Alan, if what you posted is true, the supremacy of Scripture is violated. I was thinking last night as I went to bed, Jesus says "He who hears you, hears me..." so could it possibly be, now that we have the Apostles' words, we need not have additional messages and revelations from the Lord, considering how many claim "thus saith the Lord" these days--some with outrageous claims(give a certain amount of money, etc)? Just asking and considering if this is true or maybe not. Just a question about a thought I had. Thanks.

Sorry, I have to get into it again. I'm not fighting against the Holy Ghost in denying Initial Evidence. The ancient Christians said "I believe in the Holy Spirit" and I confess the same. Initial Evidence was not even accepted by the earliest pentecostal people called Holiness folk--it was seen as an evidence but not the uncontestable initial evidence. Some accepted it. Not all. Jesus says "by your fruits, you will know" not by manifestations and the Epistles describe both fruit and manifestation of the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. 12 states the manifestations are given by the will of the Spirit, not what we want to see or have, so Initial Evidence is opposed to the Spirit's will(cessationist might be also unless tongues have truly ceased). Initial Evidence confounds justification by faith and has encouraged ecumenism among many who deny this central doctrine. Did every martyr of Jesus Christ speak in tongues? God gives the gift and describes how it works and for what purpose it is in the Epistles. Go there to learn it's significance. It helped me out tremendously.

Thanks Abigail for the time you have spent. The only indepth apostolic teaching on the nature of tongues and the other gifts discussed in Acts and the Gospels is found in the Epistles. I am obliged to believe this over other opinions. If Initial Evidence was true, everybody should automatically speak in tongues when preached to or praying for a filling of the Holy Ghost. Yet it doesn't happen. I have seen this far too many times in my fellowships among different Christians and attending different churches. I'd encourage you to research the matter---from Pentecostalism to the Holiness movement, etc. Thanks again for the hearty discussion....I'll try to just be a spectator now, but sometimes that's hard .

If a more crucial doctrine like Justification by faith or the supremacy of Scripture is being challenged, I'll be sure to speak up again.

I have presented what was on my mind about this and have no more to say or ask. Thank you all for the hearty dialogue.

CBC, thanks for encouraging me to read Acts in light of the Epistles. It is evident to me that the tongues mentioned in Acts are the gifts and manifestations given as the Spirit desired(or "wills" according to 1 Cor. 12), not as some kind of initial evidence required of all, because "now hath God set the members, every one of them in the body as it hath please him"(which sounds much like 1 Cor. 12:11). 1 Cor. 12:30 also shows this. Therefore, what was taking place in Acts was the giving of the different gifts and manifestations to those believers as the Spirit saw fit, not as initial evidence. It's definitely a better balance.

In 1914 a group of these Pentecostal believers began teaching the doctrine that a person could NOT be saved without first speaking in tongues."

I think to be fair in this discussion, one thing needs to be clarified: To the best of my knowledge, no pentecostal group teaches you speak in tongues to get the Holy Ghost, but one speaks in tongues because of the person has received the Holy Ghost.

I agree with your comment: "the epistles are given for teaching and must determine HOW we interpret the events that we see in the historical books." I guess my difference is whether or not Acts falls into this as well. Something I'll consider. Thanks for continuing with the exposition on speaking in tongues and one's standing with God. As you probably saw, I voiced my concerns earlier and posted for fruitful dialogue.