The Real Evidence of Salvation

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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?"

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".

[Originalist]

delete

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

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,

And there's where the straw man gets built.

nor does it ever say that speaking in tongues is the one universal initial evidence that someone has received the Holy Ghost.

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

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And there's where the straw man gets built.



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

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

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

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.

[houston]

I believe in the initial evidence of prophecy...

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

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.

[Michael The Disciple]

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.

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.

[Michael The Disciple]

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!

[houston]

Who said that you need to see something happen?