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey what scripture do you have in mind for outside in v. Inside out?
Anonymous
Link Hudson baptizo means to immerse or submerge, therefore a baptism would be from the outside inwards, just like water baptism submerges us in water, the we are submerged in the Holy Spirit when baptized in the Spirit.
Anonymous
Neil Steven Lawrence so let me open a can of worms and ask if you believe in a third baptism, the baptism of fire?
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey you must have stayed in the baptismal pool a long time if it soaked inward.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey
I cannot say I’ve experienced that nor seen it in Pentecostal doctrine, though I know many in early 19th  Century Pentecost (at the beginning) came up with very ingenious terms to describe different baptisms – which in the end only proved to be excessive.
That John the Baptist says the Lamb of God would baptize the believers in the Messiah with the Holy Spirit and fire – I would definitely categorize fire in the area of sanctification.
Sanctification can easily be shown in scripture to tied to the symbol of fire as we see in the Old Testament and New Testament.
I would go further and say that fire as it relates to sanctification would be “proven by“ a willingness to die for Christ. Every time the church grows greater during persecution throughout church history.
The writers during the early church and church fathers spoke of another baptism called the: “baptism in blood” which was experiencing martyrdom for Christ. They wrote how they longed to receive that baptism.
So is baptism in fire a distinct “thing“ that a believer can obtain? Only the results of their ministry can tell you.
The purpose of being sanctified or being filled with the spirit is not in so we can claim spirituality; nor is it necessarily so we can be a great church member or someone that warms the pew.
No, the purpose of the anointing and of sanctification is so that we can die and Jesus can live fully in us. When this happens: “fruit, more fruit, much fruit, and fruit that remains…“ (John 15) will be our portion.
Anonymous
Link Hudson until he could not breath anymore 🙂
Anonymous
Link Hudson yep! The longer you hold them down the more they’re saved!😉
Anonymous
Neil Steven Lawrence they dont call it death of the old man for nothing
Anonymous
Neil Steven Lawrence in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 3:11-12 is translated as he will baptize us in the Holy Ghost fire. Not “and” fire. This is a Hebraic concept we miss in the West. Actually makes more sense when translated that way. This is proven out in Acts 2 when the tongues of fire fall.
Anonymous
The scriptural norm for the initial evidence or baptism of the Holy Spirit is that of speaking in tongues and/or prophesying.
When people who seek God‘s will look to the scripture and begin to anticipate all the promises found there-in for themselves they will most definitely become Pentecostal.
The early Pentecostal movement was made up of Methodist, Baptist and other main line Christian believers who sought a deeper walk with Christ.
People who ignore history and specifically in this case church history have no right to look at the ABERRATIONS found inside the early Pentecostal movement of the 19th and 20th century and declare them to be dominant and an excuse to ignore genuine Pentecostal doctrine!
Pentecostal MINISTRY is THE full gospel just as Pentecostal DOCTRINE is a complete form of Christian doctrine. To ignore either of these – you do so at your own peril of promoting a dead church!
Anonymous
People who ignore history and specifically who are NOT entirely sanctified
Anonymous
Pentecostal MINISTRY is THE full gospel just as Pentecostal DOCTRINE is a complete form of Christian doctrine. To ignore either of these – you do so at your own peril of promoting a dead church!//
Only the smug will dispute this ….
Thanks brother Neil for this conclusive piece .
Anonymous
Isara Mo YES
Anonymous
Neil Steven Lawrence all Christians including Pentecostals should be concerned with preserving the original Biblical doctrine.
Anonymous
Link Hudson how could they do that without speaking in tongues /?
Anonymous
Link Hudson
Agreed! Original Biblical doctrine includes sanctification, the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit with the confirmation signs of tongues and/or prophecy, the admonition to be continually filled with the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit including the gift of tongues & interpretation of tongues. Furthermore, the prayer language of tongues that’s a major part of the purpose of tongues in the believer’s spiritual walk.
Not forgetting that the greatest apostle who gave us 2/3 of the New Testament – Paul “prayed in tongues more than others around him.“
Anyone who is ashamed of tongues is basically saying they’re ashamed of spiritual power!
Anonymous
Neil Steven Lawrence sime Pentecostals would consider your doctrine off for allowing prophecy as an initial sign. In Acts 10 it mentions speaking in tongues snd magnifying God.
We should not try to put God in a box.
Anonymous
Link Hudson but you area always putting GOD in the box of your own experience. Where they key in Acts is, they did speak in tongues
Anonymous
Troy Day I’m not putting God in a box. He can do as he wills. There were three occasions we read about where people spoke in tongues in Acts when they were filled with the Spirit, the Spirit came on them, or fell on them.
Anonymous
Link Hudson indeed, our interpretation of scripture and the doctrines that come from that should always be wary of putting God in a box.
I have personally prayed for people and they fell forward instead of back when they were slain in the Spirit.
I have heard a testimony of a young Baptist girl coming up out of the water of baptism and speaking in tongues, though she was never taught about receiving the Holy Spirit.
Scripture is a description and a prescription but not always a restriction.
Anonymous
AND in order to preserve it they neeed to know what the ORIGINAL BIBLE says in the original tongue. You cannot insist you know doctrine for 20-30 yrs that is neither Pentecostal NOR it reads in the original tongue
Anonymous
Link Hudson are you still interested in a group post of our discussions on the graph and possible some more historical / spiritual information on the GIFT ppl?
Anonymous
Acts 4:31 (KJV)
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs YES I love it where ACTS says SPAKE in other tongues 🙂
Anonymous
none of these happened without tongues either Link Hudson
Anonymous
Troy Day the events on a map of scatterred historical references to tongues did not happen without speaking in tongues? The three occassions if speaking in tongues did not happen without speaking in tongues?
Anonymous
Link Hudson maybe you can produce a better one so we can all learn the way you think is most right and great?
Anonymous
Simon the Sorcerer (aka Simon Magus or Simon of Gitta), is mentioned by Luke in Acts 8:9–24. Josephus references, The Jew called Simon who “pretended to be a magician” (Antiquities of the Jews, book 20, chapter 7). Luke states that he had amazed the Samaritans “for a long time with his sorcery” (Acts 8:11), some even declaring that he was “the great Power of God” (Acts 8:10), a messianic title.
Philip the Evangelist attracted followers. Yet, the Bible says that “the Holy Spirit had not yet come” upon the Samaritans (Acts 8:16). Apostles Peter and John arrived, and when they laid hands on the people they received the Holy Ghost. Simon witnessed this and “offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 8:19–20). Religious people want you to believe that Simon who was a warlock was mesmerized by someone claiming to “feel good” or some other vague infatuation. These instruct their followers to look for doves and all manner of other fleshly manifestations. However, Simon was AWED by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost.
When people are queried as to what Simon witnessed, they have no answers other than the obvious. Simon witnessed people (Samaritans) speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gave them utterance (the ability to speak). The source was obvious even to a warlock. There was visible evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence in fulfillment of the promise made by Jesus to send Him to the apostles as a Counselor (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7-15) granting to those who receive the Holy Spirit the ability to speak in earthly languages that they had never studied.
Tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost baptism is irrefutable. People have tried to discredit it, and yet hundreds of millions have been baptized in the Holy Ghost; every one of them spoke in tongues through the Spirit of God. Man cannot teach people to speak in tongues. The Holy Ghost does His own talking. He is a person.
In the book of Acts, seeing a great opportunity Simon offers to purchase “this gift”. At this point, Peter strongly reprimands Simon for his greed. The greed of Simon is recalled in the modern word simony, “using religion as a means of profit.” Christians should take from the account of Simon that the church, even today, must be careful of those claiming to possess supernatural abilities, and those claiming to be Christians who desire to “buy the gift of God with money,” for their “heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:20–21).
Today’s warlocks offer their people alternatives to receiving the genuine Holy Ghost offering to “teach people their heavenly language”, releasing white doves, and other versions of smoke and mirrors offered by Satan the master mimic.
BEWARE OF SORCERORS
Anonymous
Today’s warlocks offer their people alternatives to receiving the genuine Holy Ghost offering to “teach people their heavenly language”, releasing white doves, and other versions of smoke and mirrors offered by Satan the master mimic.