The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

It is common for oneness Pentecostals to argue in favor of the initial evidence doctrine, which simply states that anyone who truly receives the Holy Ghost will speak in tongues at the time of the baptism. It is common to link Romans 8:9 to this doctrine "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Thus the conclusion is that if someone does not speak in tongues they have not received the Holy Spirit, they don't belong to Christ, and as such they are lost and facing an eternity in hell if they don't repent, get baptized in the name of Jesus, and receive the Holy Ghost with this initial evidence of speaking in tongues. We're pretty much all familiar with this doctrine, I'm just restating the obvious for point of reference for this thread.

But the problem of course is that there just isn't any solid scriptural foundation for this doctrine because the Bible never says that someone has to speak in tongues to be saved, nor does it ever say that speaking in tongues is the one universal initial evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

See if there were just one scripture that said "except you speak in tongues you cannot be saved" or "we know the people who are saved because they have spoken in tongues" then the argument would be considerably stronger if not altogether settled. But of course there is NO scripture that teaches such, at best the doctrine is built on stringing some scriptures together, making assumptions, and arriving at a soteriological theory at best.

None of this so far is particularly new here on AFF, but what has me pondering tonight is why do oneness Pentecostals go into full denial mode when the shoe is on the other foot? For example, if there were scriptures that plainly said that if someone does X, Y, and/or Z they are saved or can know they are saved, why are those scriptures ignored? Why is the plain language of the inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative, living, Word of God not good enough for some oneness Pentecostals? How can someone really defend a teaching which insists that unless someone has spoken in tongues they cannot be saved, in the face of plain and basic scriptures?

Here's where I'm going: This weekend I've been studying through 1 John again, and charted some things out I'd like to share with regard to this topic. I admit freely this is not all that scholarly, and I'm not trying to impress, so if you want to knock my study feel free to do so, but my question to oneness Pentecostals who affirm speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation is: "How can the initial evidence doctrine stand in light of these scriptures?"

First, the book of 1 John was written for 5 reasons"
1)For Christian fellowship (1:3)
2)that the believers joy may be full (1:4)
3)they the believers sin not (2:1)
4)that they might believe on the name of the Son of God (5:13)
5)that they might know they have eternal life (5:13)


In first John there are a variety of "tests' given so that we can know who the true believers are and who the false teachers/false believers are. These tests are along 3 lines
Social=have to do with our relationships with others
Theological=have to do with what we believe
Moral=have to do with how we live.

In the order they appear in the book, here are scriptures which tell us HOW WE CAN KNOW WE ARE SAVED:

Assurance of Salvation:
1 John 1:7,9
1 John 2:3,5-6
1 John 2:10
1 John 2:17
1 John 2:23b
1 John 2:29
1 John 3:6,7
1 John 3:9
1 John 3:14
1 John 3:17-23
1 John 3:24
1 John 4:2
1 John 4:4,6-7
1 John 4:11-16,21
1 John 5:1-5
1 John 5:10
1 John 5:11-13
1 John 5:18-19

Evidence we are not saved:
1 John 1:6
1 John 1:8,10
1 John 2:4
1 John 2:9,11
1 John 2:15-17a
1 John 2:22-23a
1 John 3:6,8
1 John 3:10
1 John 3:14b-15
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:5,6,8
1 John 4:20
1 John 5:10
1 John 5:12b

I was going to put all the scriptures in here but it was too time consuming for tonight (its already past 11pm here). So let me summarize:

1)We can know that we are saved if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah/Christ, that He came in the flesh, made atonement for our sins, and is God. These are the theological tests.
2)We can know that we are saved if we have love for fellow Christians (in the modern sense this would mean not only those of our own organization, that is in fact the opposite, a party spirit), love for all people, and genuine concern and compassion for those who are in need. In a word-if our lives are defined by love for others, it is a strong evidence that we belong to God. These are the social tests.
3)We can know that we are saved if we are trying to live Christ like lives, defined by holiness, godliness, righteousness, and a keeping of God's commandments. If our lives reflect Christ we can know that we are saved. These are the moral tests.

No where in 1 John does he specify (or even mention) speaking in tongues. It is not even a factor. But we are told very specifically:

1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

The only reason I am saved is because of what Christ did at the cross.
I could not do anything to save myself. Plain and simple.
I am a walking advertisement of the mercy and power of God.

After I was saved I received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

After receiving the Holy Spirit I was water baptized.

I'm sure this does not agree with some of you. :nah

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

No solid foundation? How about going to the places in the book of Acts where we actually can see what happened when New Testament Christians received the Holy Spirit.

That tells a different story altogether does it not?

Because when we examine the five actual times the Spirit inspired us to see we can say with pretty strong assurance when the Spirit came tongues came.

Whats more in the times we are given to see there is NO OTHER EVIDENCE given to us with the exception in Acts 19:6.

Its true my friends. There is NOWHERE in Acts where we see a single soul receive the Spirit apart from tongues and prophecy!

If there was the Evangelical cults would have produced it long ago and we would stand corrected.

But it has not happened because no scripture that details receiving the Spirit shows us any other initial evidence than what I have mentioned.

How sad to see former Oneness Pentecostals falling into the Evangelical deception.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

For the simple reason that the people he wrote the letter to were already born of God. They did not need to be told how to be saved they needed to be encouraged in living an overcoming life.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Interesting that not one time is tongues mentioned in epistles to confirm believers salvation. That's something to consider.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Interesting that not one time is tongues mentioned in epistles to confirm believers salvation. That's something to consider.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

When we define the CHRIST the way Isaiah defined it we can quickly rule out many groups and organizations.

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

No Evangelical groups believe Christ is the Father and the Son.
What you are calling a "party spirit" may simply be saints that are contending for the faith once delivered to them by the apostles.

Tho we love all men in a general sense we put the brotherhood first.

Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 1 Peter 2:17

The brotherhood is all saints that believe in the common salvation.

Sadly most groups today have fallen to Evangelical doctrine. I talk to people regularly who contend that Christians sin every day.

Holiness is certainly a sign one is saved but one must first be filled with the Holy Spirit before they can walk in it.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Romans 8:13

Obedience and holiness come as fruit of the Spirit. The contention between us is about INITIAL SALVATION and how it is obtained, not about the life of a Christian after receiving the Spirit.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Please answer carefully. Since every epistle was written to people who were already born of God can we assume that none of the verses in the epistles tell people how to be saved or how to know that they are saved? I think three steppers pick a large variety of verses from the epistles to support their beliefs. So it must not be the case that none of the epistles reiterated the steps required for salvation ever.

Tongues are mentioned in only 1 out of 21 epistles. And in the epistle they are mentioned in we are asked the rhetorical question "do all speak in tongues?"

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

No, not all do.
Only the ones baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

I have no problem believing that one can be born again of the Spirit and, for one reason or another, miss out on the blessing and benefit of tongues. We all are going to miss out on blessings and benefits we were supposed to have. Humans are full of ignorance and weaknesses that do at times hinder us from receiving what God is trying to give us. Tongues are no different.


The real issue to me is not "do all speak with tongues'. Rather, it is 'when are we born again?"

I see nothing in Acts that indicates the Spirit came automatically at the moment of belief. There was a delay of moments to days. Paul would not have asked the men of Ephesus "did you receive the Holy Ghost WHEN you believed?" if it was a by gone conclusion that the Spirit was received immediately upon believing the gospel. Furthermore, there is not a shred of scripture that teaches one if first "born of the Spirit" and later "baptized in the Spirit".

Of course this is problematic to those who are hung up on "instantaneous salvation".

delete
 

delete

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

And there's where the straw man gets built.

Peter declared the initial evidence doctrine when he said 'this is that'.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Could it not be argued that the "this is that" statement is referring to Joel's prophesy of Jehovah pouring out his Spirit?

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Of course it does. And thus, 'initial evidence'.

Joel said when people receive the Spirit, they would 'prophesy' (speak by inspiration of the Spirit).

When Joel's words about the coming outpouring of the Spirit came to pass on that Pentecost day, those who received the Spirit 'spake with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.' A crowd gathered and asked 'what's this all about?' and Peter says 'this is that'.

This - people speaking in other tongues.

That - Joel's prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit 'and they shall prophesy'.

Joel's prophecy was that all God's covenanted people would receive the spirit 'and prophesy'. Prophesying was the one sign Joel mentioned that would be universal. The servants (males) and handmaidens (females), the sons (males) and daughters (females) would prophesy.

When this prophecy came to pass and was fulfilled, it was fulfilled by the disciples of Jesus receiving the Spirit and 'speaking with other tongues'.

Therefore, the apostolic interpretation of 'they shall prophesy' is found in the disciples' speaking with tongues. Not my interpretation, but the apostle Peter's interpretation. And not really his 'interpretation', but rather his declaration under the anointing of the Holy Ghost that THIS IS THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN OF BY THE PROPHET JOEL.

So yes, 'initial evidence doctrine' is clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally declared point blank in the New Testament, in a didactic portion of Scripture (Peter's sermon on Pentecost), specifically designed for evangelistic purposes.

I believe in the initial evidence of prophecy...

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Very good. And even if we look at it as prophecy as distinct from tongues Evangelicals would certainly not touch such a teaching with a ten foot pole.

Their job is to discredit any REAL experience in the salvation/new birth teaching.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Heres the problem with this. It is forgetting there is an INITIAL SALVATION experience. There is a prescribed way to BECOME a Christian.

THEN after that happens all of these things can be used to judge the VALIDITY of their initial salvation experience. Or it works the same that you can judge ones PRESENT condition whether they are STILL abiding in Christ.

People have lost the concept of INITIAL SALVATION vs present and final salvation.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Question for the Semi Evangelical believers?

Can you find any place in scripture that shows a picture of some RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST......as in a conversion experience and something else happened at the time BESIDES tongues and prophecy?

Im not aware of even one case. I don't mean something written to people already saved but rather Christian conversion.

That's what makes the Pentecostal teaching so rock solid.

That's why Charles Parhams students arrived at their conclusion.

Nowhere did anyone (in the up close able to see conversions in Acts) ever was recorded as having some other manifestation when receiving the Spirit except for tongues or prophecy!

Who said that you need to see something happen?

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

In Acts 8, the absence of seeing something happen convinced the apostles and other observers that the Holy Ghost hadn't yet fallen on the Samaritans.

Hence the whole problem with OPs. They are so hung up on externals that the thought of God saving people without an outward/visible/physical manifestation they just cannot believe it could be so.

I see some activity on this thread if I get a chance to get on my laptop tonight I'll answer MTD and Elias. (Posting from cell phone right now)

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

It's one thing to believe salvation occurs at belief and repentence. It's another thing to deny that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is absent an external sign, when Acts 8 makes it so unquestionably clear that a visible, tangible sign was experienced.

All believers should expect to receive the promise of the Holy Ghost. To deny that gift is an unfortunate disservice.

And when the Holy Ghost falls upon a person, something external happens.

Salvation occuring beforehand, sure. But just as all believers should want to obey the command and examples in Scripture to personally identify with the gospel through baptism, they should also earnestly expect to experience the promosed gift of the Holy Ghost.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

What is that? Never heard about that before.
:-)

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

And all who don't are lost.

Throw a party and shout "amen"! I've always been sickened by the way OPs get glee over people who don't measure up to their theology burning in hell. Preach about grace and be maligned and labeled "weak on the message" if not an outright compromiser or apostate. Preach on people who don't keep standards or who don't believe in the same soterieology going to hell and see if you don't get an avalanche of amens.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Seems self explanatory to me.

But that's not the subject of the thread.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

No one has denied the external visible manifestations of Acts 2,8, 10, and 19. The question isn't how did God show that the Spirit initially came on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, but rather is this the normative universal experience for every single person who has been born again/saved in the history of the church? And more specifically the question for this thread revolved around in fact what does the Bible tell us the evidence of salvation is, and the answer is given in the opening post where approximately 20 scriptures are posted that in plain language say "we can know....."
There is absolutely no scripture anywhere that teaches explicitly that someone must speak in tongues to be saved. It is a doctrine of assumption or at the very best a doctrine of implication or suggestion. Because of what happened in Acts 8 and Acts 10 then the implication or suggestion is "this will happen to everyone who is born again" but we don't see that in the NT in epistles or in church history. To my knowledge (and I'm always up for a good church history discussion) no post-apostolic/ante-nicean "father" wrote anything that would back up the notion that all who are saved will speak in tongues, except for perhaps Tertullian later in his life after he became a Montanist (how awkard is that when OPs have to use Tertullian to back as their historical source?). Oh yes you will say "their writings aren't authoritative", and I'll grant you that, but they do have some historical use, and do give us an idea about what happened in the early church, even if it is flawed, uninspired, and incomplete.


All born again believers do receive the Holy Ghost, else they are not born again.
Not necessarily. When God justifies us (Romans 3:26)and imputes the righteousness of Christ to us (Romans 4:24) can we discern that based on external manifestations? Why should we expect an external manifestation when we are adopted into the family of God (Romans 8:15-16), and yet according to Galatians 4:6 anyone who has been adopted has received the Spirit. Being born again is a spiritual work, why do you guys insist on external things-in the face of the majority of the NT and church history? You know that NO ONE taught the "full package" "3 step" salvation until the 20th century, to say nothing of a 3 stepper who taught holiness standards. There is no record of any group or sect teaching what OPs teach regarding salvation anywhere in church history, not just a group, but not even an individual that is documented.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Thank You Esaias for that, I never saw that explained that way before, but it hits the nail on the head.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Jason, you are always falling back on, “The normative universal experience”

After 325AD, several hundred years, “The normative universal experience” was to be a Catholic. Did that make Catholicism true?

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

I have never heard an apostolic preach on justification by faith. Not sure it unlearned or just scared of it.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

There some situations in acts they just believed and that's it. The Ethiopian just believed and baptized then left rejoicing. Did Phillip leave job undone?

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Galatians 3:26 KJV

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.



Why don't he confirm they were children of God by tongues?

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

If speaking in tongues was a sign one was saved why isn't it mention to saints in any of the epistles? One of the main themes of pauls writings was to confirm the believers salvation and what Christ done for them.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

I find it fascinating that some think that the "evidence" the apostles clearly looked for and noted as assurance that someone received the Holy Ghost is somehow unique only to how God poured out the Spirit on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles only.

So, let's set this up:

Philip/other new Christians were hanging out with the Samaritans, preaching to them...they clearly saw them convert to Christianity by believing the message and obeying the gospel, agreeing to be baptized. But they knew that they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost somehow because SOME external sign was absent.

BUT, according to your assertions, they knew that the external sign was only because it was the first time they were preaching to the Samaritans. They wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the next group of converts received the Holy Ghost. Somehow - even though it's not recorded in Scripture anywhere - the apostles knew that the sign was only for the first outpouring of the Spirit to the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans. Oh, wait, and I guess the Ephesian believers who Paul met, as well.

The absence of tongues being mentioned with every single passage that describes someone's first experience with the outpouring/baptism/being filled with the Holy Ghost is not enough evidence to ignore the fact of what IS recorded in Scripture.

We don't only have one, but TWO recorded "Holy Ghost outpouring" experiences, where the apostles felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of receiving the Holy Ghost subsequent to the act of repentance. If the Holy Ghost "falls" on someone without any external sign, and this happens at the point of belief/repentance, why do we have two instances in Scripture that specifically deal with an external sign showing subsequent experience of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" after the point of repentance?

Regardless of all the other assurances of someone's salvation - none of which I dispute - I still haven't seen a straight answer/explanation of why Acts 8 and 19 exist, what they're telling us, other than that they clearly indicate that someone can believe/repent without receiving the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost comes with some sort of external sign to makes it clear to all observers that it happened.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

There's that ole straw man again.

Have you ever read James Dunn? I guess not...



All christian sects throughout history with the exception of a few Reformation era Pietist sects taught baptism was part of becoming a Christian. They may have differed in regard to terminology, but they all affirmed it was a definite 'means of grace'.

Repentance was also taught. Even paedobaptists have a vestige of this in Confirmation.

The Spirit baptism is where everyone fell off the bandwagon in a big way, but the vestige of even that remains in 'Chrismation' or 'Christening' rites among paedobaptists.

What you are really arguing for is the idea that 'the Pentecostal experience' is a recent phenomenon unattested to in 'church history'.

Bernard's book 'the New Birth' does a good job exploring statements by the Post Apostolic Fathers and the AnteNicene Fathers regarding operations of the Spirit, tongues, etc continuing throughout church history, until fading out commensurate with the rise of sacerdotal religion (catholicism). He includes an interesting quote from Chrysostom regarding 'what used to happen' - "Well, what did happen then? Whoever was baptised he straightway spoke with tongues."

So your claims about "church history" are in serious error.

This is laughable. Others (including Bernard and the trinitarian scholar Dunn) have proven already this claim is absurd.

Carry on.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Dunn has the best reconciliation of the scriptures concerning repentance and baptism I have ever read.

Bro Elias would you mind giving me some names? I've read the New Birth (twice), Tomas Weiser, William Chalfant, Talmadge French and Bernards A History of Christian Doctrine (all 3 volumes, twice) and if memory serves me right they didn't produce a single group that believed what the UPC believes is necessary for salvation. They try to pin the tail on people like Michael Servetus, some vague Anabaptists, Sabellius, and the like, but none of these people or groups believed in the "full package" of oneness theology, baptism in JN, regenerative tongues as the initial evidence, and strict outward holiness standards (including uncut hair doctrine). Now granted you can find groups that believed in two of theses things (such as anti trinitarians who baptized in Jesus name or groups like the montanists who apparently believed in speaking in tongues and strict outward standards- though they saw tongues as the gift of prophecy, not the initial sign of the infilling if the Spirit). In addition to these oneness leaning authors I've also read the majority of K. Lattourette's The History of Christianity vol.1, and Phillip Schaffs The History of the Christian Church vol. 1 & 2 and F.F. Bruce's New Testament History and there seems to be no witness anywhere to back up the initial evidence view. Now there is some compelling information that makes it tough for trinitarians, baptism in Jesus name as the way the church baptized into the 2nd century and you've got an argument backed up by the NT (not just Acts but the epistles too) and witnessed in church history. But tongues as THE initial evidence, no where.

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

First, while its possible that Philip did know that they had not received the Holy Spirit, there is nothing in the text to prove that point. Luke's commentary (written some 20-30 years after the fact) tells us that when the apostles heard that Samaria had received the Word of God that Peter and John were sent, and after they got there they prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Ghost. There is no indication in the text that Phillip considered these people as unregenerate because they had not spoken in tongues. It is quite possible that when Peter and John arrived he and they assumed they were going to help with the work of God in Samaria and perhaps none of them realized that God was about to pour out the Holy Ghost on the Samaritans with an outward manifestation (that we assume) was similar or identical to what happened on the day of Pentecost. I know in ministry there have been times when God did something special or extraordinary that was quite surprising and unexpected by me. Its not impossible that this outpouring of the Holy Spirit in this manner was a surprise to Philip, Peter, and John. I don't think there is enough evidence to argue dogmatically either way, but I do think at the very least it should be noted that
1)The text doesn't say that Phillip knew they needed to receive the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues
2)The text doesn't state that Phillip asked for Peter and John to come to Samaria
3)The text doesn't explicitly state that Peter and John came to Samaria so the Samaritans could receive the Holy Ghost (though that was the obvious effect/purpose in God's plan and providence)

We have to assume all three of those things, which in turn also leads to more questions, such as "*IF* Phillip knew the Samaritans had not received the Holy Ghost, was he unable to help them in this deficiency? Did his ministry lack power? Why go preach in the first place if your message can't save anyone? He should have taken a ministry team to begin with. Was Philip not a Holy Ghost filled man? And furthermore-can someone else receive the Holy Ghost based on the merits of the preacher? If Phillip preached truth to the Samaritans and tongues was the initial evidence shouldn't they have been able to receive it even if Phillip was powerless to give it, since it is a gift of God, not a gift of the evangelist? Did not Phillip have Holy Ghost? We have no record of him speaking in tongues-the only record of tongues speaking prior to this was in Acts 2, and we don't meet Phillip until Acts 8. Its quite possible he was a convert after Pentecost, and possibly (even likely) he was a Hellenistic Jew (which makes it unlikely he was among the 120 mostly Hebraic Jews of Acts ch.1). To me it seems everything makes sense to conclude from Acts 8:5-17 that God has a special plan and purpose for what happened in Samaria that day, just as he did for the day of Pentecost in AD30, and we miss that when we try to make that the normative pattern of salvation.
In fact we have witness within this same chapter that Phillip himself apparently didn't regard that as the normative salvation experience, nor tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost in every believers life.

In Acts 8:26-39, Phillip meets the Ethiopian Eunuch and he's right back to preaching the same thing he preached in Samaria with the same results (Acts 8:12/Acts 8:38)

I find it interesting you state that according to my assertions "they wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the NEXT GROUP OF CONVERTS received the Holy Ghost" Then you say its not recorded in scripture, and in fact, the very next conversion recorded in scripture (Ethiopian Eunuch) affirms what you say I am asserting.


Granted.

However the absence of any didactic or explicit teaching that tongues is the universal first experience of someone who has received the Holy Ghost anywhere in scripture, and especially the Epistles which seem to teach the opposite (and at the very least you must agree are silent concerning your assertion) do seem to me to be enough to throw the doctrine into serious doubt if not outright rejection.
Apparently this was what God in His absolute divine sovereignty choose to use to teach the early church there was no more difference between the Jew, the Samaritan, and the Gentile. There seems to be at least the hint of this in scripture:

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Acts 11:17-18 (KJV)

Re: The Real Evidence of Salvation
 

Bump