Tongues, Initial Physical Evidence?

So, is tongues the initial physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Are there other manifestations that can occur besides tongues?

1. No2. Yeswould you like a longer answer? ;-)

Sure, a longer answer would good. I say tongues can be, but is not always the "initial physical evidence." I would say the Scriptures surely make room for any prophetic utterance (tongues, prophecy, song/praise), especially considering the nature of the Joel 2:28-32 prophecy. I might would go far as to say any gift that is manifest is evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.Btw, I ask this because I'm writing a paper about the initial evidence for my Doctrine of the Holy Spirit class. So far, everybody in the school save for one or two others (none of which are in my class) seems to say dogmatically, tongues is the initial physical evidence, every time.

I can say from experience that tongues is NOT the only evidence. I have been prayed for- up and down, all around, knocked down :-D , etc... and no sign of tongues. Yet, I can feel the Holy Spirit's presence when it is heavier than normal. Other people have been around me and said that they feel the Holy Spirit very strong around me- yet I feel nothing different.What I do feel many times is a heavy pressure on my forehead and my eyelids flutter if I try to keep them closed. Many times I tremble or shake if I am talking to someone seriously about the Lord. Now I know why they were called Quakers or Shakers. :-D To quote Oswald Chambers- the evidence is "character". If we have the Holy Spirit- we have the power to be changed- to walk in righteousness. In Him, Chanin

Hi ptcAn old friend of mine went to be with the Lord last years, just a couple of days after his 90th birthday. He wrote a leaflet on this topic which might be usueful in your studies. His style sometimes has long sentences but there is usually gold in what he wrote.This link will take you to a page of pdfs, scroll down until you find one called Initial Evidence and see what you think.The classic 'proof' texts are in Acts 10 with Cornelius, but we can return to this later. When is your assignment due?

Before you can claim that scripture teaches about an 'initial' evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, you will have to ask yourself is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit a different event then the regeneration (salvation) of an individual.Yes, this paper will presume that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a subsequent event to regeneration that occurs through the indwelling, though, sometimes such folks might get "the entire package" all at once. But even if they did, there would be some "initial physical evidence" that they received the Spirit.

This link will take you to a page of pdfs, scroll down until you find one called Initial Evidence and see what you think.Thanks, I'll be sure to look into it. When is your assignment due?March 23I find all this an interesting topic, and have personally been unable to find very many books that actually cover the topic in depth. Most books I've come across pretty much treat the topic very lightly. It's a lot like the books on Dispensationalism that I read, where the only two options are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Other views are simply treated as not really optional. In Pentecostal books, initial evidence is treated as simply tongues or nothing. Though I did read in a book by Jack Hayford recently where he doubts that tongues is always the initial physical evidence, though, he doesn't really dive into why he believes such from the Scriptures.I've only been able to find one book that is simply dedicated to the topic, called "Initial Evidence", Edited by Gary B. McGee. I'm still reading the book, but basically several contributors examine the historical views regarding initial evidence, and then there are a few contemporary articles, written by Pentecostals and non-pentecostals alike.

A difficult subject for anyone to say for sure I think. One thing that I found interesting is that in a book by Leonard Ravenhill I read, Len said something like nobody can show from scripture that speaking in tongues is the intial evidence and nobody can show from the scripture that it isn't.If you want the exact quote and book I will have to find it.Mike

A difficult subject for anyone to say for sure I think. One thing that I found interesting is that in a book by Leonard Ravenhill I read, Len said something like nobody can show from scripture that speaking in tongues is the intial evidence and nobody can show from the scripture that it isn't.Indeed, I think I'd have to agree with Ravenhill there, and am familiar with the quote. The ramifications of saying that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit forces one to conclude that for most Christian history, all the major movements of God throughout the ages, where mighty men of God did amazing things, did not really have the power of the Holy Spirit, and did not really have the gfits of the Spirit. So, great preachers such as Wesley, Whitefiled, Booth, Spurgeon, Moody, etc, none of them in classical Pentecostal theology could be properly said to have power from on high, because they did not speak in tongues. For many Pentecostals, an individual cannot operate in the gifts of the Spirit without the baptism of the Holy Spirit. As, the baptism of the Holy Spirit empowers a believer for ministry. While I agree with the latter conclusion, I cannot agree with the former. I believe such men as Booth, Wesley, etc did have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. How else could you explain their great success as preachers, converting throngs of people as they did. How else could you explain why people flocked to them in the thousands to hear them preach? If they were simply being carnal orators, I seriously doubt they would've been able to have such success. These men understood what it was to speak with the "unction" of the Spirit, with power from on high.

Hey a great book that Ravenhill recommended about this topic which I think would be rather helpful to you is called "Christ's Paralized Church X-Rayed" by T.J. McCrossan. McCrossan was a Greek and 'examiner of language' scholar. The work addresses a number of common theological problems and examines them conclusively and thoroughly in the Greek. The book would be suitable for scholarly type material but is also readable and understandable. He examines questions such as Did the church begin at Pentecost?(he says no) Every Christian baptized with the Holy Ghost at conversion?(he says baptized but not filled) Does anyone need to tarry for the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and power?(he says yes, all do) Does any sinner need to repent before salvation?(he says yes) If one accepts Christ by faith , should he be sure of heaven if he goes on sinning afterwards and dies practicing sin?(he says(I quote) "The author believes in eternal security, as the Greek text teaches it, but not in this devilish brand which has rocked thousands into the sleep of self-complacency, and so damned their souls." Is bodily healing in the atonement?(he says yes)Are apostilic miracles, signs, and wonders of the past and we should not expect them today? (he says they are for today)Is speaking in an unknown tongue the one and only sign of a genuine baptism with the Holy Ghost? (he says no) All in all, this book is a marvelous work on these complex issues and the author, in my estimation, does a great job in handling them (at least in the chapters I have read). Ravenhill writes the intro to the book. Look on abebooks.com to find it. I hope this helps!

PTC,Look up Gordon Fee's "God's Empowering Presence", and Stanley Horton's "What The Bible Says About The Holy Spirit." in your school's library.They will help you with your paper, but they are very devotional also.If you take two people and add in enough time eventually you will come up with a disagreement.My answer to PTC's questions would be 1. Yes2. Yes(I am Assembly of God after all :-) )While Ron and I would differ on the initial evidence, we will certainly agree on the final. And that is a life filled with the fruit and the power of the Spirit.While one can make arguments for or against the initial physical evidence, and site many of the great souls of the past, one cannot escape the tangible encounter with God in the lives of these men AND women upon their consecration wholly unto the Lord.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Greg:I am not saying that the subject of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a difficult one. I believe for certain there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit.I was saying that the subject of tongues as the initial evidence is a difficult one. At least for me, I can not say I am convinced that it is and clearly Ravenhill couldn't either.Just wanted to make clear what I was saying.God Bless,Mike

My answer to PTC's questions would be1. Yes2. YesSo, you believe that there can be something other than tongues as the initial physical evidence? I thought the Assemblies of God taught that tongues will always be the initial physical evidence.

I held the teaching of tongues as the initial evidence for quite a few years as a young Christian. I had experienced a pentecostal/charismatic event and had spoken in tongues. I subsequently prayed for many and saw them experience the same things. So why do I no longer believe that tongues is the initial evidence? There are two main reasons; the first is that I don’t believe the Bible teaches it to be so, and the second is I am not prepared to believe that something which can be so readily counterfeited by our enemy can ever stand as incontrovertible proof of Spirit-baptism. I have changed my teaching not my experience; I still speak with tongues.My main scriptural proof for tongues as initial evidence was the events in the home of Cornelius. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [Acts 10:45,46]. It seemed to be saying very clearly that it was the initial evidence of tongues which provided the necessary proof. Some time later as I examined this passage of scripture I began to ask the question ‘who was it that needed a proof of any kind’? Not God, not the friends of Cornelius (you need no external proof to know that the Spirit of God has arrived). The people who needed such ‘proof’ were they of the circumcision, as many as came with Peter A delegation of 7 orthodox Jews had travelled from Joppa to Caesarea. Caesarea was a mini-Rome. It was the gateway and port to Rome and the real centre of Roman rule in the land. These 7 men were clearly very sceptical at what was happening here. Peter’s reluctance spoke for them all.How could God convince them that He had opened the kingdom to the Gentile world? God had a way predicted centuries earlier. For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. [Isaiah 28:11,12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. This is the verse that Paul quotes in 1 Cor 14. I think this teaches clearly that ‘tongues are a sign’ but for whom? this people is the people of Israel. For those Jews who did not believe that the Gentiles could receive the promise of God’s Spirit, tongues was ‘the sign’ predicted. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: [1 Cor 14:22.]So I believe that tongues are the sign, but only for sceptical Jews. ;-) If you are looking to tongues as the sign, you are behaving like an unbeliever... stop it. ;-) You may have noticed that even here Paul refers to tongues as 'a sign' rather that 'the sign'.The events in the household of Cornelius are the most frequently told story of Spirit-baptism in the scriptures. Aspects are repeated in Acts 11 & 15. Where we see the emphasis that Peter placed on the event rather than one aspect of the event, tongues. In Acts 15 he is struck by the fact that this was a genuine ‘beginning’ for the Gentiles, just like his own genuine beginning. In Acts 15 the scripture adds a fascinating detail; And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ; Acts 15:7-9.For me, I thank God that I speak in tongues, but the initial (and continuing) evidence for Spirit-baptism is a new, clean heart. Any powerful spirit can produce powerful external manifestations, only a ‘Holy’ Spirit can change the character.

Greg:I was about to quote Watchman Nee. I guess you've done the work for me already. :>001

PTC,Yes, I tow the line of the A/G doctrine that teaches the initial physical evidence is speaking in tongues. I do believe that. I am also very comfortable in this belief that it is taught in scripture. I am attempting to upload a series of sermons to Greg to put on the web-site that are an excellent apollogetic for Pentecostalism. If I can't get them to upload I'll have to send them by snail-mail. I would say that I am in complete agreement with these teachings that I am sending. I only wish I had the elloquence to make the arguments that are brought forth in those sermons. The minister is George O Wood. You can download these sermons to listen to if you like off of www.georgeowood.com Look for them under the Topical Series link and then open up the link titled "Holy Spirit".In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey