Q5. Necessary

[Pastor Ralph]

Q5. (Acts 10:44-48) Clearly tongues were a sign to Peter that Cornelius’s household had been baptized with the Spirit. Does the Scripture support a doctrine that speaking in tongues is a “necessary sign” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If so, how? (Christians disagree on these matters, so be gentle as you share your thoughts with one another.)

[Krissi]

I do not speak in tongues however I do believe I've been baptised in the Holy Spirit. 

The gifts of the spirit are parceled by God according to His need, not ours. I'd like to speak in tongues but God has other assignments for me that do not involve this gift. The idea that every believer who is baptised in the Holy Spirit has to have the same gift is simply not scriptural nor does it ring true in my life-faith experience.

When God needs a sign to confirm the saved status of a group to those who would otherwise reject them, I'm certain He will bestow the gift of tongues or other miraculous gifts.

 

 

[Katy]

Q5. There are some incidents of people speaking in tongues in the Bible but this doesn’t mean that it is essential to speak in tongues to become a Christian. There are many Spirit filled Christians who do not speak in tongues.

[shaunaduty]

I think that in addition to unbelief that tongues are spoken in this age, people who do it loudly in corporate worship with no interpretation given add to the confusion and unbelief. People also give it different names, like prayer language, which can be confusing.

 

I do speak in tongues in private worship and silently or in a whisper when I'm in corporate worship. Tongues are not understood by our human consciousness,  but they verify my spirit in community with heaven, if that makes sense.

 

Earth is not my final destination, and my body and conscious mind are but a shell I'm using while here. My soul is eternal. This sounds supernatural  because it is!

Just look at a body in a coffin, and you'll know the corpse is a shell; the soul is not there.

It makes sense to me, then, that the soul can praise and pray in languages not known to the human mind, when the soul commutnes with what is in heaven--its home.

 

[kreilly]

Sometimes when the New Testament refers to speaking in tongues, it is referring simply to other languages, as in Acts 2 when everyone heard the gospel in their own language.  Can anyone clarify for me how to distinguish when the Scriptures are referring to foreign languages and when they are referring to spiritual tongues?  Because I don't know the difference it is hard for me to answer the questions posed above.

[haar]

Q5. (Acts 10:44-48) Clearly tongues were a sign to Peter that Cornelius's household had been baptized with the Spirit. Does the Scripture support a doctrine that speaking in tongues is a "necessary sign" of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If so, how? (Christians disagree on these matters, so be gentle as you share your thoughts with one another.)

I am not aware of any scripture that says that tongues is a necessary sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[hanks]

Q5. (Acts 10:44-48) Clearly tongues were a sign to Peter that Cornelius's household had been baptized with the Spirit. Does the Scripture support a doctrine that speaking in tongues is a "necessary sign" of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If so, how? (Christians disagree on these matters, so be gentle as you share your thoughts with one another.) 
I don’t think speaking in tongues is a “necessary sign” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Many cases are recorded in Scripture where being filled with the Holy Spirit did not result in speaking in tongues. For example: Jesus in Luke 4:1, Elizabeth in Luke 1:41-45, Zechariah in Luke 1:67-7, … We see that while Peter was still speaking, salvation came upon each one of Cornelius’s household as they individually responded to Peter’s message with believing faith in their hearts. They were actually born again as they listened and believed. There was no petition, no confession no water baptism, and no laying on of hands. What is clear from Peter’s testimony in Acts 11:7, God had given them the Holy Spirit, “after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ”. Knowing that the Jews would be hard to convince that the Gentiles had been filled with the Spirit, on this occasion the same manifestation experienced by Jewish Christians at Pentecost was granted. 
 

[Old Jerry]

The scripture does not support a doctrine that speaking in tongues is a “necessary sign” of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In some cases it did and other it didn’t.

[Irmela]

Q5. (Acts 10:44-48)

Clearly tongues were a sign to Peter that Cornelius's household had been baptized with the Spirit. Does the Scripture support a doctrine that speaking in tongues is a "necessary sign" of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? If so, how? (Christians disagree on these matters, so be gentle as you share your thoughts with one another.)

Whatever anyone believes or decides is the correct answer remember that "If I speak with the tongues of  men and of angels, but  have not love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  .  .  .  

The evil one also uses counterfeits,  so be careful.          The fruit will reflect if the person is filled with the Holy Spirit or not.