Steel Manning This Incredibly Stupid Belief:
In Acts there are multiple examples of people receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. (Pentecost-Ch 2, Cornelius-Ch 10, Ephesus men-Ch 19 and... that's it!). And Jesus said in multiple places that when we receive the Holy Spirit, we will have power and signs and tongues. We are told to pray in the Spirit. And that it will intercede for us in prayer.
The Main Problems With This Incredibly Stupid Belief
Christians are NEVER commanded to speak in tongues. We ARE commanded to be baptized and to repent of our sins. (Although a good response for them would be "if it did then people would fake it"). But all that would do is highlight the fact that tongues can be easily faked! And satanic, occultist groups do this too and consider it 'proof' of the Spirit! So why would this be necessary proof? (Also, which verse says tongues is 'proof' of the Spirit? And is it definitely 'proof' and not 'evidence'?).
They have to heavily lean on one book out of 66 in the bible. And in that one book (Acts), out of 28 chapters they go to 4 main chapters for their case. And the bible never interprets or give the commentary that these people do. You are looking at descriptions and they are applying a prescription despite the fact there are many instances that describe belief and salvation without tongues.
Another way to put it, far more people getting saved without tongues then with. Man God must be an idiot if tongues are necessary for salvation! The only argument they have- examples of people getting saved and speaking in tongues-completely backfires on them.
The fact that Paul rhetorically asks "will all speak in tongues?" and tops it off with a nice "of course not!" And he says the Spirit dishes out DIFFERENT gifts as the Spirit wills NOT US. They actually think him saying "I wish you could all speak in tongues" is a point for them! He is talking to ALL of them as if they are still Christians! 1 Cor 12-14. From 12:28, if everyone should be able to speak in tongues then everyone should be everything else in the list. V27 confirms he considers them ALL Christians despite not ALL speaking tongues.
A serious confusion of prescription and description, I'm sure a nasty OT story could highlight the bad logic of this.
Acts
Ch 1: You will receive power when the HS comes upon you. It would be relatively easy to explain this by Jesus talking to specifically the disciples, seeing as though proponents of this ISB don't bother going specifically to Judea and Samaria.
Ch 2: Day of Pentecost. For some reason, they don't seem to mind their own lack of room shaking sounds from heaven and "what appeared to be tongues of fire". I just have a question about all the people throughout the gospels that clearly seem to get saved, this chapter says only those present were filled and spoke in tongues. It also says they did this as the Spirit gave them this ability, hearkening forward to when Paul says this in the context of not all Christians having it! It was clearly tongues of men as the travelling Jews heard this in their respective language. Also, specifies how to get saved (Call on the name of the Lord) unfortunately, no mention of tongues. I believe because of what Peter says in v38 that when you believe and repent you receive the HS. This very chapter the 3000 get saved and no mention of tongues. Again, unfortunate.
Ch 8: One very unfriendly chap from the Revival Fellowship in Balwyn, Melbourne cited this chapter to point out the believers had accepted the gospel but not yet received the HS so Peter and John went there and laid hands 'on these believers.' Simon like the others, was baptized and believed but it's obvious he may not have salvation. The bible seems to do this: if someone claims to believe they are treated as a believer until a grievous sin indicates otherwise and they are called to repentance. Because no one else can know your heart. But the whole 'proof they are getting saved' explanation fits here I think because Jews and Samaritans did share serious cultural hostility.
This is a good point for them, but to say this is EXACTLY how it should be today is a stretch seeing as though this does not happen exactly how described in their Churches and just a couple of verses later an angel of the Lord is speaking to Philip. directing him, as well as the HS, do they have endless stories like this? Or any?
The chap was very rude and impatiently telling me to hurry up while I decided to read the whole chapter to get the context. Patience is a fruit of the Spirit but I suppose you don't need the fruits when you have the 'proof'! Turns out, you get to the end of the chapter, and you see another person get saved but without the tongues. "We have to assume he did." I didn't expect reading the full context to be such a slam dunk. He had to just admit he was making 'assumptions', very convenient! Not much point in a bible if you're going to only believe things that line up with your 'assumptions'.
Another thing to mention, it never says 'tongues', yet another assumption that has to be made that conveniently gets them to their belief. You can see why it might elude this if God knew people were going to come along one day claiming you must have tongues as proof to be saved. To say it MUST have been tongues is forcing something on to the text.
Mike Winger says this was again, a confirmation of the authority of the apostles as credible sources, as the bible and canon hadn't been put together like it is for us today. It was obviously never meant to be about tongues since it is never mentioned. It is about the Apostles. Once Christianity goes out into the world, obviously Satan wants to distort and disfigure it, they needed something/someone to trust. The bible did not exist yet. Is it a coincidence that can only be received by the hands of Apostles? False teachings shot up straight away, it's mentioned throughout the scriptures as occurring even in the 1st century, by the time the church can gather and start talking about the canon, what did they do? Only included stuff that could be traced back to the Apostles! This is an interesting theory. Because when the Apostles are preaching to gatherings the Spirit is 'poured' out on masses, but the other times it is a laying on of hands by the Apostles. And when people get saved from non-apostles, they don't receive the Spirit? Which begs a question: can you only receive it like this from the Apostles?
Ch 10: Gospel going out to Gentiles. Cornelius and his family. It was meant to be a signal that the Gentiles are being grafted in and included. It couldn't be more clear with Peter's vision about unclean food and then the Jewish believers were "amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles too" (v45-48). As Mike Winger points out, ch 10 is a replication of what it was doing in ch 2. A sign that it's all kicking off.
And you'll notice in v44 how people receive the Spirit just from listening which makes more sense under traditional understanding because even these people who believe this ISB have to sit the person down and walk them through the process and get them psychologically primed to start babbling. This never happens in Acts but it happens everytime with them!
Is it just a coincidence Cornelius is the first recorded gentile saved.
Ch 15: V8 again shows us that it was all about confirmation.
Ch 19: A group that hadn't heard about the Holy Spirit. All filled and speak in tongues. This again confirms that standard true interpretation, it was more about confirming the work of the spirit then confirming their salvation.
In Acts, there are also multiple examples of saying people believe and/or are saved WITHOUT mentioning any tongues at all! This is a HUGE problem when you are trying to link tongues to salvation! It should be there 100% of the time.
There is also the small problem that it's VERY reasonable to say it was circumstantial. And to be a sign at that time and place, for those people for them to know God was also saving Gentiles, as this is what it says directly. There is no prescription that this is how it will always be. Acts 2:9-13, 10:45, 11:17-18, 15:8. But the main slam dunk is that tongues is NEVER associated with salvation and the Gospel. You must jump around and concoct this idea because it is completely man made, evidence by the fact that it is so fringe, on par with JW's or Mormons. Coincidentally you are just as exclusive and divisive as well.
And in Acts it is never tongues of Angels! So how can you cite Acts with a straight face?
Paul said he had preached the entire message: repentance, turning to God and faith in Jesus and if anyone is unsaved it's their fault because he did not shy away from teaching everything. BUT you have to say he did!
Identifying a Christian by One Thing
There are many indicators of a Christian:
Loving God and neighbor (Luke 10:27-28)
Asking for Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13)
Putting God's word into practice (Luke 11:28)
Acknowledging God publicly (Luke 12:8)
Believing Jesus is in the father and vice versa (John 14:11)
Obedience (John 14:21)
Repent (Acts 3:19)
Confessing sins (1 John 1:9)
"Openly declaring Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart God raised Jesus from the dead you will be saved" Rom 10:9-11
WHOOPS apparently none of that matters because you don't make babbling noises! So God doesn't look at the heart? And cannot communicate his message to the hundreds of millions who are following him? What a shallow and stupid God!
Oh but we're not done yet. Rom 6 and 1 John 2 and many other passages really seem to teach that the natural, fleshly man cannot walk in the spirit. But you have to believe there are hundreds of millions of Christians out there perfectly imitating walking in the spirit. If you cannot be convicted of sin without the HS, why are there so many that are? You have to believe the flesh can fight against itself.
1 John 2 goes out of its way to say "THIS IS HOW WE KNOW WE ARE LIVING IN HIM", all of 1 John is good really "so now we can tell who are children of God and of the devil" and "OUR ACTIONS SHOW WE BELONG TO THE TRUTH". It gives us the indicator without having to distort the text he tells us straight up that obedience is the indication. Not moving our tongues in certain directions! "Live our live as Jesus did" Yep definitely doing that, and they don't seem to care at all that Jesus never spoke in tongues and we have his ENTIRE baptism story with parallel passages. It's like God put it right there to refute stupidity like this.
"those who do good PROVE they are God's children" 3 John.
more evidence you cant walk in spirit without spirit jude 1:19
james is also good for this.
It is so unbiblical to say the non-Christian life can look identical to the Christian life. And while they might bring up the individual atheist living a seemingly good life. The research is clear about the differences between religious and nonreligious people. It would prove either this interpretation wrong, or the whole bible wrong.
Identifying the Spirit by One Thing
There are many traits and abilities of the Spirit seems incredibly simplistic do say only ONE of them is evidence of the Spirit. Why ignore the rest? Seems incredibly dishonest and circular.
The Holy Spirit inspires apostles to debate powerfully and refute people.
There is the whole list of gifts of the Spirit
There is the whole list of fruits of the spirit, which almost by definition is EVIDENCE of the spirit.
The HS guides us into all truth, which ironically everyone who believes this doctrine had to BE TOLD by another HUMAN. The idea wouldn't be so fringe if it was a clear scriptural teaching.
Peripheral Things
What evidence is there that early Christians believed this? Any quotes from Church fathers?
When you actually understand the Gospel you see how superficial and stupid the tongues requirement is. And you should be able to see this by the fact that there is NO difference between tongue speaking Christians and their counterpart. Speaking in tongues DOES NOT wash your sin away does it? Show me exactly what makes them different if it's so important and only you are saved! We both believe in the same enforcement mechanism for a changed life, and interestingly where are all of you? What are you accomplishing in the world? Are you the ones building hospitals, starting charities, abolishing slavery and advancing scientific progress, these are all religious endeavors done by Christians being salt and light on the earth.
We may agree that false religions like Islam do not experience miracles despite believing in them. Because if God were to allow miracles, he would be confirming a false religion. So why is he doing that for hundreds of Millions of false Christians everywhere. It seems like from every direction God is just leading people astray if you are right.
It must just be coincidence that their versions of tongues and prophecies can be easily faked. Paul said a prophecy would convict an unbeliever of sin, presumably with knowledge the speaker couldn't possibly know naturally. Only presuming because that is what the bible has always considered 'prophecy'.
They constantly parallel themselves to the Acts Christians while never having all the other experiences like being told to go here and there and miraculous encounters that lead to someone being saved.
narcisitically use their testimony like it is relevant to what the bible says.
oooh a lot of nasty fruits of this ISB. Causes many to FAKE the gifts of the Spirit. Or be turned away from the gospel because there was a hoop they couldnt jump through.
They think the backslider retains tongues and the HS forever...so even when they are in a lifestyle of sin? Even when they go to hell?
\
Another anecdote from my Revival Fellowship experience, is the person next to me spoke in tongues while the room was silently listening, he said with an accent 'Nehemiah and Zebediah and another one or two names that sounded like these, in the 'interpretation' I was listening carefully to see if it would get properly translated with these names. It did not, and was later explained away by the fact that the interpretations aren't word for word. Mmm you judge for yourself whether that's convincing enough to leave out a list of names.
Mike Winger: horribly abusive that needs to be repentented of.
find the verse that does confirm the Spirit convicts of sin.
Jesus never spoke in tongues and he is our pattern of conduct. but he didnt need to he was perfect they say. yes idiot and he also didnt need to get baptized either.
when i pointed out to a revival fellowshiper that their doctrine is clearly suspicious if everyone had to be TOLD it and that it wasnt a natural reading form the text. then he used the verse "how will they know if no one tells them" verse. Which was clearly a matter of giving the gospel to unbeleivers. context is cancer for some. 1 John 2 gives better more relevant context "you have recevieved the Holy Spirit so you dont need anyone to teach you what is true."
even with mk 16, they weasel out of the poison and snake thing by categorizing it as testing the Lord, normal chritsians can do that but not them with how literal and insistent they are about the tongues and signs. They have to take the rest as well. Anyway, how can one of them have the genuine faith needed for the tongues but still be ill and have infirmities of all types? again this is in the category of what they insist upon! you should never walk into one of their gatherings and see any health problems at all! Especially ones that God has healed in other churches that dont believe this ISB. Is this possibly because you cant FAKE a healing?...as easy anyway.
In Ephesians 6, Christians are told to consciously pray for something in the Spirit so it cannot mean a language you do not understand.