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

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by easter

Pray! Thank You jfrog

God sometimes says no though, doesn't he? Do you think he might could say no to that kind of prayer also? If he might say no, then what should a persons reaction to that kind of an unanswered prayer be?

[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.

[easter]

Originally Posted by jfrog

God sometimes says no though, doesn't he? Do you think he might could say no to that kind of prayer also? If he might say no, then what should a persons reaction to that kind of an unanswered prayer be?

Well you know I imagine God does see some of his children as impatient so to teach them to wait on the good things of God one must continue to patiently pray knowing that in God's time I'll get this gift.If not, then in eternity I will not need this gift because then I will be face to face

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

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.

While your post was great, albeit confrontational I think Blume has already admitted to not viewing those as unsaved who do not speak in tongues.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And that is all I have been saying, really.



Right!



I know where you are coming from.


I could not agree more.



It could be a simple introversion, too. But I always encourage people to keep seeking and believing and not think there is something wrong if they sincerely examine themselves and see nothing wrong. I encourage GOD WILL GIVE HIS SPIRIT! And I do not say nor believe they are lost, though.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by easter

Well you know I imagine God does see some of his children as impatient so to teach them to wait on the good things of God one must continue to patiently pray knowing that in God's time I'll get this gift.If not, then in eternity I will not need this gift because then I will be face to face

Thank you! Your outlook is very refreshing!

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by jfrog

While your post was great, albeit confrontational I think Blume has already admitted to not viewing those as unsaved who do not speak in tongues.

I prefer, engaging over confrontational.

And btw, I do respect and appreciate Blume's contributions to the forum. He's a thoughtful poster.

And hey, this is a good thread! You start good threads jfrog!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

I prefer, engaging over confrontational.

And btw, I do respect and appreciate Blume's contributions to the forum. He's a thoughtful poster.

And hey, this is a good thread! You start good threads jfrog!

Your post was both... lol

And yes, I respect Blume's contributions too. Usually

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Your post was both... lol

Never personal though.

Btw, and since it's your thread, where do you officially stand on "Initial Evidence?" (if you don't mind me asking)

[easter]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Thank you! Your outlook is very refreshing!

Your welcome!
I know some believe that if you don't have the evidence of speaking in tongue that the Holy spirit has not indwelled a person.I know this is in scripture but I also know that there is no time frame with God.Some may speak an unknown tongue right off and some may not for awhile.The scripture don't really put a certain time frame on the evidence of the indwelling by speaking in unknown tongue because one day with the Lord is as a thousand here and if that's the case with me then I will be face to face There is a story that comes to mind....

Luke 18
The Parable of the Persistent Widow
1Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: "In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, 'Grant me justice against my adversary.'
4 "For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, 'Even though I don't fear God or care about men, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won't eventually wear me out with her coming!' "

I know this story is not about receiving gifts but it does tell me to keep praying and not give up!

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I know I have the gift which is the Holy Ghost and now I will continue to pray that "He" might give me one of "His" nine gifts.I would be happy with just one!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Never personal though.

Btw, and since it's your thread, where do you officially stand on "Initial Evidence?" (if you don't mind me asking)

I don't believe in initial evidence and I'm starting to think there isn't a good way to explain the verses in Acts about the Holy Ghost. It's like no matter which door I take to try and explain the accounts of the Holy Ghost in Acts I am always left with a less than great explanation.