Tongues- A sign or THE sign Of Spirit Infilling

[Jay]

Ike, I was born and raised until my mid twenties in the UPCI, and have been a Oneness Pentecostal all 36 of my earthly years. I have heard numerous messages that never mentioned Acts 2:38 or related topics, but some claimed that was all they heard, but others claimed to hear only holiness standards preached. The reality is that many messages were preached that dealt with neither topic. Maybe some people need to start being obedient.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

John 3:8 This verse has Jesus telling Nicodemus (Greek speaking Judean) that everyone born of the Spirit will have the voice of the Spirit.

Maybe that is too easy an answer for the wanna be Baptist around here. But it is pretty plain.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Yes. Tithemeister just nailed it.

❤️

Yes, like Jello to a wall.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jay

Ike, I was born and raised until my mid twenties in the UPCI, and have been a Oneness Pentecostal all 36 of my earthly years. I have heard numerous messages that never mentioned Acts 2:38 or related topics, but some claimed that was all they heard, but others claimed to hear only holiness standards preached. The reality is that many messages were preached that dealt with neither topic. Maybe some people need to start being obedient.

I’m sorry, but Jay, why are you mentioning the above?
How does this fit with the discussion and what do you see happening here?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

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

So James, that's what bugs you. I wonder why. The church back then didn't have an altar. However, they used to gather together to pray, and they used to pray and lay hands to receive the Holy Spirit:

[Act 8:15, 17 KJV] 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: ... 17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

What we do at the altar nowadays is similar to what the saints used to do back then: just gather together in a common place to pray together and pray that some may receive the Holy Ghost by laying hands on them.

Brother, it is true that some people may try to push the meat down other people's throat, forcing an experience that hasn't happened. I personally explain what baptism of the Holy Spirit is as it happened to the Apostles and Cornelius and then just tell them, "I'll pray that you may receive the Holy Spirit". I won't force the experience. If they don't get it, I would tell them, "we will keep praying for you so you get it". If God wants that person to have it, he will prepare the soul over time, and keep him/her alive until they get it. No need to push it. All we have to do is keep teaching Jesus to them and praying laying hands on them. God will the prepare the soul and do it as soon as they get really ready for it. My point is that not everybody pushes the experience. I don't do it, and I see other that don't do it either.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by coksiw

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]

Originally Posted by Rev Ike

[/B]

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.

I can’t speak to that as I wasn’t personally there to witness any of it. It hasn’t been the case in my 30+ years in Pentecost.

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 would think that after the events taking place (with Jesus promising the Holy Ghost; 120 waiting in the upper room for it, ALL receiving the Spirit speaking in tongues; Paul meets John’s disciples and after instruction, they receive the Spirit speaking in tongues and immediately begin to be used in the gifts by prophesying) that it would be apparent what it was all about.

If people don’t personally grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, how does that negate truth?

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. ��

Again, how does the failure of people in your eyes negate the truth of the Gospel? When did we think it was the proper thing to do to compare an individual life against truth?

2Ti 2:12-13 “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”

Is this scripture true or not?

The beauty of His love is the understanding the we can continue walking and praising Him after we have personally seen Him work in our own lives and have seen the things He has forgiven us of.

We have all made mistakes, some worse than others. They are all the same to God. None of these things negate the truth of the Gospel.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I’m sorry, but Jay, why are you mentioning the above?
How does this fit with the discussion and what do you see happening here?

I understood what Jay was getting at and felt it was relevant to this thread. Just my two cents.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I understood what Jay was getting at and felt it was relevant to this thread. Just my two cents.

Ok, so please explain it to me.
What was he saying and how is it relevant to this thread. Also if you see this before PO posts please chime in.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

So James, that's what bugs you. I wonder why. The church back then didn't have an altar. However, they used to gather together to pray, and they used to pray and lay hands to receive the Holy Spirit:

[Act 8:15, 17 KJV] 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: ... 17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

What we do at the altar nowadays is similar to what the saints used to do back then: just gather together in a common place to pray together and pray that some may receive the Holy Ghost by laying hands on them.

Brother, it is true that some people may try to push the meat down other people's throat, forcing an experience that hasn't happened. I personally explain what baptism of the Holy Spirit is as it happened to the Apostles and Cornelius and then just tell them, "I'll pray that you may receive the Holy Spirit". I won't force the experience. If they don't get it, I would tell them, "we will keep praying for you so you get it". If God wants that person to have it, he will prepare the soul over time, and keep him/her alive until they get it. No need to push it. All we have to do is keep teaching Jesus to them and praying laying hands on them. God will the prepare the soul and do it as soon as they get really ready for it. My point is that not everybody pushes the experience. I don't do it, and I see other that don't do it either.

I wonder what would happen if we quit "explaining" the Holy Ghost baptism "with tongues"? Did the early church prep people with an explanation of what to expect?