How many times did you ask God for the Holy Ghost?

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Miracles still happen.

Indeed, I do believe in miracles. However, I believe reality has stretched this doctrine quite thin. Are you really prepared to go around validating everyone’s salvation on whether or not they’ve exhibited “speaking in tongues?” Personally, I refuse to coerce people to produce some outward manifestation of inward faith to prove something that is intimately personal, especially if that means asking them to do the impossible, unless, that is, it is commanded in scripture explicitly. The only justification for such audacity would be the ability to produce solid teaching from the Early Church leaders. Maybe even one verse commanding it would suffice?

I agree with NOW on this one. Imo, “Initial Evidence” has placed an undue emphasis on the sign instead of the giver of the sign. No matter how you slice it, this doctrine borders on usurping the very sovereignty of God, particularly the way it gets played out in many Pentecostal circles. And I say it’s arrogance of cosmic proportions if ultimately incorrect. While I am not ashamed to be labeled a continuationist, I do believe salvation by external evidence tends toward the carnal side, and betrays the core concept of Christianity, which is, “I am loved of Christ, therefore I obey.” This doctrine operates in reverse. We find sincere people reaching out for the effects, instead of experiencing first the cause. As many have already pointed out, where were folks given a rationale to speak or seek tongues in the NT?

Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe in “signs and wonders” as do many others. Keep in mind, however, that what might seem to be “new” revelations of “truth” hidden for centuries, may just be someone’s miscalculation based upon a snapshot of time. Haven’t other brilliant scholarly Christians studied these things also? Why did they arrive at different conclusions? The verdict among the majority is that the doctrine fails basic hermeneutical standards to make it to the next level. After all, it started as a “spiritual experiment” to begin with, and from a man of questionable credentials, who was not as fully persuaded as you are.

In parting, I do commend you for declaring that before proposing doctrine, it must first be considered in light of context and the entirety of scripture, however, I would dare throw in historical facts, sensible reasoning, and the reality of how this bears out in the Christian life. You have connected the dots in Acts, but how do they line up with the big picture?