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)
Like many things in the bible, there is no explicit statement - only the example presented by the actions of the believers at the time. Just like the Trinity arguements :), not explicitly stated, but derived from the whole of scripture.
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.
That is why Paul notes that those who are spiritual discern the actions of those. That is why Paul gave instructions for those to say silent if they couldn't interpret those tongues. And just like a lot of other things, there is a degree of faith involved. However it is also a strong proof too. My childhood pastor was baptized in the Holy Spirit as a young girl. Thing about it was that she had never been taught or aware of tongues until suddenly she was praying in another language altogether.
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.
And I would go counter to most pentecostals and agree with you.
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 can only point to the experience of the earliest church - the tongue became a sign of what happened. The jews from around the world didn't witness the flames settling on the disciples- but they heard the tongues.
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.
Indeed MM, and that pride isn't limited to charismatics either :) One thing I'd note - the body of Christ is made up of many parts and none of the parts are suppose to look down on the others. So charismatics might fill the part of the "tongue" while others serve as arms and feet and what not.
I think we’d be better off focusing on what we can do for others..... like love (1 Corinthians 13)
Which is what we are doing here.
You know how I feel, mm, and I can only say AMEN to your post..:)