Read through Paul’s conversion. Where’s the sign gift?
You just don’t have it. You don’t have this language about
“the Spirit of God fell upon him and he spoke in tongues.”
Paul... This is Paul we’re talking about.
You don’t get this language. So to me, I don't know why you’re making this a requirement
to validate salvation when you can’t even demonstrate it with Paul.
If you really have the Holy Spirit, you’re going to manifest a sign.
Well, sure, except when the New Testament doesn’t say that.
Which there are more instances where it doesn’t happen then you might think.
So let’s just go through a few. How about the Ethiopian eunuch?
You read through Acts 8 (it’s the same chapter, just further along), and there’s no sign.
It’s the same guy. Philip is the same guy preaching here. He was in Samaritan territory;
then he links up with the Ethiopian eunuch. He explains to him Isaiah.
He’s reading Isaiah 53. The guy believes. He’s baptized. So on and so forth.
But there’s no sign. We aren’t given any other details about the Ethiopian eunuch,
other than Philip explains what he’s reading to him.
The assumption is that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.
And then the Ethiopian eunuch says when they spot some water,
“Well, is there anything preventing me from being baptized?”
And Philip says, “Nope. Let’s go do that.” That’s all we get.
Now earlier in the passage about the eunuch,
it says that he “had come to Jerusalem to worship.” So he’s apparently Jewish.
He’s an Ethiopian eunuch. He’s from Ethiopia.
He’s linked to Candace, the queen, it says in the passage. But he’s apparently Jewish,
but he doesn’t understand the gospel yet. He’s confused about Isaiah 53.
So my guess is... There’s no verse that explicitly says this,
but if you look at the calendar, after Pentecost, it’s months later
before there’s anything on the festal calendar.
And if you read through the book of Acts, at least the first seven or eight chapters,
there isn’t a whole lot of time that elapses between Acts 2 and Acts 8.
We know this from phrases in Acts 6:1
that associate the events there with “these things”
(these things that have been happening—basically the expansion of the early Church).
So on and so forth. It’s a fairly tight timeline.
So this guy could have been present at Pentecost
and didn’t really understand what was going on. Not everybody believes.
There were 3,000, but it’s not everybody.
And Philip hooks up with him later and explains to him what he’s reading in Isaiah 53
and then he understands. Then he is baptized.
But we don’t get any reference to “then the Spirit of God fell upon him.” So on and so forth.
My guess is he didn’t need that, because if he had seen the events at Pentecost,
he already knows. Once he understands the gospel, it’s like, “Okay. I get it now.
I understand what they were preaching. The messiah has come,
and it was evidenced by the coming of the Spirit.”
And he, as a Jew, is going to know that that links back to the new covenant promises
in passages like Ezekiel 36. He’s going to know these things.
So that’s how I would parse what goes on with the eunuch.
But in any event, you don’t always have signs when people believe.
Let’s go through a few other examples. How about Paul himself?
Read through Paul’s conversion. Where’s the sign gift? You just don’t have it.
You don’t have this language about
“the Spirit of God fell upon him and he spoke in tongues.”
Paul... This is Paul we’re talking about. You don’t get this language.
So to me, I don't know why you’re making this a requirement
to validate salvation when you can’t even demonstrate it with Paul.
There’s no account of this in his conversion. How about the Philippian jailor (Acts 16)?
There’s no sign there. How about believers in Berea (Acts 17:12)? They believe,
but there’s no reference to the coming of the Spirit and the signs and all that stuff.
How about believers at Mars Hill, later on in Acts 17? Same thing. You don’t have a sign.
How about Crispus in Acts 18:8? No sign. I hope you see the point.
It’s very easy for church groups to teach that, “Oh, if you’re really a believer—
if you really have the Holy Spirit—you’re going to do this, that, or the other thing,”
(speak in tongues, whatever it is) and then they’ll point to you in the New Testament
where that sort of thing happens. But they conveniently leave out
the places where it doesn’t. And that’s really inconsistent,
and frankly, unfortunate, because it creates this culture
of haves and have-nots. And it can be used by leadership
(and I don't know the specific situation here) to manipulate people.
And that’s just really unfortunate.