Allow me to Think Abstractly for a Moment

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Hebrews 11
By Faith We Understand
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

We're all very familiar with this scripture.

So, with that said, why do we feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

Because Acts 10:45-46 said there was.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because Acts 10:45-46 said there was.

Acts 10:45-46, says that the phenomena observed by Peter and those who had traveled to Caesarea with him was identical to the phenomena that had occurred in Acts 2 (See Acts 10:47). Nothing more is asserted in this passage concerning "speaking in tongues."

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Cornelius and his household "had to speak in tongues in order to be saved." Nowhere in this passage does it say that anyone else must "speak in tongues" in order to be saved.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Acts 10:45-46, says that the phenomena observed by Peter and those who had traveled to Caesarea with him was identical to the phenomena that had occurred in Acts 2 (See Acts 10:47). Nothing more is asserted in this passage concerning "speaking in tongues."

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Cornelius and his household "had to speak in tongues in order to be saved." Nowhere in this passage does it say that anyone else must "speak in tongues" in order to be saved.

Agreed. the phenomenon of speaking with other tongues is presented as something that happens at or after receiving an experience designated as "filled with the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit coming upon" or "the Spirit falling upon" or a "baptism in the Spirit." This seems to happen after the initial conversion or salvation experience.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Acts 10:45-46, says that the phenomena observed by Peter and those who had traveled to Caesarea with him was identical to the phenomena that had occurred in Acts 2 (See Acts 10:47). Nothing more is asserted in this passage concerning "speaking in tongues."

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Cornelius and his household "had to speak in tongues in order to be saved." Nowhere in this passage does it say that anyone else must "speak in tongues" in order to be saved.

The thing that was asserted was that Peter knew that Cornelius and friends had received the gift of the Holy Ghost BECAUSE they spoke with other tongues. It implies that the baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by speaking with other tongues. It is the visible sign of being filled by an invisible God. Added to Acts 2 and Acts 8 and Acts 19, it is added weight to the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues. It leaves no doubt in the mind of the believer because they know they have received the promise of the Father when they spoke with tongues the first time as they prayed.

[Phil Stearns]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The thing that was asserted was that Peter knew that Cornelius and friends had received the gift of the Holy Ghost BECAUSE they spoke with other tongues. It implies that the baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by speaking with other tongues. It is the visible sign of being filled by an invisible God. Added to Acts 2 and Acts 8 and Acts 19, it is added weight to the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues. It leaves no doubt in the mind of the believer because they know they have received the promise of the Father when they spoke with tongues the first time as they prayed.

Yes. You have it right, sister. God bless your love for the truth!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Phil Stearns

Yes. You have it right, sister. God bless your love for the truth!

It makes you wonder how the Peter would have known that they were filled with the Spirit if they had not spoken with other tongues.

And why in the world did Paul ask those disciples in Ephesus if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed if the Holy Spirit was given at faith? Redundant question.

And how did Philip know the Samaritans hadn't yet received the Spirit when they had believed the gospel and were baptized?

[helen_febus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The thing that was asserted was that Peter knew that Cornelius and friends had received the gift of the Holy Ghost BECAUSE they spoke with other tongues. It implies that the baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by speaking with other tongues. It is the visible sign of being filled by an invisible God. Added to Acts 2 and Acts 8 and Acts 19, it is added weight to the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues. It leaves no doubt in the mind of the believer because they know they have received the promise of the Father when they spoke with tongues the first time as they prayed.

Amen

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Acts 10:45-46, says that the phenomena observed by Peter and those who had traveled to Caesarea with him was identical to the phenomena that had occurred in Acts 2 (See Acts 10:47). Nothing more is asserted in this passage concerning "speaking in tongues."

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Cornelius and his household "had to speak in tongues in order to be saved." Nowhere in this passage does it say that anyone else must "speak in tongues" in order to be saved.

it didnt say they are saved by faith alone either.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Acts 10:45-46, says that the phenomena observed by Peter and those who had traveled to Caesarea with him was identical to the phenomena that had occurred in Acts 2 (See Acts 10:47). Nothing more is asserted in this passage concerning "speaking in tongues."

It was the first (initial) sign (evidence) that told the believers these folks received the Holy Ghost. Nothing else in the bible comes close to this statement either way.

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Cornelius and his household "had to speak in tongues in order to be saved."

Noe one said it did.

Nowhere in this passage does it say that anyone else must "speak in tongues" in order to be saved.

Never said it did. I just said it shows tongues was initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost.

The question was asked why people think there has to be initial evidence of the Holy Ghost.

[Phil Stearns]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because Acts 10:45-46 said there was.

Right.