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

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by mfblume

My point is that objectivity is how we ascertain doctrine. Our foundation is the Word, not people's experiences. You mentioned holes in the initial evidence doctrine, but never stated what they were, and felt to emphasize the subjective angle of the issue. Though you may claim the doctrine is full of holes scripturally, what are they? Who really cares about subjective experiences in the end?

And my point is that you aren’t really confronting the concerns posted on this thread. It’s very crafty of you trying to reframe my argument and all, but I would urge you to come back to the central premise of the discussion: Is this doctrine correct scripturally, logically, and historically? Are you uncomfortable engaging people’s “subjective” experiences as it pertains to IE? Because many of the observations mentioned on this thread are in fact, “objective,” whether you acknowledge it or not. Witnessing an account of someone “seeking” the Holy Ghost with evidence of tongues for 18 years is actually quite objective, albeit, painful and disheartening. But like you said, “Who really cares about “subjective” experiences in the end,” right?

While we do not use these observations to exclusively construct a dogma or belief, we can certainly still “objectively” evaluate the conflicts and match them with the Early Church experiences. Since they clearly do not neatly fit, I find it interesting that you want to label it as a case study in abuse. It appears you do not have adequate answers for the dilemmas demonstrated on this thread, so to me, it becomes abundantly clear why you are attempting to divert the topic back to a “Bible only” conversation. Which begs me to ask: Since I think I know where you stand on teachings against facial hair and other so-called “outward standards of righteousness,” would it be fair to say that you consider the logical and social dynamics of these teachings in tandem with scriptures? If yes, then why are you suddenly disposed to calling that method invalid as pertaining to this discussion?

Now, as regarding your thoughts on this thing being bullet proof, and stating that your conclusion is the most parsimonious…well, let’s just say PR campaigns can only carry the company so far. The scriptures are vague at best on IE, and it is simply an illusion that IE is rock solid in the scriptures. If it was, you would have no problem squelching the tides of confusion and frustration that constantly rock the boat of belief. Ironically, the holes in this doctrine, (assumption, assumption, assumption) are also its strength. With so much assumption, I am beginning to believe that IE is similar to the theory of macro-evolution, in terms of being unfalsifiable. I am also still struggling to understand how IE can be considered any or all of the following:
1. A normative experience for every believer
2. A pattern instead of informative narration
3. A viable teaching (since the IE advocate constrains us to accept it without teaching from the Apostles).
4. A differentiation between multiple types of “tongues.”
5. A continuation of Early Church history (since its architect lived and died last century).
5. A true gift given by a sovereign God (since it implies that the receiver must obtain something required).

Look Blume, let me just say this: I can respect your opinion on the matter, but personally, I will not throw others under the bus because they do not exhibit the Sign.