Language correction: Pentecostals believe that "The initial evidence" of HAVING BEEN BAPTIZED in the Holy Spirit, is speaking in tongues. This is derived Biblically from the instances where the Holy Spirit fell on groups, and tongues are mentioned. It was also the "Hallmark' of both the Pentecostal Revival (1900), and the Charismatic Outpouring (1966-1978 or so).
No correction necessary. I've considered myself a Pentecostal (of sorts) since I joined the Charismatic Movement, and have attended a variety of Pentecostal churches since the early 70s. I know what they believe--they believe we *should* have a Prayer Language, aka Speaking in Tongues. As the "initial evidence" of the Baptism, it means that without it who can know if you've really been Spirit Baptized, right?
And I do know, and have heard a thousand times, where Spirit Baptism, as defined by Pentecostals, is derived from. As I've been saying, there is no *explicit theology or teaching* that Speaking in Tongues is to be the standard evidence that Spirit Baptism has been received. It was a "Proof by Example," which is a fallacious way of proving biblical theology. At best, it is proof that that is what happened in the beginning--it is not evidence that it is to be standard for the Church throughout the ages.
That being said, the fact it happened and Paul taught tongues as one of several gifts of the Spirit makes me conclude that biblical theology sanctions and encourages Tongues. But as I said, it does *not* teach Tongues is the norm for all. On the contrary, we are taught that the Spirit reserves the right to pour out this gift as He sees fit, to individuals or to entire groups. He poured out Tongues on an entire group on Pentecost. And sometimes it happens in groups in that way. But theologically, the regular practice of Tongues is something the Holy Spirit determines, as I see it. I can be corrected on this, though.
The standard cessationist rationalization is that The Holy Spirit entered the disciples (and the church) in Acts 2:4.
I'm not a cessationist, and I do believe that their position is basically correct. Where Pentecostalism becomes important is in pointing out the danger of becoming a lifeless, perfunctory, lutrigical, external Christianity. That's what I experienced growing up, and it took those more spiritual than my group to show me that there was an "abundant life" I should be experiencing along with my righteousness. I didn't realize how "spiritual" my righteousness was supposed to be. I didn't see any difference between walking in the 10 Commandments and following the Spirit.
When I became conscious that God wanted all of me, I got it. I began to associate being "Spirit-filled" with obedience to the Lord's word inside my conscience.
However, that actually happened Biblically at John 20:22 which was the punctiliar instant that the disciples were INFILLED with the Holy Spirit (the effect of which is given in Luke 24:45.
It's a little difficult for me to read the various times Jesus poured out the Spirit on his Disciples and know how the theology of Spirit Baptism relates to it. Currently, I believe that spiritual anointing existed even while the Law was in effect. For example, John the Baptist was "filled with the Spirit."
However, the Baptism of Jesus that John the Baptist mentioned is NT Baptism, which is the pouring out of the Spirit to apply the work of Christ on the cross. Before Jesus, the Spirit could only apply the Law to those in covenant under that system.
Jesus THEN told them to hang around UNTIL THEY WERE ENDUED WITH POWER (clothed with power). SO Biblically, John 20:22 is the Holy Spirit IN the disciples, and Acts 2:4 is the Holy Spirit ON the Disciples - like He'd been coming ON certain people since the beginning.
I'm not clear enough on all of the prepositions to discuss it intelligently. My view is as above. The particular covenant under which the Spirit was poured out determines what kind of Baptism it was. The Baptism John spoke of as "Jesus' Baptism" is given to all believers. But many believers become, like me, spiritually dead for the most part, coming and going out of the Spirit with no sense of it. Your walk is only as deep as your attention to what you understand.
Only if you ignore Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 14, which makes clear that SPeaking in tongues is speaking to God (prayer).
No, I don't ignore the fact Tongues is a form of prayer! I think it sounds like a great gift.
Nope - that's the cessationist rationalization against Full Gospel teaching. WHen we're Born Again, we have the INFILLING of the Holy Spirit, who fuzes with our spirit, and makes us "Christians".
Jesus was specific that what happened at Acts 2:4 wasn't an "Infilling" it was a "CLothing with" the Holy Spirit.
I agree - so why did you do exactly that????
That's fine, but caution is needed. In MY case, the first "tongue" that I was burdened to Interpret for the Church was from a fellow that I had "written off" as a fleshly babbler.
I can't answer this part. Sorry!