Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Vlad Stepanov | PentecostalTheology.com
Do you think speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?
Chris Clark [01/21/2016 6:48 PM]
Absolutely not.
Bernhard Röckle [01/21/2016 6:55 PM]
No – only Jesus is necessary!
Lloyd A Sanders Jr. [01/21/2016 7:02 PM]
No, but for spiritual growth.
Jim Kingsnorth [01/21/2016 7:03 PM]
No way
Carl Murphy [01/21/2016 7:04 PM]
Nope, it is the least of all spiritual gifts. I also do not think them as the one definitive act of being filled with the Spirit
David Lewayne Porter [01/21/2016 7:20 PM]
Salvation – no, Holy Spirit / Ghost baptism to filling – yes
Paul DeHaan [01/21/2016 7:27 PM]
No way.
Ricky Grimsley [01/21/2016 7:37 PM]
Absolutly not
Mary Dinnan [01/21/2016 7:39 PM]
NO!
John Kissinger [01/21/2016 7:41 PM]
I am not too sure if you need the Holy Ghost to go to heaven, but for myself I wouldnt go to the store without the Holy Ghost…
Ricky Grimsley [01/21/2016 7:44 PM]
You have to have the holy ghost to go to heaven just not to be baptized in the holy ghost.
Henry Volk [01/21/2016 7:45 PM]
Vlad, do you go to the Slavic Pentecostal Church in Ashville?
Charles Page [01/21/2016 7:56 PM]
If you go to heaven you will have been born by the Spirit. You can’t go to heaven without the Spirit. However you don’t have to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Andy Thompson [01/21/2016 7:57 PM]
You’ve got to be kidding!! Of course not. I know Baptists that forbid it but they are good Christians. The word of GOD tells us in the gospels the two commandments which are the most important to be saved.
Steve Wright [01/21/2016 8:10 PM]
No
Andrew C Lomp [01/21/2016 8:24 PM]
NO.
Timothy D McCune [01/21/2016 8:32 PM]
In some UPCI churches they teach that you must speak in tongues as evidence of salvation, either before baptism or right after.
Tom Steele [01/21/2016 8:33 PM]
Like anything, tongues cannot be a means by which you earn or maintain salvation. However, like many other things we are instructed to do (therefore brethren, covet to prophecy and forbid not to speak in tongues), it can become a salvation issue. In particular, with gifts of the Spirit, you have the issue of people who attribute it to being the work of the devil. That is the exact context Jesus was dealing with when He rebuked the religious leaders for accusing Him of casting out devils though the power of the devil, and introduced the teaching on the “blasphemy of the Holy Ghost,” the one sin He said would not be forgiven. So then, speaking in tongues is certainly a salvation issue to those who teach that speaking in tongues is of the devil. Besides all that, tongues (and interpretation by default) is the only spiritual gift exclusive to the New Testament. I would say that makes it quite possibly the most important of all the gifts and the one that should be desired above all by all true Believers.
Ricky Grimsley [01/21/2016 8:35 PM]
I have a hard time believing cessationists are going to heaven.
Randy Buchanan [01/21/2016 8:36 PM]
No
James Armstrong [01/21/2016 8:40 PM]
Yes, born of spirit and the water. Without biblical evidence of tongues you do not have the Holy Ghost inside you.
Ricky Grimsley [01/21/2016 8:41 PM]
Thats ridiculous.
Curtis Fenison [01/21/2016 8:45 PM]
Opinions are fine. But they have absolutely no value for validating the truth. None of the answers give scriptural reference let alone irrefutable scriptural evidence for or against; “speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation”. Anybody want to answer the question by fact rather than opinion.
Stan Wayne [01/21/2016 8:48 PM]
No
Mark Schaeufele [01/21/2016 8:51 PM]
No, tongues as initial evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit is an empowerment issue, not a salvific one.
CrossTheology [01/24/2016 7:23 AM]
Me too I think – The Holy Ghost you get at conversion so you need Him but not the speaking in tongues. 🙂 That’s not as important as conversion. 🙂
Dan Irving
After a particularly brutal chat group discussion last night (somewhere else,) it appears clear to me this is an issue we should apply ourselves to. I’m realizing a tremendous amount of acrimony exists on this issue, and we need to know where to stand our ground, and where to give allowance to differing opinion. ? Hard issue! But where else to discuss the issue than right here.
Jim Daniel
This is generally promoted by the same groups that deny the Trinity and teach the heresy of modalism. There is no scriptural basis for teaching it. In fact, Paul refutes it when he asks of believers if all speak in tongues with the presumed answer to be “No!”
Timothy Cantrell
John 3 : 7-8. Mark 16:17. Acts 10 :45-46. The new testament clearly teachers the initial evidence of the baptism of the HOLY GHOST is tongue’s. The gifts of the SPIRIT in 1st Corinthians Explains how the gift of tongues and other gifts are to be used in the church and in prayer which is the the initial evidence. Two totally different things. However the ultimate evidence of the Holy Ghost is the fruit of the Spirit. Which brings us back to 1st Corinthians 13 . Study to show thyself approved. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ.
Street Preacherz
Agreed.
“My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.”
– 1 John 3:18
Varnel Watson
Jim Daniel In my experience I am ware of even more deeply Trinitarian groups who insist on the so called fullness in the Spirit i.e. having Father, Son and Spirit in order to go to heaven as they interpret the witnesses of 1 John 5:7 Joakim Fiore 15-16AD was the first to split the history in 3 dispensations that of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit
Varnel Watson
arly Pentecostals believed in the FULLNESS of the Spirit
1. Saved
2. sanctified
3. filled with the Holy Ghost tongue and fire speaking
4. water baptized full immersion
5. rapture ready
And now? ONLY 6% in church still speak in tongues
nay I say untothee
Does speaking in tongues get you saved? Who knows but it sure helps you get saved #BACKtotheBASICS
Randal W Deese
If we really got back to basics, we will get back to orthodoxy… LOL. The Orthodox have always taught that one receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after faith and baptism.
Varnel Watson
Not really Orthodoxy did not come until the Great Schism in 1054 By that time it has already lost its ortho praxy
Randal W Deese
Troy Day You are absolutely incorrect. Orthodoxy has always been… The Roman Catholics broke off from orthodoxy
Varnel Watson
So we know that’s not true. The church was called Catholic Universal in the first councils The Constantinople aka Byzantine wing did not even exist until 1054. Neither the Coptic church nor the first Christian nation Armenia were called Orthodox until then. I am well aware of the Orthodox demand on the whole idea of Orthodoxy being the first and the greatest did not come until the Russian Empire made Christianity its political doctrine – much alike the Holy Roman Empire.
Here’s a very simple test
Who inherited the patriarch of Jerusalem after Jerusalem was destroyed
Answer: It was inherited by the patriarch of Rome, not of Constantinople Remember Quo Vadis Domine 🙂
I rest my case
Randal W Deese
Troy Day You obviously are not very good at historical facts… The unified church was unified Until 1054… All the patriarchs but one, the one in Rome, held their ground of the unified church doctrine… The Roman patriarch decided that he wanted to be the head of the entire church world… The rest of the patriarchs kept to the truth that was taught from the beginning
Randal W Deese
The only one who changed any of the Doctrines that were held under the unified church was Rome
Randal W Deese
Troy Day By the way, it was Ignatius, a disciple of the apostles, who coined the word catholic
Vickie Embry
Don’t know where you go to church but in ky all Pentecost church still does
Melvin Shomo
“No!”
You don’t have to have tongues for salvation
but not everyone receives the Holy Spirit just because they believed either.
For one it is not scriptural where they do.
Many had believed on Philip’s salvation message, but none had received the Holy Spirit of Promise yet. So the Apostles had gotten together and had sent in Peter and John to pray that they might receive the Holy Ghost Acts 8:15-16
You can have the Holy Spirit without tongues.
But tongues gives the believer the advantage over the spirit realm.
Apostle Paul had said, “I pray in tongues more than you all.
Could this be where a lot of the revelations that Paul had received had come from praying in tongues.
The Apostle did speak of the tongues of Angels 1 Corinthians 13:1
John Caudill
Unrelated, no specific gifts are required.
Jevan Little
Troy Day when you say 6% do you mean the whole church or just the Pentecostals?
Caleb E. Sanchez
“Do all [members of Christ’s body] speak in tongues? [No!]”
-1 Cor. 12:30
Varnel Watson
Jevan Little Daniel Rushing posted a snap shot of the research
Jevan Little
Where?
Robbie Asbury
acts 10 and acts 19 show good examples, the upper room moment…..the topic makes me wonder if all know the difference between speaking in tongies in prayer, diver tongues ( other language others can understand), gift of tongues ( message from God to edify the church where and interpreter is needed)? then understanding which of these Paul is speaking about in corinthians?
Varnel Watson
There Robbie Asbury explain the difference to all 🙂
Robbie Asbury
kinda sorta just did…points up 🙂
Robbie Asbury
but anyways…people can often be praying and begin to speak in tongues which is one type…one that some try and condemn people for doing in church , yet I myself have never seen someone ever bother a service by doing so….
then we got the whole upper room experience where they spoke in divers tongues…languages others could understand …
then the gift of tongues where an interp ia needed to receive and know the message the Lord wants the church to know
Robbie Asbury
hope this helps
Robbie Asbury
Pauls admonishes in one part of word about gifts ….yet in another speaks of forbidding not to speak in tongues and how he does more then others
Robbie Asbury
some will try and chastise those simply praying and speaking in tongues i feel in error, by quoting Pauls discussion about the gifts part
Varnel Watson
Vlad Stepanov asked this awhile back A tremendous amount of acrimony exists on this issue, and we need to know where to stand our ground, and where to give allowance to differing opinion
Robbie Asbury
but on original topic does it save or have to do with saving?
I believe the bible lets us clearly know its one form of evidence that one has the Holy Ghost….yet it can equally be said that a persons fruit prove the same….
Because of early examples in acts of tongues being a way to know if someone received many attribute this to salvation…
To me we are saved by the grace , and tongues is one verifiable and scriptural way to know or an evidence of salvation. Not actual salvation just one form or way to know someone was saved.
Robbie Asbury
my biggest worry on the topic is so many that want to hinder or stop others from talking in tongues at all. Or for that matter any form of cessationist idea on any gift no longer being applicable today.
Varnel Watson
true that
Christopher Noel Boggess
I speak in a unknown tongue i speak it not to man but god for no man understands it so it is a prayer language
I do not speak tongues of angels that is spoken to man that every1 hears in there own laguage
Ray E Horton
Of course not! The Baptism in the Holy Spirit, with one of the evidences being speaking in tongues, which manifests as our prayer language, is a second experience that empowers us.
Gene Brown
One comment from a peon. Acts 2v38 peter says repent, believe, b baptized, and ur shall receive the holy ghost. That’s a saved person. Baptism in the holly ghost is a separate action. Amen
Varnel Watson
Can you go to heaven without the Holy Ghost?
I wouldnt go to the store without the Holy Ghost
Ray E Horton
Of course not! A person receives the Holy Ghost when they are Born Again. Speaking in tongues, however, is a sign of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, a second work not necessary for salvation but very important for this life.
Christopher Noel Boggess
No
Randal W Deese
It depend upon what you mean? I believe Scripture teaches that a relationship WITH the Holy Spirit is different than the INDWELLING of the Holy Spirit.
Varnel Watson
Kenneth L. Harrell You recent comment on Holy Ghost tongues is wrong on so many levels that I dont know where to start
Christopher Noel Boggess
Wow someone say the the gift of God aka holy ghost is wrong i truely am appualed
Varnel Watson
Kenneth L. Harrell The notion that Luke does not expect tongues is plain wrong. Those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts do speak We have no knowledge if Luke was present in Acts 2. It sure seems like when he completed his research and the 2 narratives, he expected when people get the Holy Ghost to speak in tongues. So says the presuppositional method Luke used in constructing his stories
Christopher Noel Boggess
But not all christians that have the holy ghost have the gift of tongues Troy Day
Dont worry about ppl they do not like what they dont understand
Varnel Watson
right on
Vlad Stepanov
This subject is still alive?
Varnel Watson
alive and well
Scott Phillips
Yes, it is.
Caleb E. Sanchez
“Do all [members of Christ’s body] speak in tongues? [No!]”
-1 Cor. 12:30
Scott Phillips
https://youtu.be/edux9IUbyIw
Varnel Watson
Scott Phillips How do you teach speaking in tongues? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/class-on-speaking-in-tongues/
Gene Brown
Tongues in acts 2 languages, I st cor 12 between man, and God. Help?
Varnel Watson
Gene initial evidence vs gift of tongues
Ray E Horton
Prayer language vs. public gift.
Gene Brown
Amen bros
Varnel Watson
Ray E Horton Prayer language is usually the charismatics thing but oh well. Can you turn a Prayer language on and off as you wish?
Ray E Horton
Of course! Holy Spirit doesn’t control. We choose, and He gives the utterance. Yes, I have a charismatic background, but isn’t a prayer language a Pentecostal thing as well?
Varnel Watson
What verse from the Bible would you offer where tongues could be turned on or off? Dont it say as the Spirit gives utterance?
Ray E Horton
Acts 2:4 They began to speak – their action, as the Spirit gave utterance – Holy Spirit providing the word.
Varnel Watson
They only spoke AS the Spirit gave them utterance. Gave them is past simple establishing the chronology – utterance was given first then they spoke. They were not able to speak before the utterance was given
Ray E Horton
The utterance is given as/when they open their mouths to speak. The Holy Spirit gives people the utterance, but they must exercise their faith to speak. Failure to understand this one truth has caused many people to ask the Lord for the gift of tongues and then wait for the Lord to supernaturally move their mouths. If nothing happens, they say that the Lord must not want them to speak in tongues or else it would have happened.
That is no more true than to say that every person the Lord has called to preach is preaching or every person He has given a prophecy to has prophesied. We have to step out in faith.
Varnel Watson
The other way around
The text says they only spoke AS the Spirit gave them utterance They did not speak from themselves is the idea
Ray E Horton
That’s right, the utterance wasn’t from themselves, yet would only come when they opened their mouths to speak. By the way, this is also confirmed by the experience of millions. It’s not theological theory to me when I know any time I want I can prayer in my tongues prayer language and often notice the impact, refreshing, more sensitivity to that inner witness, opening the door to personal communion and prophecy, etc.
Varnel Watson
The text is clear
The utterance came first
They could not speak without the utterance
Meaning they could not turn if on and off
Ray E Horton
I doubt the text is clear on that, and I’d be interested to see other opinions of those who know the Greek.
Varnel Watson
Oh yeas the Greek text is extremely clear of the sequence. We can check it out in dept if youd like
Peter P. Macinta
Some Holy Bible points on this. See item#2 at http://thesureword.expertscolumn.com/article/nine-fallacies-about-speaking-tongues .
Tommy Comer
Ahskrndiskalwlaofbflale
Tommy Comer
^^my attempt at typing tongues ?
Robert Cox
Cute
Randy H Johnson
No, but being led by the Holy Spirit, walking in the Spirit and having a Spirit-controlled mind is.
Peter P. Macinta
Aye! and Amen! “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” — Romans 8:14
Md Sanders
Be very careful not to blasphem the holy ghost
Philip Williams
Of course not. Abraham did not speak in tongues.
But it’s a wonderful gift to the body of Christ from which everyone can benefit. We don’t know how to pray, but the Spirit knows how to make intercession. It’s the one gift that lets us know that God hears us when we pray.
RichardAnna Boyce
Rom 8:26b “For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession
for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”
Pray (proseuchomai) is general prayer; intercession (enteuxis) means intimate prayer.
Hebrews 4:15-16 :For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
In our infirmities/weaknesses we can intercede boldly, intimately finding mercy, grace.
The groanings (alatetois) means cannot be uttered being internal silent groaning.
V22 are audible birth pain groans (synodin).
Holy Spirit can pray better than the prayers of a righteous man in James 5:16b.
Isara Mo
Is a bulging stomach necessary for pregnancy, NO.
Is a bulging stomach evidence of pregnancy YES
Varnel Watson
tell us Mike Partyka
George Hartwell
Anyone who thinks so has a strange version of the Bible.
Varnel Watson
Mike Partyka aint telling us either no more
Nora Neel-Toney
No. Speaking in Tongues is a gift, not a requirement
Ray E Horton
Of course not! But salvation is prerequisite to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Mike Partyka
No.
Jesse James Sullivan
Tongues is for prayer, it’s a sign for the unbelievers, tongues with translation may broaden the church’s understanding in the kingdom…
Christian Tarver
The book says that we must be born again of water and of the spirit to enter into heaven (john3:5)
Anywhere you see someone receive the Holy Ghost, there’s always tongues
Varnel Watson
if you aint got it you aint got it
Daniel J Hesse
I need the power of the Spirit every day. I have enough issues with the tongue I already have in my mouth.
Isara Mo
If you go to a new country where everybody speaks THEIR LANGUAGE and you become a citizen of that country wouldnt it be natural to learn to speak the language of your NEW NATIVE country..
I would be suprised that year in year out you will still be speaking your former language….
Tongues is not necessary for your salvation but it is one of the PROOFS that you are saved…
I can speak to Troy Day in English but when I turn to my God, I speak in tongues..
Whoever speaks in a tongue doesnt speak to men but to God…
Varnel Watson
YES
Rick Ferguson
Tongues is not a requirement for salvation, it is the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Ghost, which is necessary for salvation. If you have not spoken in tongues it is because you have not yet been filled with the Holy Ghost.
Varnel Watson
some early Pentecostals believe it was
Varnel Watson
So what do we see from early pentecostalism? What can we glean from this? This egalitarian nature of the Azusa Street Mission allowed, in one part, many from different denominations to come into the doors and receive the baptism. On the other hand, you had acquiescence to political or social mores. When early pentecostals left the mission, they found themselves in positions like Lake, in compliance with the government. They often found themselves sometimes — like Charles H. Mason, who came to the mission as well — in direct defiance of the government because of their pacifistic beliefs. Mason was followed by the early FBI because of believing in pacifism.
What we can see from the core of the movement is a global focus. The things that concerned early pentecostals, whether it was economics, social or political concerns or this evangelistic thrust of xenoglossolalia, brought Azusa Street Mission people into contact with the rest of the world. This pentecostal experience that was not tendered into the denominational structure of strict organizational lines were able to mutate, proliferate and grow from the imaginations of those who thought of themselves as being this missing link to the upper room at Pentecost.
Anonymous
Nope
Anonymous
The thief on the cross who was walked into paradise with Jesus Christ didn’t speak in tongues, never spoke the sinners prayer, couldn’t even bow his knees to pray.
Anonymous
Tongues were a sign to unbelieving Israel, warning of pending judgment that fell in AD70. The purpose of tongues was complete.
No one has spoken in biblical tongues since the first century.
But there are multitudes being deceived by numerous false teachings about tongues.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess According to I Cor. 14, tongues are a sign for unbelievers not only Jews. The church in Corinth was a gentil church in a gentil city. Paul wrote about praying in tongues and singing in tongues.
Cessationism is wrong, the same way hyper charismatics is.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess NO-Acts2-
Anonymous
YES-
Anonymous
In the 21st Century why is this even a question?? Recent statistics show that 90 percent of the people receiving Christ are in Pentecostal/Charismatic ministries. Plus, The Roman Catholic Church is home to more Pentecostals with tongues as the evidence than all the Pentecostals. When you resist this gift of God you fight a losing battle. If there are no gifts of the Spirit then the Spirit has returned to the Father who said ‘He will abide with you forever.’
Anonymous
Richard Riley WHAT Recent statistics show that 90 percent of the people receiving Christ are in Pentecostal/Charismatic ?
Recent statistics show ONLY 25% in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches speak in tongues
it is a question cause it is still not answered – do you know the answer?
Anonymous
No it is not required.
Anonymous
Derek Godfrey it is specifically of you my friend
Anonymous
Troy Day then I’m golden because I have been speaking in tongues for over 20 years.
Anonymous
I hope not. Because…
1 Corinthians 12:27-31 (KJV) 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs you hope not. Because… of what now? Duane L Burgess dont think tongues
Anonymous
Troy Day in the OP it says “is speaking in tongues necessary for salvation?”
My response is “I hope not because” 1 Corinthians 12:30 do all speak with tongues?
In the context of the passage I posted, Paul is talking about a diversity of gifts within the church, and not all have a all gifts. Not everyone speaks with tongues. Not everyone has gifts of healing, not everyone are prophets.
If Paul says that not everyone will speak in the gift of tongues then we can conclude that tongues isn’t a requirement of salvation.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs 1 Corinthians 12:30 do all speak with tongues – speaks of the GIFT – not of the initial evidence Philip Williams Duane L Burgess Link Hudson know not the difference of AS explained by Neil Steven Lawrence Michael Chauncey not certain about the baptist take of Oscar Valdez on this one
Anonymous
Troy Day the initial evidence of salvation is being filled with the Holy Spirit.
Which may manifest in various ways. Joy, tongues, boldness, prophecy etc… If the initial evidence is tongues in every case, then the only Christians who are saved are the Pentecostals who teach that is the only sign that confirms salvation. And probably half of the Pentecostals fake the initial sign under pressure of proving their salvation.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs the initial evidence of salvation is being filled with the Holy Spirit is a very baptist way to look at it
the initial evidence of HS baptism is being filled with the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues
Anonymous
Troy Day it was the 1st evidence. But then other evidences shown up later on.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs the BIBLE declares only 1 evidence
there are no 2 3 4 evidence – even Link Hudson knows this well
Anonymous
Troy Day The Bible does not call speaking in tongues evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2, they were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. In Acts 10 the Holy Spirit came on those who heard Peter and they spoke in tongues and magnified God. In Acts 19, Paul preached Christ to some men who had received John’s baptism and baptized them, laid hands on them, the Spirit came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
It is not clear if all spoke in tongues in Acts 10. If half magnified God in Greek and half spoke in tongues, the passage would still be worded in a way that applies to that situation. If half the brethren in Acts 19 spoke in tongues, and half prophesied, the wording of the passage would still fit that situation.
Anonymous
Link Hudson basically you quoted every time when there was a baptism recorded in ACTS and they spoke in tongues. In sanctification subsequent to the new birth, through faith in the blood of Christ; through the Word, and by the Holy Ghost.
Holiness to be God’s standard of living for His people.
In the baptism with the Holy Ghost subsequent to a clean heart.
In speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Anonymous
Link Hudson that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.//cog-dof I rest my case
Anonymous
Troy Day You say I Corinthians 12:30 speaks of the gift, not the initial evidence. What is your basis for making the distinction?
Smith Wigglesworth was Pentecostal. He thought that when he spoke in tongues once when he received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that was initial evidence, but later, he received the ability to speak in tongues whenever he wanted to, and he could pray in tongues. But it seems like a lot of people in the A/G and other Pentecostal churches I have heard discuss the topic spoke in tongues that first time, and could speak in tongues later. That was my experience, also. A lot of A/G folks and people in the Charismatic movement talk about being able to do that as having a ‘prayer language.’ And some of them think once you get baptized in the Holy Spirit, you can pray in tongues after that, but being able to give a message in tongues to be interpreted is ‘the gift of tongues.’
In I Corinthians 14, it sure seems like Paul is treating the ability to pray or speak in tongues for personal edification as the same type of thing as the stuff that is interpreted. Verse 28 is an example.
Acts 2 calls what you would categorize as ‘initial evidence’ speaking in tongues. It says they all spake with tongues. You don’t have anything in scripture to base your argument on if you want to exclude that type of speaking in tongues from Paul’s question, “Not all speak with tongues, do they?” Acts doesn’t say that all will speak with tongues or that one is not filled with the Spirit if one does not speak with tongues. That’s eisegetical overreach on the part of some early Pentecostals like Parham and others who copied his teaching. Others, like FF Bosworth, so the doctrinal problem with that type of teaching.
We need to stick with the teaching of the Bible, not uphold a teaching just because it has 110 year Pentecostal heritage behind it.
I also notice that some of the Pentecostals from the Holiness side of the movement, believe that you cannot speak in tongues ‘at will.’ There was actually a statement against that idea in an old Congregational Holiness membership book. They gave me the book a week after I became a member back in the 1990’s. I had been able to pray in tongues any time I wanted since my first experience with it.
Anonymous
Link Hudson I Corinthians 12:30 as the gift is STILL claimed by your cog-dof where and needed for membership. Cant be a member without it – you can go without it as your choice of course BUT restricted to member
Anonymous
Troy Day Not sure if there is an official stance on whether that is the ‘gift’ or not. I doubt it goes down to that level of detail.
Anonymous
Link Hudson you can be sure dof is sufficient official for cog
Anonymous
Oscar Valdez John Mushenhouse Since the beginning of the 21st century, only 6-10% of new born believers in America receive the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, which by 2018 has resulted in:
Over 60% within Global Pentecostalism do not speak in tongues
A major doctrinal shift within Pentecostal Theology today claims speaking in tongues is not the only evidence of Holy Spirit Baptism
Some theologians even claim there is no initial evidence in the Bible
Others today go further to believe that no outward sign of the Holy Spirit baptism is necessary.
Anonymous
He turned and attended to the sick. The villagers informed him they had seen McAll as he suddenly turned towards them, ten feet away from a Communist tank trap that would have killed him. They saw no one next to him. McAll realized it was the Lord because the man in white had spoken to him in English. https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/healing-the-family-tree-dr-mcalls-strange-ministry/
Anonymous
The question is kind of ackward .
Salvation preceeds tongues and not vice versa so it is not necessary.
Is tongues proof (evidence)of salvation ?
Yes it is and only the naivecand the fool will say no opposing the Master who said “These signs shall FOLLOW all those who believe..in my name (Jesus)they shall speak a new tongue…
In Acts 2 the tongues of fire came upon the gathering and they begin to speak in tongues ..They did not speak in tongues BEFORE the fire but after .
A salvation without tongues?..
I call it religion .
Anonymous
Isara Mo Acts 2 was for empowerment for service. To have signs and wonders to convince the unbeliever.
Anonymous
No
Anonymous
yes?
Anonymous
It will be helpful for personal prayer at home alone through intimacy with God.