Tongues and Biblical Truth

[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.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

You will forgive me if I find this interesting so I have to ask you opinion on something from the AOG website. BTW, if anyone is wondering I am well aware that you are not AOG, but you are Pentecostal with the same beginnings so there may be a little Pentecostal language that means something a little different.

So, on that AOG website it says this about those fundamental truths:

This "Statement of Fundamental Truths" contains the 16 doctrines of the Assemblies of God. These are non-negotiable tenets of faith that all Assemblies of God churches adhere to. Four of these, Salvation, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing, and the Second Coming of Christ are considered Cardinal Doctrines which are essential to the church's core mission of reaching the world for Christ.

So, that sounds like "you must" to me, but because of what you told me I looked more and found a position paper on the doctrine which says this:

The official doctrinal statements of the Assemblies of God regarding baptism in the Holy Spirit are found in the Statement of Fundamental Truths and are as follows:

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 come 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; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Corinthians 12:1–31). This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12–17; 10:44–46; 11:14–16; 15:7–9). With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37–39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Hebrews 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20).

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). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4–10,28), but different in purpose and use.

Okay, so as I read that I get the distinction which you spoke of and while baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that "ardently expect and earnestly seek" for the reasons given, it is not essential to salvation as it is distinct subsequent to the new birth.

So, if I have that right then just to be sure I understand, you are saying that some Oneness have a similar/same view as this, and others would say that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is indeed part of the new birth and is therefore necessary. Those who hold the position of the AOG (or similar) believe the initial evidence of tongues always accompanies baptism in the Holy Spirit, but since it is not part of the new birth experience it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be saved. However, if you view baptism in the Holy Spirit as part of the new birth experience, and it is always accompanied by tongues, then the initial evidence is part and parcel to salvation. Do I pretty much have it now?

TheLayman

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

You will forgive me if I find this interesting so I have to ask you opinion on something from the AOG website. BTW, if anyone is wondering I am well aware that you are not AOG, but you are Pentecostal with the same beginnings so there may be a little Pentecostal language that means something a little different.

So, on that AOG website it says this about those fundamental truths:

This "Statement of Fundamental Truths" contains the 16 doctrines of the Assemblies of God. These are non-negotiable tenets of faith that all Assemblies of God churches adhere to. Four of these, Salvation, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing, and the Second Coming of Christ are considered Cardinal Doctrines which are essential to the church's core mission of reaching the world for Christ.

So, that sounds like "you must" to me, but because of what you told me I looked more and found a position paper on the doctrine which says this:

The official doctrinal statements of the Assemblies of God regarding baptism in the Holy Spirit are found in the Statement of Fundamental Truths and are as follows:

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 come 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; Acts 1:4,8; 1 Corinthians 12:1–31). This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth (Acts 8:12–17; 10:44–46; 11:14–16; 15:7–9). With the baptism in the Holy Spirit come such experiences as an overflowing fullness of the Spirit (John 7:37–39; Acts 4:8), a deepened reverence for God (Acts 2:43; Hebrews 12:28), an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work (Acts 2:42), and a more active love for Christ, for His Word, and for the lost (Mark 16:20).

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). The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:4–10,28), but different in purpose and use.

Okay, so as I read that I get the distinction which you spoke of and while baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that "ardently expect and earnestly seek" for the reasons given, it is not essential to salvation as it is distinct subsequent to the new birth.

So, if I have that right then just to be sure I understand, you are saying that some Oneness have a similar/same view as this, and others would say that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is indeed part of the new birth and is therefore necessary. Those who hold the position of the AOG (or similar) believe the initial evidence of tongues always accompanies baptism in the Holy Spirit, but since it is not part of the new birth experience it is not necessary to speak in tongues to be saved. However, if you view baptism in the Holy Spirit as part of the new birth experience, and it is always accompanied by tongues, then the initial evidence is part and parcel to salvation. Do I pretty much have it now?

TheLayman

Yes, that's pretty much it.

Keep in mind, while some Pentecostals may believe Holy Spirit baptism is distinct from and after new birth/regeneration, they may still believe it is essential to salvation in the sense they believe that without it one will either inevitably backslide, or else will have stopped growing in grace.

The same debate (minus the tongues issue) was common amongst the Holiness groups in regard to the issue of entire sanctification, by the way.