:)
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.
I can understand. My understanding is that through the work that the Holy Spirit accomplishes in salvation, the believer is 'filled' with the Spirit. however, in the NT, "to be filled" is often related to the 'baptism' of the Holy Spirit. I will state that the Holy Spirit never leaves the believer following salvation to 'come back' for the baptism, but that the baptism is an overwhelming experience of the already indwelling Spirit. Jesus seems to state that this is something separate, though following, salvation.
In the area I'm in, I keep hearing that THE evidence of the filling is speaking in tongues.
There is solid scriptural evidence for this. In the book of Act, every instance where the baptism of the Holy Spirit was made manifest, the individuals spoke in tongues. (ch 2; 10:44–48; 19:1–7). In another instance (8:14–20), something was manifested that showed the observers that something supernatural had occured. So it is the scriptural pattern for when this occurs to believers.
But the scripture is kinda silent on the baptism without at least the initial evidence of tongues (First Corinthians 12:30) and there is no evidence of what happened specifically to Paul other than we know later he did speak in tongues.
I couldn't agree more.
Indeed, Paul in 1 Cor indicated that there be an order to the expression of the charismatic gifts in public worship and that those expressions are to be closely examined/judged. Some today have forgotten that and excesses have occured.
I kind of thought of it that when we were saved, we were baptized into Christ and the Holy Spirit as an initial act of *immersion* into Him, and then filling came later.
The thing that makes me question the tongues as the evidence is although it did happen a few times and was recorded to convince the early church that Gentiles and other non-Jewish groups received the same Holy Spirit as the Jews and therefore were to be accepted by the Jewish Christians, there is no explicit Scriptural statement to the effect that speaking in tongues evidences filling.
The thing is, since tongues can be, and has been faked, I find it a poor criteria by which to measure an act of God in someone’s life. Also, I had an encounter with God some time ago that could only have been a filling of the Holy Spirit and it was so real and so powerful that I have no doubt it was of God and honestly, I don’t feel like I need to speak in tongues to validate it.
If someone feels that they need to have an experience of speaking in tongues to validate a (supposed) work of God in their lives, I wonder what they really experienced. I mean, when God touches you like that, you KNOW. It’s powerful enough to stand on its own. At that point, tongues to *confirm* it is superfluous. If someone is not sure aside from a tongues event, then I don’t know .... I’d just wonder about what it was they really did experience.
I see too much spiritual pride in regard to the haves and have nots. The message that keeps coming across is that the have nots haven’t really *arrived* yet spiritually.
I think we’d be better off focusing on what we can do for others..... like love (1 Corinthians 13)
Rhetorical questions are usually answered with a *no*.