Saved at faith or initial evidence?

[houston]

Some people's beliefs I find to be disturbing. I would like to discuss one of them today.

Some here believe that a person is saved at the point of faith. They ALSO believe in initial evidence doctrine. SHALABOSHA!

How do you reconcile the two? If a person is saved at faith- THAT is when they received the Holy Spirit, for there is no salvation without the Holy Spirit. I've seen a few posts where someone has stated that a person is saved at faith but they'd encourage them to receive the Spirit. That's a contradiction (in my simple mind).

[obriencp]

uh-oh... here we go again

I, through my studies, have been able to separate glossolalia (tongues) from being born of the spirit although I was raised to believe the initial evidence doctrine (you're not saved/filled with the Holy Ghost unless you've spoken in tongues). I'm not saying they can't happen simultaneously, but there is not enough scriptural support to judge all non-tongue speakers as unsaved.

Most on this board will disagree with me, but if you press the issue and begin to debate with scripture, undoubtedly there will be contradictions if one holds to the initial evidence stance.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by obriencp

uh-oh... here we go again

I, through my studies, have been able to separate glossolalia (tongues) from being born of the spirit although I was raised to believe the initial evidence doctrine (you're not saved/filled with the Holy Ghost unless you've spoken in tongues). I'm not saying they can't happen simultaneously, but there is not enough scriptural support to judge all non-tongue speakers as unsaved.

Most on this board will disagree with me, but if you press the issue and begin to debate with scripture, undoubtedly there will be contradictions if one holds to the initial evidence stance.

"Initial Evidence" doctrine needs to be clearly defined before we go any further.

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

The terminology can be a tricky one. I believe the terms "filled" and "baptized in the Spirit" have been flip-flopped over the years. Even the "Gift" of the Holy Spirit is sometimes used to mean that you've been saved, but now you have access to the gifts (tongues, prophesying, etc) because you now have been given the "Gift of the Holy Ghost/Spirit."

According to some, there have been a few baptisms and still one to come. God's wrath and the flood baptism on the earth (cleansing the earth of wickedness). Spiritual Baptism on Pentecost (all now have access to the spirit through faith IE not exclusive to prophets). And, last but not least, the baptism of Fire which is the world being destroyed by fire and brimstone.

If you believe the world was baptized in spirit one time on pentecost (not that we all have it automatically, but that it's available upon repentance and true faith), then we simply receive the spirit when we're saved, but not technically baptized. Not sure yet where I stand on the terminology of it all.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by houston

Some people's beliefs I find to be disturbing. I would like to discuss one of them today.

Some here believe that a person is saved at the point of faith. They ALSO believe in initial evidence doctrine. SHALABOSHA!

How do you reconcile the two? If a person is saved at faith- THAT is when they received the Holy Spirit, for there is no salvation without the Holy Spirit. I've seen a few posts where someone has stated that a person is saved at faith but they'd encourage them to receive the Spirit. That's a contradiction (in my simple mind).

You are spot on. It is impossible to be saved "at faith" and receive the Spirit at another time.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

You are spot on. It is impossible to be saved "at faith" and receive the Spirit at another time.

To this I fully agree.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

"Initial Evidence" doctrine needs to be clearly defined before we go any further.

I know the AG holds to the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, but according to them, speaking in tongues is the "Initial Evidence" of one being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This is something that I do have a question about, but I can accept this much easier than the idea that a person is not saved until they speak in tongues-- which is the Apostolic stance.

Initial Evidence Doctrine (defined)- Speaking in tongues is the universal initial evidence that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost.

A doctrine absent from all church history UNTIL 1901.

How can pentecostals really criticize groups like 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons when they are so similar in that they come out of no where after hundreds of years of church history and say "we've found THE TRUTH" everyone else missed....and without our truth (read particular doctrine) you're going to hell.

Not much difference to me.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Initial Evidence Doctrine (defined)- Speaking in tongues is the universal initial evidence that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost.

A doctrine absent from all church history UNTIL 1901.

How can pentecostals really criticize groups like 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons when they are so similar in that they come out of no where after hundreds of years of church history and say "we've found THE TRUTH" everyone else missed....and without our truth (read particular doctrine) you're going to hell.

Not much difference to me.

So then all doctrine is to be judged by whether it was taught by the majority of professing christian groups?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Initial Evidence Doctrine (defined)- Speaking in tongues is the universal initial evidence that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost.

A doctrine absent from all church history UNTIL 1901.

How can pentecostals really criticize groups like 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons when they are so similar in that they come out of no where after hundreds of years of church history and say "we've found THE TRUTH" everyone else missed....and without our truth (read particular doctrine) you're going to hell.

Not much difference to me.

Entirely absent? From Church history? Even if true it is not absent from APOSTOLIC HISTORY. By that I mean the only history that matters to our salvation. The history of the ministry of Jesus through his chosen apostles.

What was entirely absent TO THEM was the belief one automatically received the Holy Spirit when they believed!

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:14-17

As you can see the APOSTLES knew nothing about the modern Evangelical belief that one received the Holy Ghost AT BELIEF.

These people had believed. They had been baptized into Jesus Christ by Phillip a member of the apostolic party.

Yet he knew and Peter and John knew that they HAD NOT RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST!

So indeed it is the doctrine of receiving the spirit AT BELIEF that is entirely absent from the Apostolic Church history.

Now all that's left is to look at the up close experiences that are given for us to actually see. Do we see people doing anything else when they initially receive the Spirit?

The case for tongues as the INITIAL evidence is very strong from a Biblical view point.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The case for tongues as the INITIAL evidence is very strong from a Biblical view point.

Do you think the case for tongues as the start of someone's salvation is strong from a Biblical view point?