Tongues and Biblical Truth

[TheLayman]

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":

No one will go to heaven if they are not baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost with tongues.

So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

John 3:8, and Mark 16:17

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

John 3:8, and Mark 16:17

Thanks E.B. So, can I gather first that I am understanding the Oneness position? I will examine these passages. Would you care to elaborate on them at all with my question in mind? (If not, that's fine).

Anyone else?

Thanks,
TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

I need to add one question to this as I forgot there are different opinions on this. How do you define "tongues" as used in the Bible, and how did you come by this definition (and why is it "Biblical")?

Thanks

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I have another question from the Billy Graham thread. This was said concerning "tongues":



So my understanding of that is that you will not go to heaven if in addition to being baptized in Jesus name (a different thread) you are not filled with the Holy Spirit, and you are not filled with the Holy Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

First, am I understanding that correctly?

IF SO, then my question would be would you point me to/quote where this is written in the Bible?

Thanks in advance,
TheLayman

Please understand that there are differing schools of thought on this issue within Oneness ranks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Layman what is your religious position on tongues. I personally don’t care about a Oneness, Baptist, Trinitarian position. Because in every denomination or religious movement there are varying views. Even in the religious movement you are currently in there are those who disagree on different doctrines. So, please explain what is going on in the BIBLE when tongues are brought up. Also please explain why you are bringing these subjects out of the debate section?

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Please understand that there are differing schools of thought on this issue within Oneness ranks.

Really...that is learning something new, I had no idea that was the case. I thought in the AOG say 40 years ago (I'm a little longer in the tooth than you are) that there position was what I thought the Oneness position was which is a person most have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues if that person is saved. Now, I think I know since that time that there are some who hold that position and some who do not...or maybe there official position has changed or maybe I had that wrong to begin with.

That said I thought (apparently mistakenly) that all Oneness held that a person must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the Billy Graham thread when tongues where mentioned that's what I thought was being discussed! So please make sure I'm understanding you...are you saying that not all Oneness believe that you must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues...or did you mean something else? If I am understanding you...boy howdy...that is absolutely something I did not know and never heard.

TheLayman

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Really...that is learning something new, I had no idea that was the case. I thought in the AOG say 40 years ago (I'm a little longer in the tooth than you are) that there position was what I thought the Oneness position was which is a person most have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues if that person is saved. Now, I think I know since that time that there are some who hold that position and some who do not...or maybe there official position has changed or maybe I had that wrong to begin with.

That said I thought (apparently mistakenly) that all Oneness held that a person must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the Billy Graham thread when tongues where mentioned that's what I thought was being discussed! So please make sure I'm understanding you...are you saying that not all Oneness believe that you must have the initial evidence of speaking in tongues...or did you mean something else? If I am understanding you...boy howdy...that is absolutely something I did not know and never heard.

TheLayman

The Pentecostal movement has always been divided on the question of whether the baptism with the Spirit (initially evidenced by speaking in tongues) is "essential for salvation". This division was in place before the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913 which is when most (trinitarian) historians date the advent of "Oneness Pentecostalism".

When the UPC was formed from a merger of several Oneness Pentecostal denominations, that division still existed. Thus, there have been two streams within the UPC and its offshoots: those who believe the Pentecostal baptism is essential, and those who believe it is merely preferable. Among trinitarian Pentecostals, the latter group has been the majority, whereas among Oneness Pentecostals the former group has generally been the majority.

Here on AFF the two views are usually referred to as the PAJC view and the PCI view, respectively (named after Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, and Pentecostal Church Incorporated, the two main groups who merged to form the UPC). Unfortunately, even those shorthand designations are misnomers, because both denominations (PAJC and PCI) had members in both theological camps.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Pentecostal movement has always been divided on the question of whether the baptism with the Spirit (initially evidenced by speaking in tongues) is "essential for salvation". This division was in place before the Arroyo Seco camp meeting in 1913 which is when most (trinitarian) historians date the advent of "Oneness Pentecostalism".

When the UPC was formed from a merger of several Oneness Pentecostal denominations, that division still existed. Thus, there have been two streams within the UPC and its offshoots: those who believe the Pentecostal baptism is essential, and those who believe it is merely preferable. Among trinitarian Pentecostals, the latter group has been the majority, whereas among Oneness Pentecostals the former group has generally been the majority.

When I was young the friend who led me to Christ went to an AOG seminary and became a pastor. I identified most closely with the AOG but would not/could not become a member because I believed their initial evidence doctrine was wrong. That was early 70's. Then much later, must have been late 90's early 2000's on an internet discussion board somewhere (you know...off the topic but everyone seemed much kinder on discussion boards back then...sorry, that just struck me so I shared ) I was on an AOG discussion board and this issue was being discussed and it seemed that the leadership might be starting to move away from this "absolute." And I'm not arguing with you about it, I think Oneness still have loose ties to the AOG and I would think you would know better than I. But I did just check since you said this to see if it had indeed changed (or to find out if I was wrong to begin with but that would have been sad since that is the reason I did not become an AOG member). Anyway, on The AOG webpage in the belief section they have what they call 16 non-negotiable fundamental truths. Number 8 The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is: "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." So it appears that they have not changed it since I was a teenager (although I thought they had relaxed it).

Anyway, see what happens when I violate my rule "assume nothing." I have had discussions in years past on CARM and read other discussions and had no idea that Oneness wasn't at least as dogmatic about it as the AOG. What you and Originalist have shared with me was never once mentioned in any of those discussions.

Originally Posted by Essaias

Here on AFF the two views are usually referred to as the PAJC view and the PCI view, respectively (named after Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, and Pentecostal Church Incorporated, the two main groups who merged to form the UPC). Unfortunately, even those shorthand designations are misnomers, because both denominations (PAJC and PCI) had members in both theological camps.

So now I'm curious. I can see how those who believe it is non-negotiable could attend a church where they do not hold the initial evidence doctrine, but I don't see how someone who doesn't hold the initial evidence doctrine could attend a Oneness church that holds the AOG non-negotiable view I posted. So when you speak of these two groups within the two groups, do they basically have different churches? How does that work? (And now I think I see that the difference of opinion I saw in the Billy Graham thread may have had a different starting point than I thought it did, certainly had I known this I think I would have viewed it differently).

Thanks Esaias (and Originalist), that was quite interesting. I know Sam was great at this historical stuff, I wish he was still here to offer his expertise.

TheLayman

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

When I was young the friend who led me to Christ went to an AOG seminary and became a pastor. I identified most closely with the AOG but would not/could not become a member because I believed their initial evidence doctrine was wrong. That was early 70's. Then much later, must have been late 90's early 2000's on an internet discussion board somewhere (you know...off the topic but everyone seemed much kinder on discussion boards back then...sorry, that just struck me so I shared ) I was on an AOG discussion board and this issue was being discussed and it seemed that the leadership might be starting to move away from this "absolute." And I'm not arguing with you about it, I think Oneness still have loose ties to the AOG and I would think you would know better than I. But I did just check since you said this to see if it had indeed changed (or to find out if I was wrong to begin with but that would have been sad since that is the reason I did not become an AOG member). Anyway, on The AOG webpage in the belief section they have what they call 16 non-negotiable fundamental truths. Number 8 The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is: "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." So it appears that they have not changed it since I was a teenager (although I thought they had relaxed it).

Anyway, see what happens when I violate my rule "assume nothing." I have had discussions in years past on CARM and read other discussions and had no idea that Oneness wasn't at least as dogmatic about it as the AOG. What you and Originalist have shared with me was never once mentioned in any of those discussions.



So now I'm curious. I can see how those who believe it is non-negotiable could attend a church where they do not hold the initial evidence doctrine, but I don't see how someone who doesn't hold the initial evidence doctrine could attend a Oneness church that holds the AOG non-negotiable view I posted. So when you speak of these two groups within the two groups, do they basically have different churches? How does that work? (And now I think I see that the difference of opinion I saw in the Billy Graham thread may have had a different starting point than I thought it did, certainly had I known this I think I would have viewed it differently).

Thanks Esaias (and Originalist), that was quite interesting. I know Sam was great at this historical stuff, I wish he was still here to offer his expertise.

TheLayman

I think you may be confusing two distinct but related issues. There is the initial evidence doctrine (that the Spirit baptism is accompanied by glossalalia) on the one hand, and then there is the question of whether this Spirit baptism (with glossalalia) is required, or merely preferable.

Almost all classic Pentecostals whether Oneness, Twoness, or Threeness, or otherwise, believe the Spirit baptism is accompanied by glossalalia. Charismatics however are not so certain, they believe it is a definite experience but may or may not be accompanied by glossalalia.

The AoG official position is, AFAIK, that Spirit baptism is not required for salvation, but rather is a post-salvation experience that believers "should" seek to receive. But then again, there is dome diversity in the AoG.

Many Pentecostals have maintained Spirit baptism is essential and required. Many others have not. But almost ALL "Pentecostals" have maintained that Spirit baptism is normatively evidenced initially by glossalalia. I think the Foursquare Church taught initial evidence could be either tongues OR prophesying, but I'm not 100% sure.