Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
I believe that tongues are the initial evidence, but not the only evidence.
|
What do you mean? If it is the
initial/relating to the beginning evidence, then how can there be another evidence?
Some use
Acts 19:6 to prove that you can
prophesy as one sign. This verse is simply showing that the "gifts of the spirit" taught in
I Cor 12-14 were instantly in operation.
You don't have to have maturity to operate in the gifts, although, the gifts will mature you.
As far as I can see in the Word (
Acts 10:45-46) and until God shows me differently, I don't see there being any other evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost but tongues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
I'll give that a hesitant yes.  Hesitant because I dislike the process in which we feel we must assess new converts and make sure they are speaking in a "fluent" tongue before we approve of their infilling. Hesitant because if someone said they had been filled with the Holy Ghost but hadn't spoken in tongues, I wouldn't contradict them. I feel like people seek after *tongues* more than they seek after God. Or at least, they're encouraged to do so by Apostolics who are after the sign instead of the infilling. Does that make sense? It's not so much what I believe on this point personally; it's more that I don't feel I have the right to really question other people's experiences with God. |
I wouldn't contradict nor belittle someone's experience with God either. It doesn't mean that I have to agree that they have the correct understanding. My BIL once asked me why "feeling joy" when you repent wasn't a sign to mean you had received God's Spirit. I showed him what I saw in the Word because he asked. Otherwise, I would have smiled and said nothing.
Threaded Mode
