Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Tithesmeister]

Votive Soul, Pressing On and Good Samaritan,

The key word is precedent. If you look at the first two syllables, they give a strong hint as to the definition. I’ll post a definition from Miriam Webster.

precedent adjective
pre·​ce·​dent | \ pri-ˈsē-dᵊnt , ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 1 of 2)
: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
precedent noun
prec·​e·​dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind
a verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

Notice that the FIRST definition has to do with prior in time. Hence my remark that “other tongues” were preceded by “cloven tongues”. So just on the strength of being a precedent we could not truthfully say that one was greater than the other, at least not according to the literal definition of the word.

It could be debated that the wind blowing where it listeth is prophetic concerning the “sound from heaven”.

We have mentioned a couple of instances of tongues of fire being reported in the last century or so. In this case the tongues of fire would be a precedent in all definitions of the word.

The OP asked was tongues “a sign” or “the sign”. I believe the honest answer is that tongues were a sign. Votive Soul listed other signs. If there are other signs it would necessarily mean that tongues are a sign. They are without a doubt the most common sign. They may be the only sign that ALWAYS accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost but I don’t think it is accurate to say they are the ONLY sign.

It would perhaps be helpful to post a scripture that says that “without speaking in tongues we cannot be saved”, kind of like the one that says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His.

We say that we should seek after the Holy Ghost, and we should , but we often, if the truth be told, seek after the sign of the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues).

According to Peter in Acts 2, if we repent and are baptized in Jesus name, we are promised the “gift” of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I wonder if we should just trust God to fulfill His promise instead of trying to take our “gift” that he has promised.

[Hoovie]

Yes. Tithemeister just nailed it.

❤️

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Votive Soul, Pressing On and Good Samaritan,

The key word is precedent. If you look at the first two syllables, they give a strong hint as to the definition. I’ll post a definition from Miriam Webster.

precedent adjective
pre·​ce·​dent | \ pri-ˈsē-dᵊnt , ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 1 of 2)
: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
precedent noun
prec·​e·​dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind
a verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

Notice that the FIRST definition has to do with prior in time. Hence my remark that “other tongues” were preceded by “cloven tongues”. So just on the strength of being a precedent we could not truthfully say that one was greater than the other, at least not according to the literal definition of the word.

It could be debated that the wind blowing where it listeth is prophetic concerning the “sound from heaven”.

We have mentioned a couple of instances of tongues of fire being reported in the last century or so. In this case the tongues of fire would be a precedent in all definitions of the word.

The OP asked was tongues “a sign” or “the sign”. I believe the honest answer is that tongues were a sign. Votive Soul listed other signs. If there are other signs it would necessarily mean that tongues are a sign. They are without a doubt the most common sign. They may be the only sign that ALWAYS accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost but I don’t think it is accurate to say they are the ONLY sign.

It would perhaps be helpful to post a scripture that says that “without speaking in tongues we cannot be saved”, kind of like the one that says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His.

We say that we should seek after the Holy Ghost, and we should , but we often, if the truth be told, seek after the sign of the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues).

According to Peter in Acts 2, if we repent and are baptized in Jesus name, we are promised the “gift” of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I wonder if we should just trust God to fulfill His promise instead of trying to take our “gift” that he has promised.

The problem is that nowadays, we get a continuous message that baptism of the Holy Spirit:
1) It is not necessary for salvation
2) Speaking in tongues is not necessary the only evidence

To what we say: yes, you need to be baptized of the Spirit; yes you will speak in tongues when you get it.

Since it is a salvation issue, and the one that save is God, and the one who care is the individual soul, I wouldn't second guess it. God gave us the clues of what happens when you get baptized. You can see the pattern in Acts, you can see the intention of Luke to teach it. There is no need to have a different experience than what we can see in Acts.

I wouldn't tell myself that everything is OK. I would eagerly try to have the Acts experience. Is it impossible for God? No. For the sake of one's soul, better seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and make sure you get the evidence. (Tithesmeister, I'm talking in general terms, "you" is not you , you probably already got it. )

[Pressing-On]

I think VotiveSoul has it correct. I have nothing else to add.

I am very tired today, long work week, so please forgive me - I think it is stupid for people who have spoken in tongues to argue that it is not the only sign, not salvational, or not the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Something has gone terribly wrong in a person’s heart. Very sad. I have no idea why I still find that surprising on an “Apostolic” forum.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Votive Soul, Pressing On and Good Samaritan,

The key word is precedent. If you look at the first two syllables, they give a strong hint as to the definition. I’ll post a definition from Miriam Webster.

precedent adjective
pre·​ce·​dent | \ pri-ˈsē-dᵊnt , ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 1 of 2)
: prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance
precedent noun
prec·​e·​dent | \ ˈpre-sə-dənt \
Definition of precedent (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an earlier occurrence of something similar
2a : something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind
a verdict that had no precedent
b : the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3 : a person or thing that serves as a model

Notice that the FIRST definition has to do with prior in time. Hence my remark that “other tongues” were preceded by “cloven tongues”. So just on the strength of being a precedent we could not truthfully say that one was greater than the other, at least not according to the literal definition of the word.

It could be debated that the wind blowing where it listeth is prophetic concerning the “sound from heaven”.

We have mentioned a couple of instances of tongues of fire being reported in the last century or so. In this case the tongues of fire would be a precedent in all definitions of the word.

The OP asked was tongues “a sign” or “the sign”. I believe the honest answer is that tongues were a sign. Votive Soul listed other signs. If there are other signs it would necessarily mean that tongues are a sign. They are without a doubt the most common sign. They may be the only sign that ALWAYS accompanies receiving the Holy Ghost but I don’t think it is accurate to say they are the ONLY sign.

It would perhaps be helpful to post a scripture that says that “without speaking in tongues we cannot be saved”, kind of like the one that says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of His.

We say that we should seek after the Holy Ghost, and we should , but we often, if the truth be told, seek after the sign of the Holy Ghost (speaking in tongues).

According to Peter in Acts 2, if we repent and are baptized in Jesus name, we are promised the “gift” of the Holy Ghost. Sometimes I wonder if we should just trust God to fulfill His promise instead of trying to take our “gift” that he has promised.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There was also a rushing mighty wind.

Out of all the various occurrences of people receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts, and with all the various factors that occurred (wind, cloven tongues like fire, speaking with other tongues, magnifying God, prophesying), the only current that runs through all of them is speaking with other tongues.

How God chooses to operate or what He chooses to manifest in addition to causing someone to speak with other tongues when He pours out His Spirit is His prerogative.

None of these things, therefore, need to be considered precedent because they do not set a general principle or rule in and of themselves, not being recurring themes. Speaking with other tongues, however, is a precedent, legally speaking, because it is recurrent, and does give us a general principle or rule in this matter.

[JamesGlen]

God ACCEPTS EVERY ONE that fears him and does what’s right-Acts 10.

With that said, Why is there so many modern day Corneliuses, that fear our Saviour and do what’s right(many no doubt moreso that many Pentecostals), and yet they haven not spoken with tongues....
Has God not accepted them, just as He did Cornelius?

Will he NEVER accept them?





The Spirit fell on Cornelius(without his crew SEEKING the Holyghost or seeking an outward sign/evidence of tongues) because God accepted him, according to Peter.
This was even BEFORE baptism.
Peter never told Cornelius to repent(probly because he didn’t have anything to repent from) and be Jesus name baptized for the remission of his sins, before the Holyghost FELL on him. God simply accepted him, Peter let him know he was accepted to come through the door, Jesus, and then bam the Spirit fell on him. No seeking.

[JamesGlen]

Question for Hoovie, when u find time:
When (in Acts 10, expounded on in 11) do you believe Cornelius was born again, like Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

God ACCEPTS EVERY ONE that fears him and does what’s right-Acts 10.

With that said, Why is there so many modern day Corneliuses, that fear our Saviour and do what’s right(many no doubt moreso that many Pentecostals), and yet they haven not spoken with tongues....
Has God not accepted them, just as He did Cornelius?

Will he NEVER accept them?





The Spirit fell on Cornelius(without his crew SEEKING the Holyghost or seeking an outward sign/evidence of tongues) because God accepted him, according to Peter. This was even before baptism.

Are you legitimately serious? God already accepted him, yet told him that Peter would tell him what he OUGHT to do? Cornelius was accepted to enter the Kingdom because of his faith. It takes faith to obey! “And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: He lodges with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell you what you ought to do.”

[JamesGlen]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Are you legitimately serious? God already accepted him, yet told him that Peter would tell him what he OUGHT to do? Cornelius was accepted to enter the Kingdom because of his faith. It takes faith to obey! “And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: He lodges with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell you what you ought to do.”

What I was meaning is just wondering why did the Spirit just fall on him (before Peter commanded baptism) without him “going to the alter to seek” the Holyghost with tongues as the evidence, like nowadays.
And why doesn’t whst happened to Cornelius happen to do many other demons that fear our Savior and keep his commandments? They’re all around us.

It’s late, long day- tired, having trouble putting my thoughts “on paper”.
I better just give up and try again sometime later

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Galatians is referring to the people they are speaking and ministering to - Jews and Gentiles., not two Gospels. Otherwise, chapter 2 would contradict chapter 1:

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ to another gospel:Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

Also, the precedent was set in the Book of Acts in regard to speaking in tongues. It wasn’t necessary to say it over and over, because their focus was on belief in Jesus Christ.

The one troubling the Galatians were the Jews trying to get them to do the works of the law... correct? And I’m glad you brought up that it was t necessary to bring up or say over and over..

I’ve been in UPC 45+ years and my personal experience has been that more often than not, the subject of Acts 2:38 and speaking in tongues in in most, and I would venture all sermons.

What’s I found strange is that tongues as evidence is found in Acts alone, unless I missed something the only other reference is in Corinthians where Paul say he prefers prophecy to tongues, but not to forbid tongues.

Have we become so focused on tongues that we missed the fruit?

Jesus said you would know prophets by there fruit, He also said that the sign of His disciples would be LOVE for one another.

I have spoke in tongues and my father when he spoke in tongues was definitely a language. What’s scary is people teaching people tongues and then telling them they are filled.

I believe that is what some of us are trying to clarify - we see people who speak with tongues but their life doesn’t add up, there’s no good fruit, no love. So how can we say that speaking in tongues “saves someone”?

45+ years and lots of unanswered questions. 🤔

[Rev Ike]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hi Chris.

Sorry, This is Rich 😀