Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

No tongues meant no Spirit!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No tongues meant no Spirit!

    The Biblical record in Acts shows that speaking in tongues was immediate and observable sign that the apostles looked for or were expecting that indicated "when" and "who" had received the gift of holy spirit, from those who had not. And I submit that the absence of this evidential sign was evidence that the Samaritans had not yet received the holy spirit.

    Pentecost:

    "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)

    17 “‘In the last days, God says,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
    Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your young men will see visions,
    your old men will dream dreams.
    18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
    and they will prophesy (Acts 2:17-18, NIV)

    Peter understood the tongues spoken at Pentecost as the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Joel prophesied that the coming of the spirit in the last days would be accompanied or manifested by signs: prophesy, visions and dreams. Thus the idea of a silent or non-observable spirit-baptism reception is unquestionably not in keeping with what Joel prophesied about.

    Prophesy, unlike the other two signs, is mentioned twice, and thus holds a significance that the other two accompanying signs do not.


    Caesarea:

    "45 The Jews who came with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit would be given to Gentiles too! 46-47 But there could be no doubt about it, for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.Peter asked, “Can anyone object to my baptizing them, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” (Acts 10:45-46, TLB)

    "When I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as He did on us at the beginning [at Pentecost] (Acts 11:15, AMP)

    Ephesus:

    "When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them in the same way the original disciples experienced at Pentecost: they spoke in tongues and prophesied.(Acts 19:6, VOICE)

    Samaria:

    I purposely saved the Samaritan account for last because although no detailed description is given, "tongues" is the only plausible evidential sign that harmonizes with the other spirit-baptism accounts in Acts. Indeed, if Peter recognized that tongues was the indisputable proof that the Gentiles received the spirit at Caesarea in Acts 10 because that is HOW the apostles received it at the beginning (Pentecost), then it logically follows tongues served as the indisputable proof the Samaritans had received the spirit, as well.

    "who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:15-16)

    We know for a fact that the Spirit was manifested or accompanied by a "visible" and "observable" sign for Luke reports:

    18 "And when Simon SAW that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 8:18-19, NKJV)

    As James D G Dunn says in his book regarding the Samaritan account in Acts 8, Baptism in the Holy Spirit"

    "As Mason once put it, 'It is the Holy Ghost Himself who falls upon men, and not His gifts.' Certainly Peter and John missed the manifestations, but they concluded that the Samaritans lacked the Spirit, not spiritual gifts. No gifts meant no Spirit.6

    6. 'No one seems to have said, "Perhaps these believers have received the Spirit quietly and unconsciously"' (Harper, Power, 26)

    James D G Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1970) p 56.

    In short, that Philip, Peter and John were able to determine the holy spirit had not yet fallen unquestionably indicates that they were looking for or expecting a visible and/or "observable" sign to immediately accompany the infilling of the spirit, and the absence of said sign was indisputable proof they had not yet received the spirit.

    Indeed, as I have told Morefish, a "silent" spirit-baptism experience is a non-Biblical concept.

    As the historical spirit-reception accounts in Acts show, in which a detailed description is given, tongues were the immediate evidential sign that indicated or attested the coming of the Spirit upon an individual. I implore you not to buy into the myth of a silent spirit-baptism account.[/color]







  • #2
    Originally posted by forever4truth View Post
    a "silent" spirit-baptism experience is a non-Biblical concept.
    I wish you all spoke with tongues (1 Co 14:5).

    Not all the born-again spoke in tongues,
    but scriptural illiterates make it a condition for salvation

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Conqueror View Post

      I wish you all spoke with tongues (1 Co 14:5).

      Not all the born-again spoke in tongues,
      but scriptural illiterates make it a condition for salvation
      Your post is a good example of someone giving little to no consideration for the context in which something is spoken. When Paul says, "I wish you all spoke with tongues," he is in context not talking about the tongues that immediately evidence "THE" gift of holy spirit, but rather about the nature and proper operation of the subsequent gift of different kinds of tongues.

      Indeed, 1 Cor 12:1 sets the context for all that follows.

      "With regard to spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed" (1 Cor 12:1, NET). We know from 1 Cor 12:13 that they Corinthians were already spirit-filled, so he is not writing them on how someone who initially receives the spirit is to properly manifest tongues.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

        ............., a "silent" spirit-baptism experience is a non-Biblical concept.

        I wish you all spoke with tongues (1 Co 14:5).

        Not all the born-again spoke in tongues,
        but scriptural illiterates make it a condition for salvation



        Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

        We know from 1 Cor 12:13 that they Corinthians were already spirit-filled, ....................
        Thanks for the confirmation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Conqueror View Post

          I wish you all spoke with tongues (1 Co 14:5).

          Not all the born-again spoke in tongues,
          but scriptural illiterates make it a condition for salvation
          How about instead of merely asserting your position you actually provide scriptural examples from Acts that prove your point that not all born-again (born of the spirit) believers spoke in tongues? Remember, the book of Acts is the only book in the NT that give historical examples of how people were water baptized and spirit-baptized (born again).

          Originally posted by forever4truth

          We know from 1 Cor 12:13 that they Corinthians were already spirit-filled, ....................
          Thanks for the confirmation.
          Now you know Paul in 1 Cor 12-14 wasn't talking about the tongues that immediate accompany the spirit-baptism but rather about the post-initiatory, subsequent gift of different kinds of tongues that not all believers receive.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

            Now you know Paul in 1 Cor 12-14 wasn't talking about the tongues that immediate accompany the spirit-baptism but rather about the post-initiatory, subsequent gift of different kinds of tongues that not all believers receive.
            Can you really differentiate between
            initial and subsequent tongues
            which are beyond your understanding ???


            he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
            but to God, for no one understands him
            (1 Co 14:2).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Conqueror View Post

              Can you really differentiate between
              initial and subsequent tongues
              which are beyond your understanding ???


              he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
              but to God, for no one understands him
              (1 Co 14:2).
              Sure. The former occurs initially and the latter subsequently. I take it you've never spoken with other tongues?

              Comment


              • #8

                Can you really differentiate between
                initial and subsequent tongues
                which are beyond your understanding ???


                he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
                but to God, for no one understands him
                (1 Co 14:2).



                Originally posted by forever4truth View Post

                Sure. The former occurs initially and the latter subsequently. I take it you've never spoken with other tongues?
                How are they different,
                if you cannot understand those tongues?

                Comment


                • #9
                  "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)

                  Where are you getting that reading out of the text??

                  In the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, the sequence goes something like this: being “saved” equates to being “Baptized in the Spirit”, and being baptized in the Spirit itself is initially ‘evidenced’ (though not always immediately) by a phenomenon called “speaking in tongues”. In some traditions, “tongues” are a ‘requirement’, in others they are not.

                  The ‘model’ for this is based upon the Pentecost narrative found in Acts II.

                  A comparison of the narrative to the modern tradition however results in some seemingly obvious discrepancies. It may even beg the question of whether the current experience is merrily being followed in the spirit of the narrative rather than in strict adherence to it.

                  If one examines the Pentecost narrative, the so-called ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ occurred such that the experience consisted of three distinct components, so to speak: (first) a strong wind, followed by (second) tongues of fire. After these first two components occurred, the apostles may be said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Following almost immediately, the final component occurred: they began “speaking in other tongues”. Further, based upon the narrative, there is no question that these “other tongues” were real, rational language.


                  Now it could be argued that if the Pentecost narrative is the ‘model’, it would seem reasonable to suggest that all three ‘components’ referenced in the narrative (including the results with respect to “tongues”) should also be required to occur in the modern experience; i.e., it’s an all or nothing type situation.

                  Yet, the only necessary component seems to be the ‘evidence’ of “speaking in tongues” (and, said “tongues” are never real, rational language to boot). Here lies the discrepancy. Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not also required to occur as they did in the narrative?

                  This seeming discrepancy however, can easily be reconciled. Other scriptural passages may be cited wherein the first two ‘components’ do not occur, and people were still said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. In addition, these occurrences were followed by these same individuals “speaking in tongues”.

                  This mirrors the current Pentecostal/Charismatic experience found today; i.e., baptism in the Spirit, followed by something called “tongues”.

                  Despite the above however, an obvious discrepancy still remains; scriptural passages may also be cited wherein individuals were said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet there was absolutely zero mention of “tongues”, or much of anything else for that matter.

                  Even at the original event itself, there were around 3,000 people who were converted and (presumably) baptized. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', one would expect that, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have started “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?). Unless, of course, these 3,000 are understood to _not_ have been baptized “in the Spirit”.

                  Further, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in the New Testament epistles only one time; in 1 Cor. 12:13. It is described in the past tense and “evidence of tongues” is not mentioned at all. How is this reconciled with the modern understanding/concept?

                  In addition, how does one reconcile something like John 20:22 where people received the Holy Spirit by Christ himself…yet we see zero mention of tongues, or Paul’s statement that not everyone will speak in tongues?

                  To suggest “speaking in tongues” as initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, doesn’t seem to stand up to documented (scriptural) examples. “Tongues”, in conjunction with people receiving or being baptized in the Holy Spirit, are certainly not evidenced ‘across the board’.

                  So, which is it??

                  It seems that for every example of people being baptized in the Spirit with initial evidence of “tongues”, there are people being baptized in the Spirit with absolutely zero evidence of “tongues”.

                  To further the issue, replace archaic “tongues” with the more modern “languages” and the whole phrase, “baptism in the Spirit with initial evidence of language”, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

                  The bottom line is that the concept of “evidence of tongues” in conjunction with baptism in the Holy Spirit does not seem to be a very consistent one to say the least.

                  Caesarea and Ephesus were just examples of where those baptized started expressing their joy, etc. in their native languages which were unknown to Peter and Paul (and their traveling companions).

                  Last edited by Kavik; 05-02-18, 09:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
                    but to God, for no one understands him
                    (1 Co 14:2).

                    Originally posted by Kavik View Post
                    "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)
                    Where does Luke fit into the five-fold ministry, since he wasn't an apostle?
                    https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...n-t-an-apostle

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not my quote - I was quoting another poster.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Conqueror View Post
                        Can you really differentiate between
                        initial and subsequent tongues
                        which are beyond your understanding ???


                        he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
                        but to God, for no one understands him
                        (1 Co 14:2).





                        How are they different,
                        if you cannot understand those tongues?
                        They are different in "purpose." Tongues in Acts served the primary purpose of attestation; whereas the subsequent gift of different kinds of tongues do not. Tongues in Acts were never interpreted nor regulated in use to two, or at the most three.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kavik View Post
                          "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)

                          Where are you getting that reading out of the text??

                          In the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, the sequence goes something like this: being “saved” equates to being “Baptized in the Spirit”, and being baptized in the Spirit itself is initially ‘evidenced’ (though not always immediately) by a phenomenon called “speaking in tongues”. In some traditions, “tongues” are a ‘requirement’, in others they are not.

                          The ‘model’ for this is based upon the Pentecost narrative found in Acts II.

                          A comparison of the narrative to the modern tradition however results in some seemingly obvious discrepancies. It may even beg the question of whether the current experience is merrily being followed in the spirit of the narrative rather than in strict adherence to it.

                          If one examines the Pentecost narrative, the so-called ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ occurred such that the experience consisted of three distinct components, so to speak: (first) a strong wind, followed by (second) tongues of fire. After these first two components occurred, the apostles may be said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Following almost immediately, the final component occurred: they began “speaking in other tongues”. Further, based upon the narrative, there is no question that these “other tongues” were real, rational language.


                          Now it could be argued that if the Pentecost narrative is the ‘model’, it would seem reasonable to suggest that all three ‘components’ referenced in the narrative (including the results with respect to “tongues”) should also be required to occur in the modern experience; i.e., it’s an all or nothing type situation.

                          Yet, the only necessary component seems to be the ‘evidence’ of “speaking in tongues” (and, said “tongues” are never real, rational language to boot). Here lies the discrepancy. Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not also required to occur as they did in the narrative?

                          This seeming discrepancy however, can easily be reconciled. Other scriptural passages may be cited wherein the first two ‘components’ do not occur, and people were still said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. In addition, these occurrences were followed by these same individuals “speaking in tongues”.

                          This mirrors the current Pentecostal/Charismatic experience found today; i.e., baptism in the Spirit, followed by something called “tongues”.

                          Despite the above however, an obvious discrepancy still remains; scriptural passages may also be cited wherein individuals were said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet there was absolutely zero mention of “tongues”, or much of anything else for that matter.

                          Even at the original event itself, there were around 3,000 people who were converted and (presumably) baptized. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', one would expect that, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have started “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?). Unless, of course, these 3,000 are understood to _not_ have been baptized “in the Spirit”.

                          Further, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in the New Testament epistles only one time; in 1 Cor. 12:13. It is described in the past tense and “evidence of tongues” is not mentioned at all. How is this reconciled with the modern understanding/concept?

                          In addition, how does one reconcile something like John 20:22 where people received the Holy Spirit by Christ himself…yet we see zero mention of tongues, or Paul’s statement that not everyone will speak in tongues?

                          To suggest “speaking in tongues” as initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, doesn’t seem to stand up to documented (scriptural) examples. “Tongues”, in conjunction with people receiving or being baptized in the Holy Spirit, are certainly not evidenced ‘across the board’.

                          So, which is it??

                          It seems that for every example of people being baptized in the Spirit with initial evidence of “tongues”, there are people being baptized in the Spirit with absolutely zero evidence of “tongues”.

                          To further the issue, replace archaic “tongues” with the more modern “languages” and the whole phrase, “baptism in the Spirit with initial evidence of language”, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

                          The bottom line is that the concept of “evidence of tongues” in conjunction with baptism in the Holy Spirit does not seem to be a very consistent one to say the least.

                          Caesarea and Ephesus were just examples of where those baptized started expressing their joy, etc. in their native languages which were unknown to Peter and Paul (and their traveling companions).
                          I will answer your response in different posts, if that's okay, addressing each point-by-point (as I understand it) to make it easier for others (and myself) to follow:

                          The contextual reason (at least to me) as to why the NLT renders it, "they spoke in languages they didn't know," is based on the fact that the Spirit gave them this ability. Again, if these 120 Galilean disciples already knew the 15-17 different/various foreign languages that were represented at Pentecost, why would they need the Spirit to give them this ability?

                          Pentecost was "a miracle of speaking," not "a miracle of hearing," for Luke reports in Acts 2:4, "And they all began SPEAKING in languages they didn't know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability. IOW, the Spirit is specifically said to have moved upon the "speakers," not the hearers.

                          Again, it would be one thing if Luke had reported about the Diaspora Jews, "And they were all able to hear them speaking in their own languages, for the Spirit gave them this ability." Such, however, was not the case.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kavik View Post
                            "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)

                            Where are you getting that reading out of the text??

                            In the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, the sequence goes something like this: being “saved” equates to being “Baptized in the Spirit”, and being baptized in the Spirit itself is initially ‘evidenced’ (though not always immediately) by a phenomenon called “speaking in tongues”. In some traditions, “tongues” are a ‘requirement’, in others they are not.


                            The ‘model’ for this is based upon the Pentecost narrative found in Acts II.

                            A comparison of the narrative to the modern tradition however results in some seemingly obvious discrepancies. It may even beg the question of whether the current experience is merrily being followed in the spirit of the narrative rather than in strict adherence to it.

                            If one examines the Pentecost narrative, the so-called ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ occurred such that the experience consisted of three distinct components, so to speak: (first) a strong wind, followed by (second) tongues of fire. After these first two components occurred, the apostles may be said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Following almost immediately, the final component occurred: they began “speaking in other tongues”. Further, based upon the narrative, there is no question that these “other tongues” were real, rational language.


                            Now it could be argued that if the Pentecost narrative is the ‘model’, it would seem reasonable to suggest that all three ‘components’ referenced in the narrative (including the results with respect to “tongues”) should also be required to occur in the modern experience; i.e., it’s an all or nothing type situation.

                            Yet, the only necessary component seems to be the ‘evidence’ of “speaking in tongues” (and, said “tongues” are never real, rational language to boot). Here lies the discrepancy. Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not also required to occur as they did in the narrative?

                            This seeming discrepancy however, can easily be reconciled. Other scriptural passages may be cited wherein the first two ‘components’ do not occur, and people were still said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. In addition, these occurrences were followed by these same individuals “speaking in tongues”.

                            This mirrors the current Pentecostal/Charismatic experience found today; i.e., baptism in the Spirit, followed by something called “tongues”.

                            Despite the above however, an obvious discrepancy still remains; scriptural passages may also be cited wherein individuals were said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet there was absolutely zero mention of “tongues”, or much of anything else for that matter.

                            Even at the original event itself, there were around 3,000 people who were converted and (presumably) baptized. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', one would expect that, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have started “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?). Unless, of course, these 3,000 are understood to _not_ have been baptized “in the Spirit”.

                            Further, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in the New Testament epistles only one time; in 1 Cor. 12:13. It is described in the past tense and “evidence of tongues” is not mentioned at all. How is this reconciled with the modern understanding/concept?

                            In addition, how does one reconcile something like John 20:22 where people received the Holy Spirit by Christ himself…yet we see zero mention of tongues, or Paul’s statement that not everyone will speak in tongues?

                            To suggest “speaking in tongues” as initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, doesn’t seem to stand up to documented (scriptural) examples. “Tongues”, in conjunction with people receiving or being baptized in the Holy Spirit, are certainly not evidenced ‘across the board’.

                            So, which is it??

                            It seems that for every example of people being baptized in the Spirit with initial evidence of “tongues”, there are people being baptized in the Spirit with absolutely zero evidence of “tongues”.

                            To further the issue, replace archaic “tongues” with the more modern “languages” and the whole phrase, “baptism in the Spirit with initial evidence of language”, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

                            The bottom line is that the concept of “evidence of tongues” in conjunction with baptism in the Holy Spirit does not seem to be a very consistent one to say the least.

                            Caesarea and Ephesus were just examples of where those baptized started expressing their joy, etc. in their native languages which were unknown to Peter and Paul (and their traveling companions).
                            The "signs" that preceded the infilling of the gift of holy spirit, such as "the sound of a rushing mighty wind" and "the appearance of tongues on fire," are never said to be repeated in the other spirit-baptism accounts (unlike the *sign* of speaking with other tongues), and thus apparently were intended by God to serve as a one-time sign in inaugurating or ushering in the coming Messianic age. Thus the re-occurring *sign* of tongues holds a significance that the other two signs, do not.

                            Now had Luke reported in Acts 10:46, "For they heard the sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and saw tongues that had the appearance of being on fire, and heard them speak with other tongues and magnify God," then you would have a very good point of rebuttal, but such is clearly not the case.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kavik View Post
                              "And everyone present was filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in languages they didn’t know, for the Holy Spirit gave them this ability" (Acts 2:4, TLB)

                              Where are you getting that reading out of the text??

                              In the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, the sequence goes something like this: being “saved” equates to being “Baptized in the Spirit”, and being baptized in the Spirit itself is initially ‘evidenced’ (though not always immediately) by a phenomenon called “speaking in tongues”. In some traditions, “tongues” are a ‘requirement’, in others they are not.

                              The ‘model’ for this is based upon the Pentecost narrative found in Acts II.

                              A comparison of the narrative to the modern tradition however results in some seemingly obvious discrepancies. It may even beg the question of whether the current experience is merrily being followed in the spirit of the narrative rather than in strict adherence to it.

                              If one examines the Pentecost narrative, the so-called ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ occurred such that the experience consisted of three distinct components, so to speak: (first) a strong wind, followed by (second) tongues of fire. After these first two components occurred, the apostles may be said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. Following almost immediately, the final component occurred: they began “speaking in other tongues”. Further, based upon the narrative, there is no question that these “other tongues” were real, rational language.


                              Now it could be argued that if the Pentecost narrative is the ‘model’, it would seem reasonable to suggest that all three ‘components’ referenced in the narrative (including the results with respect to “tongues”) should also be required to occur in the modern experience; i.e., it’s an all or nothing type situation.

                              Yet, the only necessary component seems to be the ‘evidence’ of “speaking in tongues” (and, said “tongues” are never real, rational language to boot). Here lies the discrepancy. Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not also required to occur as they did in the narrative?

                              This seeming discrepancy however, can easily be reconciled. Other scriptural passages may be cited wherein the first two ‘components’ do not occur, and people were still said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. In addition, these occurrences were followed by these same individuals “speaking in tongues”.

                              This mirrors the current Pentecostal/Charismatic experience found today; i.e., baptism in the Spirit, followed by something called “tongues”.


                              Despite the above however, an obvious discrepancy still remains; scriptural passages may also be cited wherein individuals were said to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, yet there was absolutely zero mention of “tongues”, or much of anything else for that matter.

                              Even at the original event itself, there were around 3,000 people who were converted and (presumably) baptized. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', one would expect that, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have started “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?). Unless, of course, these 3,000 are understood to _not_ have been baptized “in the Spirit”.

                              Further, “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in the New Testament epistles only one time; in 1 Cor. 12:13. It is described in the past tense and “evidence of tongues” is not mentioned at all. How is this reconciled with the modern understanding/concept?

                              In addition, how does one reconcile something like John 20:22 where people received the Holy Spirit by Christ himself…yet we see zero mention of tongues, or Paul’s statement that not everyone will speak in tongues?

                              To suggest “speaking in tongues” as initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, doesn’t seem to stand up to documented (scriptural) examples. “Tongues”, in conjunction with people receiving or being baptized in the Holy Spirit, are certainly not evidenced ‘across the board’.

                              So, which is it??

                              It seems that for every example of people being baptized in the Spirit with initial evidence of “tongues”, there are people being baptized in the Spirit with absolutely zero evidence of “tongues”.

                              To further the issue, replace archaic “tongues” with the more modern “languages” and the whole phrase, “baptism in the Spirit with initial evidence of language”, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

                              The bottom line is that the concept of “evidence of tongues” in conjunction with baptism in the Holy Spirit does not seem to be a very consistent one to say the least.

                              Caesarea and Ephesus were just examples of where those baptized started expressing their joy, etc. in their native languages which were unknown to Peter and Paul (and their traveling companions).
                              Can you please provide me with a list of the Scriptures in which you have in mind in which it is reported that believers were baptized in the spirit yet zero mention of tongues is recorded, so I can get the context? I already addressed the Samaritan account in Acts 8.

                              Suffice to say, if Luke believed and or understood the spirit-baptism could be received without the sign of tongues, don't you find it at least curious that he never makes it a point to provide a spirit-baptism account, in which details or a description is given, that bears this out, as in, "For they received the Spirit quietly and unconsciously," as James D G Dunn notes in a footnote in his book, Baptism in the Holy Spirit" p. 56


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X