Acts20.com

In Acts 2, they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and all spoke with tongues. In Acts 10, the Spirit fell on them and some or all spoke with tongues. In Acts 19, the Spirit fell on them and some or all spoke with tongues.Ananias and Saphira lied about the amount of their offering and died. It happened twice. Ananias came in, lied, and died. Saphira lied about the amount of her offering and died.Is this absolute Biblical proof that anyone who lies about the amount they gave is going to die? If we apply the 'example hermentutic' that classical Pentecostal initial evidence doctrine rests on to being struck dead over lying about an offering, shouldn't we believe that anyone who does this sort of thing will die, in every case?Doesn't the Spirit have some freedom to choose whether to empower and individual to speak in tongues or to do something else? Can't God choose whether to strike someone dead? Do we have the right to say that God will do things a certain way unless He has promised it?Peter spoke of the promise of the Spirit, not the promise of speaking in tongues. If there is a promise about how God will act, we can teach a doctrine based on that promise. If there is an example, we can learn from that, but we should not presume to limit how God acts to the way He acted under a specific scenario in the past

Here's the difference. Nobody else is recorded as dying for having lied about their giving. However, several people for the next 20 years as recorded in Acts did speak in tongues when they received the Spirit. So I am not sure this is a good example to use in trying to refute IE.Understand that I sympathize with your frustration. Nobody will ever convince me that men like Whitfield, Wesley, Spurgeon and others weren't baptized in the Holy Ghost, even though they didn't speak with tongues. My stand is that during the Pentecostal revivals of the early 20th century, God was restoring tongues as a normative sign of Spirit infilling

The thing is, if God hasn't promised to do something, who are we to promise that He will. God hasn't promised to kill everyone who lies about how much they gave in the offering. Two who did such a thing died and that is recorded in the Bible. But God hasn't promised it in the Bible.God hasn't promised to give everyone who is filled with the Spirit the ability to speak in tongues, either. There are examples of people who were filled with the Spirit/baptized with the Spirit/on whom the Spirit came who spoke in tongues recorded in the Bible. But there is no promise of it.And Paul asks, 'Not all speak with tongues, do they? So those who are convinced that all should will say he must be talking about some other type of tongue, not initial evidence

Building doctrine from narrative passages is a slippery slope. Aside from the book of Acts, the only mention of tongues was pointed at the overemphasis the Corinthians gave. Paul never seemed to use this as a litmus test for whether one had received the Holy Spirit. There are plenty of non-repetitive examples from the book of Acts. When was the last time you baptized someone, then vanished and reappeared in another city ? That would cut down on preachers having to buy private jets.

If it is something that God did not promise to everyone, as in tongues, I agree. But if it

Yep! Yep, Yep! That is Amen! Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

how supposed pentecostal people are so ignorant of pentecostal doctrine. I can only suppose that people like the OP are any or all of the following: 1) not pastors 2) got their degrees in theology from a degree mill 3) have never been baptized in the Holy Spirit with initial evidence of tongues and but still want to claim they are baptized in the Holy Spirit 4) are really just Baptists who troll a pentecostal forum or 5) don't understand the difference between initial evidence and the public manifestation of the Gift of Tongues (see #2) 6) just looking for a fight.Never ceases to amaze me....

I have a book written by an Assembly of God ordained minister who is an elder and served as both as a missionary and chaplain for many years. In this book, he shares from his heart his doubts about the IE doctrine. He does not fit in any of the categories in your list.

Also,

I disagree vehemently with his assertion that tongues greater purpose has to do with unity in the Body of Christ. No wonder people are confused with nonsense like this floating around out there although I have never heard of the man and I have been a leader in the AG for 30 plus yrs. (Not all in leadership but around it)Tongues purpose in ie is to show a supernatural sign to the world and the individual that God has now empowered by the 3rd person of the Trinity (another problem you would have). These tongues form the basis of a prayer language by which that 3rd person prays thru you in the perfect will of God romans 8:26-27