The Conversion of Paul

Revised: 7 March, 2022

Summary

• In the Revival Fellowship we claim:
  “Everyone, at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit, will speak in tongues”.
• This is a universal claim - everyone.
• But just one contradictory example will disprove that universal claim by showing not everyone meets that criterion.
• It's pretty clear that the Apostle Paul at his conversion was "filled with the Spirit" but did not speak in tongues.
• Where does that leave us?



From Christian slayer

to slave of Christ.

First Things First

This article examines the Apostle Paul’s conversion and how it aligns with the Revival Fellowship’s position: “At the time people are filled with the Holy Spirit, they will speak in tongues” [1]. If this is true, then all Biblical examples will meet that criterion. The companion article in this series is In the Spirit.

The Revival Fellowship claim is for “everyone”, so it is a universal truth claim (there are no exceptions). To disprove that universal claim (or any universal truth claim), all a judge of that claim needs to do is find a single example where the claim is false. That’s why I have chosen to review the conversion of the Apostle Paul in this second article.

A few notes about how we will approach the Bible’s information. Where the Bible’s data is absent or incomplete, it is not enough for us to defend our claim by saying that “In this example, those people did speak in tongues (because everyone does), and you can’t prove they didn’t”.

That is simply an illogical approach. To claim something is true because it has not been proven false is fallacious. "Not proven false" is not at all the same as "True".

The one who makes a claim must prove it true, not simply claim it is true because it can’t be (or has not yet been) falsified.

Some will say that the Scripture’s “background information” or “background data” supports the claim that “everyone does speak in tongues when they “receive”.

This type of argumentation is unsound, and I want you to brace yourselves for a little Latin. Arguing in this manner is known as petitio principii (Latin for “assuming the initial point”) and “chicken and the egg argument” and is a form of circular reasoning. In this case, each part of the argument supports the other leg, and neither are proven – just assumed. Arguing in this way sets up a fallacious circle of reasoning.

Compare these examples:

 “The rights of the criminal should be as important as the rights of the victim because everyone’s rights should be equal.”

“Everyone who receives the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues because speaking in tongues is the sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.”

In both cases, the second part of the argument supports the claim, and the claim supports the second part of the argument. Neither is proven to be factual, just assumed to be so. They are claims without evidence used as evidence of the claim. In other words, we are assuming the very thing we are trying to prove.

Saul gets a life transplant

If you were to ask me who was next in line after Jesus in terms of influence on Christianity, I would have to say The Apostle. The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus as he is introduced in the Bible).

Some people experience dramatic religious conversions. But the conversion of Saul of Tarsus to the Christian faith after encountering the resurrected Jesus Christ has had an arguably more significant impact than any other. Many scholars (of both the New Testament and antiquity) view the Apostle Paul as the second most important figure in Christian history. After his transformation from the persecutor Saul to the Christian Paul, he became one of the faith’s greatest ever missionaries and arguably its most insightful theologian and ablest apologist.

Paul stands head and shoulders above all the other writers and characters in the divine drama played out for us in the pages of the New Testament. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit (and as we read, having had a direct encounter with a risen and very much alive Jesus Christ), wrote much of the New Testament.

• If you count by words, Paul wrote perhaps a quarter of the New Testament if you include Hebrews (which seems reasonable to me but not to everyone). That’s almost as much as Luke.
• If you count the various epistles (letters), Paul wrote two-thirds of them if you include Hebrews (which seems reasonable to me but not to everyone).
• If you count by books, Paul wrote half of the New Testament.

Whichever way it’s measured, Paul was keen to get God’s revealed thoughts “down on paper”, so to speak.

Paul was an Apostle of the first order, a prophet speaking mysteries never before revealed, and he was also, perhaps more so, a teacher and pastor. At the direction of the Holy Spirit and with praying and fasting, Paul and his companions set out on his first missionary journey with the blessing and support of his local church. His travels were adventurous, dangerous, difficult, and incredibly fruitful. They brought personal pain (physically, emotionally, and spiritually), transcendent insights and revelation from God.

As he was moved around at the Spirit’s leading, he left the many churches he had planted in his fruitful wake. He was deeply concerned for them, so he wrote letters to them. These letters contain deep theology as sublime and profound as found anywhere. That’s what we have (at least some of them) in the New Testament. 

Church tradition is that Paul was martyred in Rome in about 67 AD. The date may not be precise, but I don’t think his martyrdom is seriously disputed.

Why is it do you think that the man who was so fierce and so unrelenting in his pursuit of the destruction of the followers of Jesus would die as a martyr for the very man, Saviour and Lord, that he dedicated himself to destroying?

Acts 9 recounts the story. Saul the Christian Slayer[2] was on his 140-mile journey from Jerusalem to Damascus, and he was “breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord”, as the venerable KJV puts it. The NET says of this verse, The expression “breathing out threats and murder” is an idiomatic expression … the content of the threats is to murder the disciples.

These were not idle threats, and many disciples had been thrown into jail or killed by Saul on his path of unrelenting persecution of the emerging Church, backed by the authority of the Jewish religious hierarchy. He was on a track to eradicate Jesus’ memory, His name, and His disciples from the planet.

If Saul had his way, Jesus was going to be remembered (if he was remembered at all) as nothing more than a deluded, self-appointed would-be messiah. A Messiah who died a humiliating death, demonstrating what He actually was – a failure – at least in Saul’s eyes.

Saul was halted in his tracks (literally) by the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. To say that Saul was stunned would be a gross understatement. Saul, blinded by the encounter, was led into Damascus. Saul did not eat or drink for three days – instead, he prayed. Details are sparse, but Luke paints a portrait of a man being undone and remade.

Radical. Soul-deep, spirit-wide, heart-rending, mind-altering. It was overpowering on a scale that defies our imagination. Saul was undergoing a life transplant.

All of his presumed knowledge and all that was the bedrock of his belief system (his worldview) of which he was so sure, including what he mistakenly thought was his total surrender to the service of God, was leached away during those three days. A new heart, a new mind, a new way. Not so much a renovation as a complete repurposing of his life. The persecutor became the preacher: a spirit-powered, Christ-honouring, Jesus-following minister of righteousness. A man dedicated, no matter what the cost, to the service of his Lord, his King, his Saviour – the One who had stopped him on the Damascus road – Jesus.

My purpose in describing what we can reliably draw about that experience from Acts and Paul’s writings is to spotlight the events at Saul’s transformation.

First, Paul (then he was Saul – but I’ll call him Paul for simplicity...) saw the glory of the risen Lord and heard His voice. Jesus was alive, and He had brought to a halt, unforgettably, the murderous direction of the deluded Pharisee.

Second, though utterly unprepared for his encounter with Jesus, Paul nevertheless obediently submitted to Jesus’ instructions. I did not disobey, Paul stated later. (I’ve described Paul as unprepared, but I must ask, how could anyone have been prepared for such an event? I imagine a lifetime of notice would not be long enough for a flesh-dweller to prepare themselves to converse directly with the Creator of all things.)

Third, Paul prayed and fasted (neither eating nor drinking) for three days.

So Paul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open, he could see nothing. Leading him by the hand, his companions brought him into Damascus. For three days he could not see, and he neither ate nor drank anything. (Act 9:8-9)

There is an interlude in Luke’s story here. Ananias, a disciple in Damascus, is told in unmistakeable terms by the Lord (Jesus – see verse 17) to go to Paul and set in motion the events that would complete Paul’s life-changing conversion. Paul knew Ananias was coming (and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again Acts 9:12), and although Ananias took some convincing, he too was obedient to the Lord’s instructions. In Acts 22:12, where Paul gives his testimony to the mob trying to kill him, he describes Ananias of Damascus as …a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there… Paul thought it reasonable to use the elements of the story that were most appropriate for his audience and so emphasises Ananias’ devoutness and acceptability as the tool of God to set Paul on his new road.

Fourth, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and simultaneously healed of his blindness.

So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptised... Acts 9:17-18

Fifth, Paul was baptised. Luke, recording Paul’s recollection of these events (Acts 22:16), relates that Paul stated his instructions were:

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16 [Literally – arise and get yourself immersed and wash away your sins.]

Sixth, Paul, the previous persecutor, became Paul the preacher of Jesus as the Son of God.

…and after taking some food, his strength returned. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.” Acts 9:19-20

That’s how the career of Paul the Apostle began. According to God’s foreordained plan, sent on his way by Jesus to bring gospel truth to the world. Paul himself stated that his calling to preach Jesus among the Gentiles was a calling for which he had been set apart from birth.

But when He who had set me apart, [even] from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood. Gal 1:15-16

After a direct enlightening from Jesus – a revelation of gospel and mystery – Paul ended up in Antioch serving in the Antiochian church as a prophet and teacher with Barnabas, Simeon (called Niger), Lucius the Cyrenian and Manaen.

It was from there that the Holy Spirit directed “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” This call was the beginning of the next phase of Paul’s ministry. A ministry predicted at his conversion …this man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name. Acts 9:15-16. Paul’s calling as an instrument of God and his incredibly fruitful ministry (which resulted in centuries-spanning influence) started in Damascus. It was launched in earnest a decade later from Antioch.

There is no shortage of books written about the Apostle, each with differing viewpoints and different objectives: some to show Paul as a patriarchal, misogynistic, pharisaic product of his culture, which we can rightly treat with disdain, while others throw the best and most revealing light on a man who has no peer in the Christian church. Here is not the place to interact with all that scholarship; however, I would make a few points crucial to the Revival Fellowship tongues-for-salvation discussion.

Paul’s Testimony

There are three accounts in the Scripture of Paul’s conversion. Actually, there are four if you include what Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians.

The first is historical – written by Luke in Acts 9 and is detailed above. Luke travelled with Paul later in Paul’s ministry, but he was not with Paul (then Saul) at his conversion. As Luke did later travel with Paul, there is no reason to think that Luke’s fact-checking did not include Paul himself. We could say, quite reasonably, that the Acts 9 record is as much Paul’s testimony as it was the recollections of others. It seems likely that Ananias was a source for Luke, given the details about Ananias’ experience and actions that Luke records.

The following two records (again from Luke’s pen) are of Paul giving his testimony, as we in the Revival Fellowship would call it. In these two cases, he explained how he came to be in his then present state to two different audiences.

In Acts 22, Paul is speaking to the mob of enraged Jews in Jerusalem that had been, moments before, trying to beat him to death. As he recounted his testimony (leading up to the point of why he was in the temple in the first place), he spoke of the light, the voice of Jesus the Nazarene, the effects of it all, his blindness and then regaining his sight. He says that Ananias told him that he, Saul, had been chosen by God… “The God of our ancestors has already chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear a command from his mouth, because you will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

In Acts 26, Paul speaks to Roman officials, making a legal defence. In his testimony, he recounts his experience of the light, the voice of Jesus, and his obedience to the instructions he received. Paul relates both the purpose of his ministry and summarises the content of the gospel he preached among the Gentiles.

My summary is:

In advance, Paul was designated as a servant of Christ

(He describes himself elsewhere as a slave [or bondservant] of Christ)

Now that his predestined calling was actual, he was to be a witness to the things:

He’d [already] seen and

That Jesus would personally reveal to him (Paul later called this revelation and mystery revealed).

Jesus sent him to the Gentiles and would also rescue him from his People (the Jews). He was an emissary for this purpose:

to open the Gentiles’ eyes so that they turn

from darkness to light and

from the power of Satan to God, and in so doing

they may receive forgiveness of sins and

a share among those who are sanctified by faith in Jesus.

Paul concludes…

Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance. For this reason, the Jews seized me in the temple courts and were trying to kill me. I have experienced help from God to this day, and so I stand testifying to both small and great, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said was going to happen: that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.

There is a fourth place where Paul provides the background and the story of his conversion. In his letter to the churches of Galatia, he reiterates his conversion (and its attendant circumstances) to demonstrate that he was indeed a genuine Apostle.

An Apostle appointed and attested to by Jesus Christ – the risen and exalted Jesus Christ.

As he unfolds his testimony, he also shows that his gospel is right and not only acceptable with God but is, in fact, God’s gospel.

… that the gospel I preached is not of human origin … instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ … I did not go to ask advice from any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me … (from Galatians 1:11-24). …those of influence (the pillars) added nothing to my message … (from Galatians 2:6-10)

Paul’s persistent theme was the just will live by faith and that justification is by faith in (belief in and on) Jesus Christ. Those who believe, says Paul, are sons of Abraham and righteous. By our believing, we have justification and salvation. The moment we exhibit saving faith (a gift from God), the Spirit seals us. By faith we possess the Spirit (the gift). The Spirit comes as a result of believing on Jesus. The Spirit’s coming and sealing us results from our believing (Galatians 3:1-7). This Spirit baptism is received by all Christians (1 Corinthians 12:13) and disarms sin’s force, and empowers us for a life of sanctification.

When writing to the Galatians, Paul is concerned with the centrality of Jesus. He is also deeply concerned that the Galatians will see that their salvation (their justification, their righteousness, their standing before God) and thus the presence of the Spirit, is all of faith. (...give you [plural] the Spirit...).



The Galatian’s record of Paul’s conversion and Paul’s place in Christ never even hints that “tongues” is either a confirmatory sign or an indicator of a relationship with the Spirit. Nothing at all.

I’ve written what’s above (apologies for all the words) to make a point: Paul’s conversion, life and work are pivotal events in the Bible and Christian history, and I cannot stress that enough. As I said above, after his transformation from the persecutor Saul to the Christian Paul, he became the faith’s greatest missionary, theologian, and apologist.

The Veracity and Completeness of Luke’s Record.

Before drawing further conclusions and inferences, I want to say something about Luke, the historian. While it is not difficult to find those who would discount Luke’s record in his Gospel and the book of Acts, declaring them unreliable and nothing more than Christian propaganda, such claims are difficult to maintain. Those views have more to do with the commentators’ belief that the supernatural is non-existent than any objective criteria.

The quotes most often used to support Luke, whenever the credibility of his historical writings is in doubt, are those of archaeologist Sir William Ramsay.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy. ... [He] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. Luke enjoys a higher reputation than Suetonius, Herodotus, Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, or any of the ancient historians.

Luke names cities, places, geographical features, and meteorological events. He mentions governors and authorities by name. He records the name of a slave girl (Rhoda) and the fact that there were 276 people on the boat when he and Paul were shipwrecked. The list can go on. My point is that Luke was meticulous. He recorded many details essential to his purpose of instruction and “keeping the record straight”, as we might say. Luke wanted to inform, instruct, and give confidence in the story of Jesus and the genesis of the Christian church. Luke’s is the most significant contribution to the New Testament by any author (about 28%).

If Scripture is God-breathed, then Luke’s writings in his Gospel and Acts are the Holy Spirit’s records. If we don’t accept both the inspiration and completeness of Scripture, then studying it becomes, at best, just an academic exercise that has no bearing on our life. Scripture becomes just another book. It is also worth noting that Luke was not making this record ‘off his own bat’. I’ll remind you of two points made earlier about the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

First, I assume the sufficiency, accuracy, and completeness of Scripture. I believe that what is in the Scripture is in there by God’s design, and the Holy Spirit was the agent by which the authors of the original monographs were inspired. My view (a view which is reasonably orthodox in the wider Christian community) is that the biblical writers were not channelling the Holy Spirit nor dictating from voices in their heads, nor were they puppets writing under the direct control of the Holy Spirit. Instead, they were in tune with the Spirit. The Spirit ensured that each of the authors wrote what the Spirit intended, complete with the influence of their own unique circumstances, personalities, background, education, and culture.

Second, the Holy Spirit is the source, the coordinator, the author of whatever the various Bible writers recorded and passed on – all of it – from Genesis to Revelation.

When I refer to Paul or Jude writing or saying something, it is simply an uncomplicated way to reference a particular author. However, this shorthand reference to an author contains a vital assumption which I accept unreservedly: The Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of all Scripture. He is the author behind the authors.

So, when I type Paul wrote (and similar phrases), this really means Paul, writing what he was inspired to write by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, if I note that Jude said (and similar phrases), I really mean Jude, writing what he was inspired to write by the Holy Spirit.

What we have in Scripture is God-breathed. It is coordinated and cemented together by the Holy Spirit.

What is not in the Scriptures is not meant to be there. If the human authors did not write something about an event, circumstance, theological point or teaching, they were not meant to do so.

What is in the Scriptures is inspired and is meant to be there. In Scripture, we have all we are meant to have in a written, Divine self-revelation. Nothing is missing.

That does not mean we will understand everything in Scripture because the Holy Spirit put it there. Nor does it mean that we are precluded from making legitimate inferences from the biblical record. However, Scripture’s completeness (in its totality – inclusions and exclusions) prevents us from making wholesale arguments from silence or ignorance.

It’s also important to understand that we are not permitted to make the Bible say something it does not say. We are dealing falsely if we make unwarranted assumptions based on Scripture’s silence or when we assume facts or, however well-intended we may be, put words in The Word where there are none.

Tongues for Paul?

Having described Paul’s conversion and his pivotal place in the early church (and the church from then until now), as well as the inspiration, reliability, and completeness of Scripture, I think I’m in a position to draw some conclusions.

There probably has not been a more crucial conversion in Christianity’s history.

Greg Sheridan, in his 2021 book, Christians: The urgent case for Jesus in our world, says of Paul, His radical change on the road to Damascus, from persecutor of Christians to Christian convert, is perhaps the most significant religious conversion in history.

Paul’s life was pivotal to the foundations of the Christian church. Paul’s conversion saw him undone and remade. As I wrote above, his conversion was radical, soul-deep, spirit-wide, heart-rending, mind-altering – overpowering on a scale that defies our imagination.

Paul was pivotal in Christianity’s history. His missionary efforts, theology, and personal example to thousands of suffering believers, all that he accomplished in planting churches and ministering the word of God to his converts, made him an indispensable and central figure in the church. Paul’s accomplishments, his pivotal position as a founding Apostle, and his crucial place in the successful founding and launching of a millennia-spanning faith set Paul apart. Underscoring Paul’s importance is Jesus’ personal instigation of his conversion.

Jesus wrenched Paul from his Pharisaic life and gave him a holy calling. Paul was powered by three life-changing experiences: meeting the risen Christ, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and being granted unprecedented revelation. Yet, in the three accounts of Paul’s conversion, neither Luke nor Paul (as recorded by Luke) mentions or alludes to the Revival Fellowship Holy Grail – Speaking in tongues.

Isn’t it significant that speaking in tongues is not mentioned in any of the three accounts of his conversion?

Paul was filled with the Spirit in Damascus. As a result, he was Spirit powered in a way matched only by Peter in the New Testament accounts. Regardless of that unprecedented anointing, there’s no hint of speaking in tongues at his conversion. Instead, we are given a picture of a completely changed life in no uncertain terms. He had new priorities, allegiances, and ways of thinking and acting that were drastically different (opposite in fact) to his previous life. The proof of Paul’s conversion was not speaking in tongues – it was a new life focused on Jesus – everything else was garbage to him.

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as dung, in order that I may gain Christ. Philippians 3:8

The person and work of Jesus Christ was Paul’s constant focus... Never tiring of learning about Him, thinking about Him, boasting of Him, speaking about and for and to Him, thrilled and entranced with His perfections and beauty, finding ways to serve and exalt Him, tirelessly exploring ways to spend and be spent for Him, and always being ready to grow in character to be more like Him[3].

If speaking in tongues was the conversion sign expected in the early church and for all converts since, then the Holy Spirit had the perfect opportunity to cement that view clearly, unequivocally and with certainty. That unequivocal assurance required nothing more than recording the Apostle Paul’s speaking in tongues when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Yet what we have instead is a thundering silence in that regard. The focus is clearly on how the church’s number one enemy had surrendered to the Creator of the Cosmos. Paul was now a slave of Christ.

Critics of my conclusion argue that Paul must have spoken in tongues “Because everyone speaks in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit.”

Well, that’s a circular argument without any foundation, if ever there was one.

However, let’s look further along in the Acts 9 account of Paul’s story… Paul, having escaped Damascus, went to Jerusalem and attempted to join the church there. They were not welcoming at all. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, but they were afraid of him. They did not believe he really was a disciple.

No doubt Paul just said, “Come on, brothers, I am one of you! Let’s pray together so you can hear and see me speak in tongues. Just like you all do, so do I. It is, after all, the universal sign of being a true, Spirit-filled believer.”

That didn’t happen. Two thoughts come to mind:

1. Firstly, that option to prove his Christian credentials was not open to Paul, who was now a genuine disciple and “slave of Christ”, because he couldn’t speak in tongues at that point in his life as a disciple.
2. Secondly, if we suppose (just for the sake of argument) that Paul could speak in tongues, his ability to do so was not enough to convince the church (now between 4 and 6 years old) that he was a disciple. (This is extraordinary if all disciples expected speaking in tongues as a confirmatory sign!)

Instead, conciliatory Barnabas came alongside Paul, checked his story, found it genuine, and supported Paul’s claim by describing and defending Paul’s conversion to the Jerusalem saints. The key to Barnabas’ explanation was how Paul’s radical life change gave credence to the genuineness of his conversion. How revolutionary was this life change? Paul, the former persecutor, had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. And as it turned out, because he was now a disciple of Christ and spoke boldly in His name, Paul had to flee from Damascus in fear for his life. (Acts 9:23-25)

But Barnabas took Saul, brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. (Acts 9:26-27)

Suppose (again, just for the sake of argument) the Revival Fellowship’s “tongues doctrine”, emphasising speaking in tongues for salvation, does accurately reflect the early church’s approach. How do we adequately explain the Jerusalem church’s reluctance to embrace a tongues-speaking Paul?

I submit that our emphasis on an initial, universal sign of speaking in tongues as a measure of true Christian conversion was unknown in the early church.

So by digging a little deeper into this story, we see the Jerusalem church was not looking for tongues-speaking believers. Instead, they looked for believers whose changed lives reflected new values, priorities, and allegiances.

Unlike the Jerusalem church, we would not be convinced by a person’s changed life as a primary indicator of their genuine Christianity. Sadly, in the Revival Fellowship, the Barnabas approach takes a back seat to “Do you speak in tongues?”.

Concerning the biblical witness, it beggars belief to claim that Paul did speak in tongues at his conversion. If that were the case, then it would be recorded, and it is not. The record states that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit – not that Paul spoke in tongues.

Again I ask, if speaking in tongues was the conversion sign expected, why is it not recorded? The Revival Fellowship claims that it is “self-evident” that Paul spoke in tongues when Ananias laid hands on him, based on other receiving-the-Holy-Spirit scriptures. Well, being “self-evident” in this case does not mean self-explained, nor does it mean “proven”. A cogent explanation and some scriptural support are required, and “Self-evident” does not cut the mustard.

If the Revival Fellowship (or anyone else) makes that radical “it is self-evident” claim, then we have a burden of proof to explain the self-evident truth because it will not explain itself.

The Revival Fellowship’s efforts to provide faithful-to-scripture argumentation that justifies our claim are not as straightforward as they should be for something that is “self-evident”.

The arguments we put forward are not so much self-evident as they are self-referential and convoluted. The Revival Fellowship’s claim that Paul spoke in tongues when filled with the Holy Spirit does not show much confidence in the Holy Spirit. Instead, that reasoning exposes the Holy Spirit to a charge of considerable carelessness over the transmission and translation of Scripture since He obviously left out some vital information!

Let’s get back to Paul’s conversion. A sound hermeneutical principle is that we take Scripture in its plainest, simplest sense – unless otherwise indicated by the text itself. That principle means that we accept Scripture as it stands, without addition, subtraction, or alteration. As Sam Storms reminds us, we are better off not trying to prove anything from what Luke does not explicitly record[4].

There is certainly support for the fact that Paul spoke in tongues:

1Corinthians 14:14-19

If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive. What should I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind. Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

But when Paul says I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you we can conclude nothing about when Paul began to speak in tongues.

The point Paul was making to the Corinthians says nothing one way or the other about what happened at the time of his conversion experience. To make a claim Paul did speak in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit is to commit yourself to a logically flawed approach. To say, “See! Paul did speak in tongues, and therefore he must have spoken in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit in Damascus” is just another example of fallacious reasoning.

The Record is Sparse

As far as we in the Revival Fellowship are concerned, the importance of speaking in tongues as the initial, necessary, and direct evidence of being “Spirit-filled” is not to be overlooked or laid aside. Considering how fiercely speaking in tongues is defended by us, is it too much to expect the second most important New Testament person to have his speaking in tongues conversion experience put up in lights?

Indeed, if the early church had the Revival Fellowship’s emphasis on speaking in tongues and how it functions as the one initial, required sign of the Holy Spirit’s filling or baptising, where is that evidenced in the Acts record? It was only recorded 3 times in 30 years. Had the Revival Fellowship penned Acts, it would be replete with people speaking in tongues. So the critic can rightly ask, “What about the other conversion accounts in Acts? Shouldn’t those accounts similarly be replete with the converts speaking in tongues as the Spirit fills them, comes upon them or baptises them?”

The critic would be wise to ask those questions because what we find is not the Revival Fellowship’s expected and promoted pattern but a pattern with a completely different character. The unambiguous model emerges that converts were taught about Jesus; they believed and were baptised. The table below shows each of the conversion stories as recorded in Acts.

Where it is noted in the table that belief is ‘implied’, I don’t think there can be too many real objections to this. Suppose, after hearing the gospel about Jesus in the societal, religious, and political environment of the first century Roman Empire, a person decides to get baptised. A reasonable inference is they also understood and believed what they heard (enough to turn their life around and submit to baptism – Lydia, for example).

Evidence of the Holy Spirit’s presence is mentioned explicitly in 3 cases. Say what? Yes, there are only three records in all the conversion stories in Acts of the Holy Spirit’s visible manifestation. All three are unique. All three seem to be extraordinary in the sense that the Holy Spirit took charge and did something that was not always, or customarily, done. In Acts 2 and 10, it was an unprecedented, unexpected act of God.

A Point of Interest (and Difference)

Interestingly, the Philippian jailor asked a similar question (Acts 16:30) to that which the crowd asked Peter and the other Apostles after Peter preached to them on the day of Pentecost.

Having been convinced that they had crucified The Messiah, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” They asked the question prompted by anguish and distress. “How do we get out of this predicament? Having killed our Messiah, what’s the way forward? How do we make this right? Where will this lead?”

Peter’s answer was about redemption. “You who carry the bloodguilt of your Messiah, repent! Turn away from your unbelief and rejection and turn toward the One you killed. Prove your repentance by baptism in the name of the One you rejected and murdered. Then, in the name of your slain, now gloriously risen, Messiah, you will be forgiven of your sins. Also, you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In these words, Peter laid out the solution to both their immediate predicament and the eschatological one we all face – God’s final judgement.

The fire and tongues made the Pentecost onlookers curious (and bewildered). Similarly, the songs of praise, the earthquake and open prison doors (which nobody used) convinced the Philippian jailor that he, too, needed an escape from judgement. He desperately needed a way to avoid the consequences of mistreating God’s emissaries. He also wanted to understand what had just happened. “What must I do to be saved?” he pleaded. This was a similar question to the one asked by the Pentecost crowd, but it was not the same. The Philippian jailor is the only person in Acts to have asked "What must I do to be saved?". So Paul's answer to this question is critical. Paul’s answer for the jailor was not the same as Peter gave the Pentecost crowd. This disparity between responses demonstrates why generating a hard and fast salvation formula is so tricky based on the information in Acts. See below for more on this point.

For those looking for a salvation pattern in Acts to adopt in modern churches, the one thing that we can know for sure from the Acts’ accounts is there was gospel preaching, belief ensued, and baptism performed. That is the consistent record. The reports of conversion where the Spirit is openly manifest and explicitly mentioned are often claimed as the only complete conversion experiences. Claiming these records as the only authoritative records is simply exegetical imperialism.

To claim that Luke chose not to record speaking in tongues in every case because it was so typical, expected, or usual (and not worth mentioning) is to accuse the Holy Spirit, the Inspirer, of being somewhat careless in His work. Especially where you make such a radical claim as “Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit”. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit had intended that conclusion to be drawn from the biblical record, then He would have made it far more apparent than He has. As already stated, what Scripture does record is by design, and what Scripture does not report is also by design.

Time and Place

There is also the matter of timing. When we read Acts, there’s a tendency to imagine all of the events recorded as occurring serially one after another, day by day as the days rolled into weeks and months. However, that is not the case. Therefore, firmly concluding typical behaviour is not wise or warranted.

A decade had elapsed between Pentecost (Acts 2) and Cornelius (Acts 10, 11).

Ten years passed between Holy Spirit “speaking in tongues” events. The next similar event (Acts19) took place after a further 20 (or so) years. That means there are only three events recorded where “speaking in tongues” accompanies the presencing of the Holy Spirit, and those three events occur during more than 30 years from the first one to the last. The terminology differs also. In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit “filled” the gathered disciples. In Acts 4, they were again “filled with the Holy Spirit”. (Note that they had already been “filled” with the Holy Spirit. At this second “filling”, no one spoke in tongues. Instead, the house shook, and the disciples were granted great boldness). In Acts 10, the Holy Spirit was “poured out” and “fell on”, and for Cornelius and his household, “God gave them the same gift”. In Acts 19, the Holy Spirit “came upon them”. The result? Not only tongues but also prophecy.

As Utley says in his You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series:

The Bible links the Spirit with the believer in three different ways:

1. at the time of belief
2. at the time of baptism
3. with laying on of hands

This diversification should warn us against dogmatism in the matter. Acts is not intended to teach a set pattern but to describe the dynamic movement of the Spirit.

Of Acts 19, Utley says:

This [Acts 19 - the 12 disciples] just does not fit the pattern, which probably means that modern interpreters are trying to fit an agenda or interpretive grid over Luke's writing that just does not fit. Maybe this event of speaking in tongues is more like those in Corinth.

There is an interesting variety in the way the NT describes the coming of the Spirit to individuals.

1. came upon (erchomai plus epi), cf. Matt. 3:16; Luke 19:6 [just epi, 2:25]
2. baptized with, cf. Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; 11:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5
3. descended upon, cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22
4. coming upon (eperchomai plus epi), cf. Luke 1:35; Acts 1:8
5. filled with, cf. Luke 1:15,41,67; Acts 2:4; 4:8,31; 9:17; 13:9,52
6. poured out (ekcheô), cf. Acts 2:17-18,33; 10:45; Titus 3:6
7. received, cf. Acts 2:33,38; 8:15,17,19; 10:47; 19:2
8. given, Acts 5:32; 10:45; 15:8
9. fallen upon (epipiptô), cf. Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15

Given that brief survey, the “background information” appears less clear than some make out. The descriptions of each event are different, and tongues were accompanied by “extolling God” in one case and prophecy in another.

Forgive me if I fail to see a clear pattern or decisive evidence for uniformity. In 30 years or more, there are just three “speaking in tongues” events.

Therefore, any argument that claims support based on “background information” or from warranted assumptions based on a pattern proves baseless as the “background information” is sparse and insufficiently uniform.

There is no reason to think that Paul spoke in tongues when “filled with the Holy Spirit”. If we draw conclusions based on the assertion that “Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit”, we are arguing in a circle. Based on the premise “Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit”, we go on to claim that Paul, therefore, spoke in tongues at his conversion (when he was filled with the Holy Spirit according to the Acts record). But our claim is not proven. To claim that “everyone” does when Paul so clearly didn’t and then claim that “he must have” because “everyone does” is simply circular exegetical ventriloquism – we have put words in the mouth of the Holy Spirit.

Something to think about.

There is not a single example of the apostles (or anyone else) preaching about tongues to unbelievers. From the Revival Fellowship’s perspective, that is just bizarre. We in the Revival Fellowship talk about our Holy-Spirit-Tongues experience all the time. It’s how we pre-empt our preaching and testifying, but such a gospel approach is absent in the Book of Acts. Whatever other information Acts provides, this is certain: Acts describes the early church evangelising, spreading the gospel and planting churches in place after place. Yet, there is no hint of a gospel of experientialism in the whole of Acts.

That is not what they preached, and it was not the content of their gospel, and it was not how they planted churches. We in the Revival Fellowship have assumed that the Holy-Spirit-Tongues experience was on the priority list; however, we find it is not the case when we check that for ourselves.



The church, from the beginning, preached Christ and Him crucified. (Jesus – attested to from heaven, Jesus – crucified, Jesus – risen, Jesus – the judge and Jesus – the One on whom they should believe for forgiveness. In Acts 10, the gospel preached by Peter culminated with the declaration of sins forgiven through Jesus’ name based on believing in Him. Yet the Revival Fellowship have tongues as the centrepiece of our version of the gospel. “I’ve had an experience with God – you can too!” is our catchcry. “God can heal you!” “God can fill you with His Holy Spirit!”. Our gospel is one of experientialism, and it is not the Bible’s way, in my opinion.

Proof and Logic

The other side of the Revival Fellowship argument is: “Well, you can’t prove he didn’t speak in tongues when he was filled with the Holy Spirit”. To try and make our point using that line is to create a severe logical error as we are then arguing from ignorance. Atheists often find themselves arguing from ignorance when they claim that, as God’s existence is unproven, God does not exist. However, even if it were true that God’s existence is not proven, it does not follow that God’s existence is disproved.

We often employ the same approach in the Revival Fellowship to support our view on speaking in tongues. The claim “Well, you can’t prove [Paul, the Jailor, Lydia, the Sarmatians – pick one] didn’t speak in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Spirit” is a nonsensical claim to make. The Revival Fellowship proposes this view (that departs from the plain reading of the Scripture), so the burden of proof rests with the Revival Fellowship. It is, in my opinion, a heavy burden. It is not up to the orthodox readers (who take Scripture as they find it) to prove the absence of tongues because the plain reading of Scripture already indicates the lack of tongues (or is silent about it). Instead, it’s up to the radical-claim-makers to prove that [Paul, the Jailor, Lydia, the Sarmatians – pick one] did speak in tongues at conversion. (As I noted in my opening remarks, it is fallacious to say that because a speculative claim has not been disproved it is, therefore, true.)

Remember that Paul’s conversion and Paul’s life and work are pivotal in the Bible and Christian History. As I stressed above, after his transformation from the persecutor Saul to the Christian Paul, he became the faith’s greatest missionary, theologian, and apologist. Therefore the events surrounding Paul’s conversion are of utmost importance to our current discussion. Speaking in tongues did not accompany Paul’s being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Where have we have landed in this discussion? With this: For Paul, there were no tongues at conversion, and this unequivocally defeats any claim that “Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit”.

How brave (even brazen) we are to say that everyone must when the Apostle Paul, who looms so large in the Christian faith and history, did not. It follows then, relentlessly, that the Revival Fellowship’s radical claim that “Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit” is untrue.

What about Tongues?

So that leaves a vacuum in Revival Fellowship theology. I am not arguing that speaking in tongues is pointless, fraudulent, or not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Far from it. I speak in tongues and could not imagine my life without that gift, that ability for my spirit to pray independently from my mind. In our fellowship, we expect that all will speak in tongues, and our expectation is often fulfilled – but not always. And if our erstwhile converts are lagging in “receiving”, we have various words of counsel for them. "Keep trying", "Keep seeking", "Press-in", "Surrender". None of this you will find in Scripture.

In the book of Acts, no one “tried” to receive the Holy Spirit. No one “was seeking for” the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit manifested Himself when, where and how He saw fit. For example, the term used to describe the Holy Spirit’s presence in the case of Cornelius and his household is “fell on”. The experience lived by them, retold and recorded, was that they were listening to Peter’s delivery of the gospel, and as they heard, the Holy Spirit fell on them, and they spoke in tongues. No one was asking for the Holy Spirit. Much less “seeking” for the Spirit. (As an aside, it was not a tongues experience preached by Peter. Instead, it was Jesus – attested to from heaven, Jesus – crucified, Jesus – risen, Jesus – the judge and Jesus – the one on whom they should believe for forgiveness. The gospel preached by Peter culminated with the declaration of sins forgiven through Jesus’ name based on believing in Him.)

In any case, why should we think that our experience (or anyone’s experience) is normative for everyone? Paul says, “I wish that you all spoke in tongues”, but he did not say, “You must all speak in tongues”. Look at the history of our fellowship, with roots going back 70 years and more. People got excited about “the Spirit moving” as the revival blossomed when the gospel was preached.

The revival’s view at the time was that “by grace are you saved through faith…” (Ephesians 2:5; 8). At the time, believing, repentance and baptism were the requirements for salvation in their view. However, as the movement gained momentum and healings occurred, speaking in tongues manifested, and converts were granted new life and fresh attitudes by God’s grace.

This exciting power of God manifested in a way not often seen (or perhaps never seen) in the church outside the revival. We then took our experiences, given by the grace of God, and demanded that everyone have the same encounter. If they did not, we considered they were not genuine Christians. One minute salvation was by grace through faith (a firm conviction about Jesus and his saving work), and the next minute everyone had to speak in tongues.

For restorationist movements such as ours, this is typical behaviour. We see the world as “bad”; we see the established church as weak, ignorant of the truth, hypocritical, lacking virtue and with no power-of-God signs. We know the solution, not a reformation of the existing church but rather to replace the church with another one (ours) that is, of course, correctly patterned on the “early church”. In other words, we start over full of newfound wisdom and zeal. We, of course, have then come to consider ourselves as representatives of “true Christianity” succeeding where others failed. I hope we can now see this is an arrogant approach.

We proclaim (with apocalyptic poise) our view of the established church (as described above), portraying it as a Babylon that true Christians must leave. We make public condemnatory pronouncements with the twisted idea that because they are weak, ignorant, hypocritical, and virtue-less with no power-of-God signs, we must be strong, knowledgeable, genuine, and full of virtue with the required God-given signs. They are wrong, so we are right. Not for a moment do we consider that the Holy Spirit might have had some role in the growth, maturity, and evolution of the Church over the last 2000 years!

The Revival Fellowship believe that a person “must speak in tongues” to be saved^[7]. Now that’s not the only criteria that the Revival Fellowship apply to salvation. However, we maintain that salvation is not possible without speaking in tongues. We hold the view that the Bible gives a clear picture that all of the saved receive the Holy Spirit “with the Bible evidence” of a Holy-Spirit-Tongues experience. Given that assumption, the Revival Fellowship’s view is that this experience stands as the one (and only) means by which the person who’s just been Spirit-filled has the assurance of their Spirit-filled status. Of course, it helps us too, as we can draw a very convenient line that places Spirit-filled people on one side of the tongues line and everyone else (sad for them) on the other side.

The Revival fellowship position succinctly put is: No Tongues? No Holy Spirit. No Salvation. No exceptions.

However, the Revival Fellowship claim – Everyone will speak in tongues at the time they are filled with the Holy Spirit – is falsified based on the record of the Apostle Paul. That one example negates the “everyone”.

Perhaps on reflection, it may be that speaking in tongues, though it is important and a valid manifestation of the Holy Spirit, isn’t what we think it is.

So if “everyone” doesn’t speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Spirit, if speaking in tongues is not the necessary, initial, and confirmatory sign of receiving the Holy Spirit – what is? How will I or anyone know they are saved? How will we know someone is Spirit-filled or, more importantly by far: how will they know?

They are great questions which I’ll cover in another article. Here’s a teaser – why do we think it is up to us to determine if someone is saved?

Endnotes

1. I’m not convinced that the terms “filled with the Holy Spirit”; to be “full of the Holy Spirit”; “receiving [the gift of] the Holy Spirit”; “receive the Spirit”; “baptised with the Holy Spirit”; “the Holy Spirit fell on”; “The Holy Spirit came upon”; and “sealed by the Holy Spirit”, can be used interchangeably. Some can, and some can’t. In the Revival Fellowship, we group them all and say the terms describe the one experience. They don’t.
2. To be historically correct, I should mention that the disciples of Jesus were not at this time called Christians, and that name was not coined until after Paul’s conversion. Acts 11 records the term’s first use. In Antioch “Christian” was first used of followers of the Way – the disciples of Jesus.
3. Borrowed from Pastor Dan Phillips’ book The World-Tilting Gospel
4. Sam Storms writing in The Language of Heaven
5. As Sam Storms writes: Some argue that tongues-speech was present in Acts 8 because Simon was able to “see” (v. 18) their reception of the Holy Spirit. But it could just as easily have been their boldness, their joy, their praise, or any number of other manifestations of the Spirit’s presence. We are better off not trying to prove anything from what Luke does not explicitly record.
6. The Extolling or Praising, or Magnifying God in Acts 10:46 was likely a manifestation of the Spirit. Extolling, Praising or Magnifying is also used as proof of the Spirit’s being ‘poured out on the Gentiles. …For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God… A fantastic occurrence, especially in the light of Ephesians 2:12 …remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
7. Many in the Revival Fellowship will say “Wait a minute, we say no such thing! What we say is that a person must be filled with the Holy Spirit to be saved. And, as it happens, when someone is filled with the Holy Spirit they will always speak in tongues”. However, the term “always” forces in place a "necessary condition" that everyone who claims to have the Holy Spirit must meet. Once we do that, we must conclude with resistless logic: without speaking in tongues, there is no salvation. We are wrong on that score; nevertheless, it is the undeniable outcome of our claims.