True. I don't consider myself "pentecostal" in large part because I deny the initial evidence doctrine.
While I understand why you say this, I don't think thats a fact at all. Really only with the exception of the Samaritans in
Acts 8 is there any gap of time whatsoever between someone converting and receiving the Holy Spirit. I assert that there was a special reason God had for using the manifestation of tongues in
Acts 2,8,10, and 19, and that this was not the normative experience for all Christian converts in Acts.
For example, consider that there is no suggestion that the 3,000 in
Acts 2 ever spoke in tongues, nor the 5,000 in
Acts 4, nor the Ethiopian Eunuch in
Acts 8, nor the Philippian jailers household in
Acts 16, nor any of the above listed 21 conversions, with the exception of 3, specifically Samaritans, Conrelius, and John's disciples in Ephesus.
Really I think the Jerusalem council is a very telling narrative that tongues WAS NOT considered the initial evidence of the Spirit, nor expected when preaching the gospel to sinners. Consider that Peter went to Cornelius' house in
Acts 10, and then after some time Paul and Barnabas end up preaching to the Gentiles in Antioch and have a wider Gentile ministry. They are seeing conversions and fruit from their ministry. But then when the Judaizers come and say except these new converts be circumcised they cannot be saved, so they go up to Jerusalem to the council where after a very passionate debate about whether or not the Gentiles could be saved without circumcision Peter finally speaks up and calls everyone's attention back to the experience in Cornelius household that happened several years previous to this council. His argument is so convincing that it settles the issue. so let me ask you,
*IF* every single time a Gentile converted they received the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then why was Peter's argument so powerful? Why didn't Paul and Barnabas just say "guys when we preach the gospel to the Gentile they receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues." If this was common place then there would be no need for the argument about circumcision because the Gentiles would have had an outward evidence in fact that God had accepted them. But it wasn't the normative experience which is why Peter had to reference a one time event that happened several years previously. What happened at Cornelius house was directly identified with what happened in
Acts 2 and
Acts 8 and that is the sign God used to bring all these people groups together into one unified body. But we make an interpretational mistake when we assume this happened at all the time universally.
Threaded Mode
