M
Medawlinno
Guest
Not sure if this is the best place for this but….
As a sort of argument against the concept of “Spirit baptism with the initial evidence of tongues” the following was brought to my attention –
When Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, at which time the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and remained on him, Jesus did not speak in tongues as a result even though he was filled with the Holy Spirit. If speaking in tongues had been the sign of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then it seems reasonable to assume that the same should have happened here and Scripture would have recorded it. However, the Bible does not contain any reference to tongues at the time of Jesus’ baptism.
This would seem to indicate that tongues is not a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. If it had been, Jesus of all people would have exhibited speaking in tongues at his baptism.
Could this be a valid argument, or was the baptism of Jesus something different altogether with respect to the “infilling of the H/S?”, or does this really not count since he was God, no need for an ‘infilling of the H/S, or, because he was God he didn’t need to speak in tongues??
A counter argument might be that I think the passage says that he was praying at that time as well – it’s possible that the praying was “praying in tongues’.
Trying to get a bit of insight as to whether or not this narrative could be used as an argument against the idea/concept of H/S baptism w/‘initial evidence of tongues’.
As a sort of argument against the concept of “Spirit baptism with the initial evidence of tongues” the following was brought to my attention –
When Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, at which time the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and remained on him, Jesus did not speak in tongues as a result even though he was filled with the Holy Spirit. If speaking in tongues had been the sign of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then it seems reasonable to assume that the same should have happened here and Scripture would have recorded it. However, the Bible does not contain any reference to tongues at the time of Jesus’ baptism.
This would seem to indicate that tongues is not a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. If it had been, Jesus of all people would have exhibited speaking in tongues at his baptism.
Could this be a valid argument, or was the baptism of Jesus something different altogether with respect to the “infilling of the H/S?”, or does this really not count since he was God, no need for an ‘infilling of the H/S, or, because he was God he didn’t need to speak in tongues??
A counter argument might be that I think the passage says that he was praying at that time as well – it’s possible that the praying was “praying in tongues’.
Trying to get a bit of insight as to whether or not this narrative could be used as an argument against the idea/concept of H/S baptism w/‘initial evidence of tongues’.