Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
No one has denied the external visible manifestations of Acts 2,8, 10, and 19. The question isn't how did God show that the Spirit initially came on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles, but rather is this the normative universal experience for every single person who has been born again/saved in the history of the church? |
I find it fascinating that some think that the "evidence" the apostles clearly looked for and noted as assurance that someone received the Holy Ghost is somehow unique only to how God poured out the Spirit on the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles only.
So, let's set this up:
Philip/other new Christians were hanging out with the Samaritans, preaching to them...they clearly saw them convert to Christianity by believing the message and obeying the gospel, agreeing to be baptized. But they knew that they hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost somehow because SOME external sign was absent.
BUT, according to your assertions, they knew that the external sign was only because it was the first time they were preaching to the Samaritans. They wouldn't have been looking for an external sign to indicate the next group of converts received the Holy Ghost. Somehow - even though it's not recorded in Scripture anywhere - the apostles knew that the sign was only for the first outpouring of the Spirit to the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans. Oh, wait, and I guess the Ephesian believers who Paul met, as well.
The absence of tongues being mentioned with every single passage that describes someone's first experience with the outpouring/baptism/being filled with the Holy Ghost is not enough evidence to ignore the fact of what IS recorded in Scripture.
We don't only have one, but TWO recorded "Holy Ghost outpouring" experiences, where the apostles felt it necessary to emphasize the importance of receiving the Holy Ghost
subsequent to the act of repentance. If the Holy Ghost "falls" on someone without any external sign, and this happens at the point of belief/repentance, why do we have two instances in Scripture that specifically deal with an external sign showing subsequent experience of being "filled with the Holy Ghost" after the point of repentance?
Regardless of all the other assurances of someone's salvation - none of which I dispute - I still haven't seen a straight answer/explanation of why
Acts 8 and 19 exist, what they're telling us, other than that they clearly indicate that someone can believe/repent without receiving the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost comes with some sort of external sign to makes it clear to all observers that it happened.
Threaded Mode
