The Covenant of Pentecost and the Significance of Tongues
16 March 2004 (updated 22 August 2004)
16 March 2004 (updated 22 August 2004)
Dear Believer:
I am currently giving a Bible Study on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Even though I come from a traditional Pentecostal Fellowship, I have not relied on its doctrine or position papers to give this study. Instead, I am relying on what the Holy Spirit reveals to me and confirms with Scripture and some research. What I have found, however, confirms the widely accepted doctrine of tongues as evidence. The difference is that I have never heard the case for evidentiary tongues as it is presented here.
This is what I have found:
God on several occasions entered into covenants, which are binding agreements, with His Children. Each covenant had the following in common: God initiated it, God established it in two parts, and God worked or mandated covenantal signs. The signs were either "benchmark" signs or persistent signs. The benchmark signs.
The first was God's covenant with Noah. In the first part of this covenant, God's worked the signs by bringing all the animals to Noah, by sending rain, and by bursting the fountains of the deep. This first part may not be immediately obvious, but it predestined the second part. In the second part, God worked the sign by displaying His rainbow. The rainbow stands as a visible sign that reaches the world in an array of colors. It also symbolizes God's power and unbroken covenant.
The second covenant was God's covenant with Abram. In the first part, God worked a sign by sending a flaming torch and smoking fire pot. The accompanying sign in the second part was circumcision, which was a sign in the flesh.
The third covenant was God's two-part covenant with the Children of Israel at Sinai. The accompanying signs in the first part were fire on Mount Sinai, visible voices and torches (as read in the Hebrew translation of Exodus 19:16-19 and Deut 5:22-26). The accompanying signs in the second part were stones engraved by the finger of God and demonstrable symbols in Deut 6:6-9.
What is so phenomenal is that according to Jewish tradition, all these covenant experiences occurred on Shavuot (Pentecost) and all these covenantal signs were visible or audible. In summary, the signs had the following traits: multi-colored, worldwide, power, fire, in the flesh, voices, and demonstrability. As many know, all these signs persist as covenantal signs; no one agues against them as everlasting signs with the exception of the flaming torches/smoking fire pots/visible voices and torches. It seems that these were benchmark signs (much like that which happened in Acts with the tongues of fire and the sound of a rushing wind). So what is the connection with tongues as evidentiary signs? Tongues, in the tradition of Acts, fit the traits of all these covenantal signs perfectly. The connections point to tongues serving as a covenantal sign.
Apart from covenantal signs, we have a possible connection to the confusion of the languages at Babel, Joseph's coat of many colors (finely ornamented), and the priestly garments of the Temple period. It's interesting to note that the creation of the world's many languages (tongues) were a part of God's design to scatter people around the world (thereby instituting the need for world wide evangelism in the future). The first occurrence of tongues in Acts was in the form of dialects (symbolizing world-wide outreach). Many people wonder why Joseph's coat was finely ornamented and multi-colored. This represented his father's favor, no doubt, but also an appointment of sorts (we know that Joseph was prophetically gifted in interpretation and revelation). Later, we find God instructing Moses to adorn the priests with the multi-colored ephod and breast-piece. At the end of it all you have foreshadowing of a multi-colored clothing of priestly and prophetic power. This is not to mention the many times that tongues, the human mouth, fire, and God’s word appear connected (Exodus 3:2, Isaiah 5:24, 6:6-7, 30:27, Jeremiah 20:9, 23:29, James 3:6). Unless I am reaching here, all these "types" fit perfectly with the tongues of Acts (it is also interesting to note that the priests carried censors=fiery signs of priestly power=tongues of fire atop their heads).
The other day, I was led by the LORD to take another look at 1 Cor 12-14. The context of this passage, as you know, is the proper place and use for tongues. As I read the Scriptures, it seemed like my eyes were opened to the many references to corporate settings as opposed to personal settings. I invite you to do as I did and highlight all the references to the "the body," "all," "in the church," "the church," "if I come to you," and the "whole church." In short, there is a preponderance of these linguistic markers that say in essence "I am talking about behavior when one is with other believers." One of the most telling is Paul's phrase "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Another question that came to mind was: "what would Paul tell those who neither spoke in tongues (speaking God's word in an unknown tongue) nor prophesied" (speaking God's word in a known tongue) as found in 14:5? I know from personal experience that the passages in 1 Cor 12-15 are used to argue against tongues as an evidentiary signs and, worse, marginalize tongues. But when you read it in context, Paul’s comments neither serve as an argument against tongues as evidentiary signs nor do they marginalize tongues. Instead, his instructions were for immature Christians in the proper settings, purposes, and rules for tongues. The Corinthians were using their edification tongues meant for home devotion in the church place. Paul was saying in essence what a lot of employers tell their employees nowadays: "it's ok for you to speak in your maternal language at home, but when you come to work, I insist that you speak in a common language so that we can work as a team." With all this said, I would have to reject any assertion that these passages marginalize tongues in a personal setting and as a personal experience. After all if the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a personal experience and tongues is its evidence, the package is a personal experience.
As it concerns the gift of tongues, I distinguish between the gift of tongues and the initial evidence. This distinction is not so much based on doctrine but personal experience and surveys. On a personal note, I was gifted with the gift of tongues (also called message in tongues) seven years after I spoke in tongues. The sensations, the tongues, and the purposes were very different from my initial experience with tongues. I have interviewed several people who speak in tongues who may or may not believe in tongues as evidentiary signs. What I have found has served to confirm my own experiences and that is that there is a difference between speaking in tongues and an appointed gift of tongues. My wife for instance has been speaking in tongues since the age of 8, but has never been used for a public word (she has never sought the gift which may or may not be the reason). I, on the other hand, was gifted in this way after a week of seeking (I will share later how this gifting occurred). I'm not sure if you can relate, but it is quite a different experience. For one, the Spirit miraculously turns your volume up while simultaneously hushing the congregation. Secondly, the tongues are often different. Thirdly, the overwhelming impulse is to share this message with others (you can literally "feel" the Spirit speaking to the Church and not to your spirit as in the self-edification tongue). Lastly, others that are filled with the Spirit can “sense” when a word is forthcoming and when it is from God. When I was reminded of these distinctions (I'm sure others can add to the list), I went back to 1 Cor 12 and saw in verse 28 a confirmation. Paul says "and in the church God has appointed..." This gift is not a distributed one but an appointed one, hence "do all speak in tongues?" in his thesis about the body (the context is church ministerial appointments). In my ongoing surveys, only a handful have this gift. The manner in which people receive this gift (sometimes several years after their initial baptism), its unique characteristics and the results of my informal surveys show these to be consistent distinctions.
On another note, my own thinking has been challenged by the fact that tongues were not mentioned in the Baptism of the Samaritans and the Baptism of Paul. However, I have found that this challenge is arguing from silence. This is a well-known concept to avoid in logical argumentation. In other words, “just because it doesn't say something happened in an account doesn't mean that it did not happen; especially when all the circumstantial evidence points to it happening.” In the Samaritans' case, we know that Simon, as a sorcerer, performed and was drawn to visible manifestations of the supernatural. That a visible sign confirmed the Samaritan's baptism makes logical sense. This is especially evident when it says that he was astonished by the “great signs and miracles he saw.” Then in Acts 8:18 "he saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of hands." However, as it concerns Paul, if one used the argument of silence without ever knowing that Paul spoke in tongues (as found in 1 Cor 14) one could believe that he was baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues. When you throw in the fact that Scripture records that he spoke in tongues; logic tells you that an argument from silence is at best questionable (On a side note, I believe Paul ties the Baptism to the Holy Spirit to the ancient feast of Shavuot, which is the end of the Firstfruits, in Romans 8:23). I realize that this may be reiterating exegesis that you already know, however in the absence of details it is logical to draw from both pre-existing patterns and circumstantial evidence.
One thing that I have also been shown by close reading and revelation is that Simon Peter had his reputation to defend before the circumcised believers after he had ministered to the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius. He was facing severe repercussions if he could not defend his actions with demonstrable proof. Luke, records in two separate passages for Theophilus that there was demonstrable proof of the baptism. The acceptance of gentile believers into the fold (after the half-blooded Samaritans) depended on it (Luke was a gentile believer writing to a gentile audience). This explains the quote “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” The importance of an evidentiary sign was extremely important for Peter, his Jewish companions, and Gentile believers. Tongues were the linchpin in the case for gentile redemption. A person’s salvation ( as well as accounts of visions and angelic visitations) could be questioned by man, but Spirit-enabled tongues could not and it logically followed that these Gentiles had to be believers. Tongues are truly more important than we give them credit.
With all that I have found apart from doctrine, I have to conclude with three findings:
1. Tongues are a covenantal sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Every other covenant had evidentiary signs and all these signs, except for the benchmark signs, persist to this day. If this is true, it goes contrary to God’s unchanging nature to argue that tongues would not persist and be expected for all who seek to enter this covenant rite (a covenant by God to man). After all, God does not “change like shifting shadows” and Jesus as the Baptist in this Baptism is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
2. There is a difference between a personal tongue-speaking experience and a corporate tongue-speaking experience. The personal experience is self-edifying and the corporate experience edifying to the body. The former should be practiced to oneself and the latter is an appointment to be sought after to be practiced for the edification of others.
3. Tongues are connected with fire, power, and world-wide outreach (Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth). These concepts are in line with Christ’s words in Acts to the disciples about evangelism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have had to redefine tongues (glossalia) as prophetic utterances (they are the word of God spoken with the Spirit-enabled human spirit) unknown to the speaker that may or may not be known to the speaker’s audience (glossalia in Paul’s teaching covers both dialects and angelic tongues as seen in 1 Cor 13:1 and 14:22). The statement “tongues (glossalia not dialectos), then, are a sign...for unbelievers” intimately connects the world-wide outreach aspect. They force the unbelieving listener to say “this person is drunk,” “this person is not speaking a language of his/her own,” “what does this mean?,” or “they are out of their minds.” In the days of the Apostles, people speaking in tongues at evangelistic outreaches were not uncommon (Cornelius’ home and with the Samaritans if you accept the circumstantial evidence). The issue with the Corinthian church is that they were using un-interpreted tongues in the fellowship of believers. They in essence were using something intended as a personal means of communication with God and a means of evangelistic outreach. Their error (immaturity) was two-fold. Imagine if evangelistic crusades nowadays were filled with people being baptized with the Holy Spirit with the demonstrable sign of tongues, the unbelievers would be shaken. Reports would circulate that known languages were being spoken by those who had no knowledge of them. This sounds a lot like what happened at Azusa and still happens to this day, but only in pockets (my dad has been used in dialectos). We all know that the Azusa experience shook the nation.
If all the above is true, it does make me rethink the way tongues as evidentiary signs are taught. All of my findings have come within the last two weeks and all thanks to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If you can say anything that might show a hole in my findings I will seriously consider them. I am deeply committed to Biblical truth more so than man’s doctrine. I hope you do not find anything offensive in what I have I have said. as I am only attempting to test my findings (using the scientific method if you will) with you as a fellow believer (especially since you may not believe in tongues as evidentiary signs). All of these findings do not take away from the misgivings, discomfort, fears, and misunderstandings some may have of tongues. Nor do they justify anybody’s immaturity. Paul taught us all to use wisdom, mature thought, and the supremacy of love. I for one, would prefer to go to a church that loved me over one that exercised the gifts without love. But if one has never spoken in tongues and has never felt the post-experiences that so many experience: self-edification, closeness to God, acuity to the supernatural (Scripture, the moving of the Spirit, spiritual warfare, discerning witness), and effectiveness in ministry, I would have to say that he or she is missing out on something of God. I have to say, in closing, that it was and still is God’s desire that all prophesy and minister as priests (Exodus 19:6, Numbers 11:29, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 14:5, 1 Peter 2:9). The Baptism of the Holy Spirit with accompanying “appointment” tongues makes this possible. Tongues is the surface sign of a multidimensional inner transformation that should resurface in power, ministry, and holy living as many stress. Thanks for listening to my rambling. God bless you and your ministry!
Danny Morales
Light The Fire Ministries
Post Script: After completing the Bible study in the late Spring of 2004, I had come full circle with the doctrine of tongues as evidentiary signs as taught by traditional Pentecostal fellowships. I like them relied on the Holy Spirit to guide me in all truth and He did. Although my original thoughts may seem a bit cold to the "traditionalist" view, they were written during a time of objective "spiritual analysis" away from my doctrinal comfort zones. The verdict is in for me: tongues are the physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Danny Morales (8/22/04)
I am currently giving a Bible Study on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Even though I come from a traditional Pentecostal Fellowship, I have not relied on its doctrine or position papers to give this study. Instead, I am relying on what the Holy Spirit reveals to me and confirms with Scripture and some research. What I have found, however, confirms the widely accepted doctrine of tongues as evidence. The difference is that I have never heard the case for evidentiary tongues as it is presented here.
This is what I have found:
God on several occasions entered into covenants, which are binding agreements, with His Children. Each covenant had the following in common: God initiated it, God established it in two parts, and God worked or mandated covenantal signs. The signs were either "benchmark" signs or persistent signs. The benchmark signs.
The first was God's covenant with Noah. In the first part of this covenant, God's worked the signs by bringing all the animals to Noah, by sending rain, and by bursting the fountains of the deep. This first part may not be immediately obvious, but it predestined the second part. In the second part, God worked the sign by displaying His rainbow. The rainbow stands as a visible sign that reaches the world in an array of colors. It also symbolizes God's power and unbroken covenant.
The second covenant was God's covenant with Abram. In the first part, God worked a sign by sending a flaming torch and smoking fire pot. The accompanying sign in the second part was circumcision, which was a sign in the flesh.
The third covenant was God's two-part covenant with the Children of Israel at Sinai. The accompanying signs in the first part were fire on Mount Sinai, visible voices and torches (as read in the Hebrew translation of Exodus 19:16-19 and Deut 5:22-26). The accompanying signs in the second part were stones engraved by the finger of God and demonstrable symbols in Deut 6:6-9.
What is so phenomenal is that according to Jewish tradition, all these covenant experiences occurred on Shavuot (Pentecost) and all these covenantal signs were visible or audible. In summary, the signs had the following traits: multi-colored, worldwide, power, fire, in the flesh, voices, and demonstrability. As many know, all these signs persist as covenantal signs; no one agues against them as everlasting signs with the exception of the flaming torches/smoking fire pots/visible voices and torches. It seems that these were benchmark signs (much like that which happened in Acts with the tongues of fire and the sound of a rushing wind). So what is the connection with tongues as evidentiary signs? Tongues, in the tradition of Acts, fit the traits of all these covenantal signs perfectly. The connections point to tongues serving as a covenantal sign.
Apart from covenantal signs, we have a possible connection to the confusion of the languages at Babel, Joseph's coat of many colors (finely ornamented), and the priestly garments of the Temple period. It's interesting to note that the creation of the world's many languages (tongues) were a part of God's design to scatter people around the world (thereby instituting the need for world wide evangelism in the future). The first occurrence of tongues in Acts was in the form of dialects (symbolizing world-wide outreach). Many people wonder why Joseph's coat was finely ornamented and multi-colored. This represented his father's favor, no doubt, but also an appointment of sorts (we know that Joseph was prophetically gifted in interpretation and revelation). Later, we find God instructing Moses to adorn the priests with the multi-colored ephod and breast-piece. At the end of it all you have foreshadowing of a multi-colored clothing of priestly and prophetic power. This is not to mention the many times that tongues, the human mouth, fire, and God’s word appear connected (Exodus 3:2, Isaiah 5:24, 6:6-7, 30:27, Jeremiah 20:9, 23:29, James 3:6). Unless I am reaching here, all these "types" fit perfectly with the tongues of Acts (it is also interesting to note that the priests carried censors=fiery signs of priestly power=tongues of fire atop their heads).
The other day, I was led by the LORD to take another look at 1 Cor 12-14. The context of this passage, as you know, is the proper place and use for tongues. As I read the Scriptures, it seemed like my eyes were opened to the many references to corporate settings as opposed to personal settings. I invite you to do as I did and highlight all the references to the "the body," "all," "in the church," "the church," "if I come to you," and the "whole church." In short, there is a preponderance of these linguistic markers that say in essence "I am talking about behavior when one is with other believers." One of the most telling is Paul's phrase "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Another question that came to mind was: "what would Paul tell those who neither spoke in tongues (speaking God's word in an unknown tongue) nor prophesied" (speaking God's word in a known tongue) as found in 14:5? I know from personal experience that the passages in 1 Cor 12-15 are used to argue against tongues as an evidentiary signs and, worse, marginalize tongues. But when you read it in context, Paul’s comments neither serve as an argument against tongues as evidentiary signs nor do they marginalize tongues. Instead, his instructions were for immature Christians in the proper settings, purposes, and rules for tongues. The Corinthians were using their edification tongues meant for home devotion in the church place. Paul was saying in essence what a lot of employers tell their employees nowadays: "it's ok for you to speak in your maternal language at home, but when you come to work, I insist that you speak in a common language so that we can work as a team." With all this said, I would have to reject any assertion that these passages marginalize tongues in a personal setting and as a personal experience. After all if the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a personal experience and tongues is its evidence, the package is a personal experience.
As it concerns the gift of tongues, I distinguish between the gift of tongues and the initial evidence. This distinction is not so much based on doctrine but personal experience and surveys. On a personal note, I was gifted with the gift of tongues (also called message in tongues) seven years after I spoke in tongues. The sensations, the tongues, and the purposes were very different from my initial experience with tongues. I have interviewed several people who speak in tongues who may or may not believe in tongues as evidentiary signs. What I have found has served to confirm my own experiences and that is that there is a difference between speaking in tongues and an appointed gift of tongues. My wife for instance has been speaking in tongues since the age of 8, but has never been used for a public word (she has never sought the gift which may or may not be the reason). I, on the other hand, was gifted in this way after a week of seeking (I will share later how this gifting occurred). I'm not sure if you can relate, but it is quite a different experience. For one, the Spirit miraculously turns your volume up while simultaneously hushing the congregation. Secondly, the tongues are often different. Thirdly, the overwhelming impulse is to share this message with others (you can literally "feel" the Spirit speaking to the Church and not to your spirit as in the self-edification tongue). Lastly, others that are filled with the Spirit can “sense” when a word is forthcoming and when it is from God. When I was reminded of these distinctions (I'm sure others can add to the list), I went back to 1 Cor 12 and saw in verse 28 a confirmation. Paul says "and in the church God has appointed..." This gift is not a distributed one but an appointed one, hence "do all speak in tongues?" in his thesis about the body (the context is church ministerial appointments). In my ongoing surveys, only a handful have this gift. The manner in which people receive this gift (sometimes several years after their initial baptism), its unique characteristics and the results of my informal surveys show these to be consistent distinctions.
On another note, my own thinking has been challenged by the fact that tongues were not mentioned in the Baptism of the Samaritans and the Baptism of Paul. However, I have found that this challenge is arguing from silence. This is a well-known concept to avoid in logical argumentation. In other words, “just because it doesn't say something happened in an account doesn't mean that it did not happen; especially when all the circumstantial evidence points to it happening.” In the Samaritans' case, we know that Simon, as a sorcerer, performed and was drawn to visible manifestations of the supernatural. That a visible sign confirmed the Samaritan's baptism makes logical sense. This is especially evident when it says that he was astonished by the “great signs and miracles he saw.” Then in Acts 8:18 "he saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of hands." However, as it concerns Paul, if one used the argument of silence without ever knowing that Paul spoke in tongues (as found in 1 Cor 14) one could believe that he was baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues. When you throw in the fact that Scripture records that he spoke in tongues; logic tells you that an argument from silence is at best questionable (On a side note, I believe Paul ties the Baptism to the Holy Spirit to the ancient feast of Shavuot, which is the end of the Firstfruits, in Romans 8:23). I realize that this may be reiterating exegesis that you already know, however in the absence of details it is logical to draw from both pre-existing patterns and circumstantial evidence.
One thing that I have also been shown by close reading and revelation is that Simon Peter had his reputation to defend before the circumcised believers after he had ministered to the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius. He was facing severe repercussions if he could not defend his actions with demonstrable proof. Luke, records in two separate passages for Theophilus that there was demonstrable proof of the baptism. The acceptance of gentile believers into the fold (after the half-blooded Samaritans) depended on it (Luke was a gentile believer writing to a gentile audience). This explains the quote “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” The importance of an evidentiary sign was extremely important for Peter, his Jewish companions, and Gentile believers. Tongues were the linchpin in the case for gentile redemption. A person’s salvation ( as well as accounts of visions and angelic visitations) could be questioned by man, but Spirit-enabled tongues could not and it logically followed that these Gentiles had to be believers. Tongues are truly more important than we give them credit.
With all that I have found apart from doctrine, I have to conclude with three findings:
1. Tongues are a covenantal sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Every other covenant had evidentiary signs and all these signs, except for the benchmark signs, persist to this day. If this is true, it goes contrary to God’s unchanging nature to argue that tongues would not persist and be expected for all who seek to enter this covenant rite (a covenant by God to man). After all, God does not “change like shifting shadows” and Jesus as the Baptist in this Baptism is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
2. There is a difference between a personal tongue-speaking experience and a corporate tongue-speaking experience. The personal experience is self-edifying and the corporate experience edifying to the body. The former should be practiced to oneself and the latter is an appointment to be sought after to be practiced for the edification of others.
3. Tongues are connected with fire, power, and world-wide outreach (Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth). These concepts are in line with Christ’s words in Acts to the disciples about evangelism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I have had to redefine tongues (glossalia) as prophetic utterances (they are the word of God spoken with the Spirit-enabled human spirit) unknown to the speaker that may or may not be known to the speaker’s audience (glossalia in Paul’s teaching covers both dialects and angelic tongues as seen in 1 Cor 13:1 and 14:22). The statement “tongues (glossalia not dialectos), then, are a sign...for unbelievers” intimately connects the world-wide outreach aspect. They force the unbelieving listener to say “this person is drunk,” “this person is not speaking a language of his/her own,” “what does this mean?,” or “they are out of their minds.” In the days of the Apostles, people speaking in tongues at evangelistic outreaches were not uncommon (Cornelius’ home and with the Samaritans if you accept the circumstantial evidence). The issue with the Corinthian church is that they were using un-interpreted tongues in the fellowship of believers. They in essence were using something intended as a personal means of communication with God and a means of evangelistic outreach. Their error (immaturity) was two-fold. Imagine if evangelistic crusades nowadays were filled with people being baptized with the Holy Spirit with the demonstrable sign of tongues, the unbelievers would be shaken. Reports would circulate that known languages were being spoken by those who had no knowledge of them. This sounds a lot like what happened at Azusa and still happens to this day, but only in pockets (my dad has been used in dialectos). We all know that the Azusa experience shook the nation.
If all the above is true, it does make me rethink the way tongues as evidentiary signs are taught. All of my findings have come within the last two weeks and all thanks to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. If you can say anything that might show a hole in my findings I will seriously consider them. I am deeply committed to Biblical truth more so than man’s doctrine. I hope you do not find anything offensive in what I have I have said. as I am only attempting to test my findings (using the scientific method if you will) with you as a fellow believer (especially since you may not believe in tongues as evidentiary signs). All of these findings do not take away from the misgivings, discomfort, fears, and misunderstandings some may have of tongues. Nor do they justify anybody’s immaturity. Paul taught us all to use wisdom, mature thought, and the supremacy of love. I for one, would prefer to go to a church that loved me over one that exercised the gifts without love. But if one has never spoken in tongues and has never felt the post-experiences that so many experience: self-edification, closeness to God, acuity to the supernatural (Scripture, the moving of the Spirit, spiritual warfare, discerning witness), and effectiveness in ministry, I would have to say that he or she is missing out on something of God. I have to say, in closing, that it was and still is God’s desire that all prophesy and minister as priests (Exodus 19:6, Numbers 11:29, Joel 2:28, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 14:5, 1 Peter 2:9). The Baptism of the Holy Spirit with accompanying “appointment” tongues makes this possible. Tongues is the surface sign of a multidimensional inner transformation that should resurface in power, ministry, and holy living as many stress. Thanks for listening to my rambling. God bless you and your ministry!
Danny Morales
Light The Fire Ministries
Post Script: After completing the Bible study in the late Spring of 2004, I had come full circle with the doctrine of tongues as evidentiary signs as taught by traditional Pentecostal fellowships. I like them relied on the Holy Spirit to guide me in all truth and He did. Although my original thoughts may seem a bit cold to the "traditionalist" view, they were written during a time of objective "spiritual analysis" away from my doctrinal comfort zones. The verdict is in for me: tongues are the physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Danny Morales (8/22/04)
Light the Fire Ministries ©2004
