Replies

Pentecostals in general seem to be unwilling to accept that someone can be filled with the Holy Spirit and not have spoken in tongues. And that tongues can be faked and sometimes is.

well, this pentcostal doesn't accept that and I think that it is a mischaracterization by a few. One only needs to look at a Billy Graham to see that he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

It is more correct to understand that pentcostals I'm with understand that with salvation the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit, conditioned only by salvation. Clearly the charismatic gifts represent a release of the Holy Spirit to act within our lives with our cooperation and surrender(1 Cor).

Doctrinally, I don't know of pentecostal doctrine that denies the fact that there are satanic and fleshly conterfeits. But I will agree that there are too many who will accept ANY manifestation as being from the Holy Spirit when it is apparent that it isn't based upon scripture (ie 'barking'). Perhaps that is where some confusion lies.

That's why I said *in general*.

I think one of the areas of confusion is in the definitions of the terms of being filled with the Holy Spirit and being baptized in (or with) the Holy Spirit.

In the area I'm in, I keep hearing that THE evidence of the filling is speaking in tongues. I know of people who went forward for prayer for the filling of the Holy Spirit and the whole push on them was to speak in tongues.

But I will agree that there are too many who will accept ANY manifestation as being from the Holy Spirit when it is apparent that it isn't based upon scripture (ie 'barking').

I couldn't agree more.