Allow me to Think Abstractly for a Moment

[Sarah]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I've read this post a dozen times, and, no matter how abstractly I consider it, I can't, for the life of me, understand how the author can make the leap from Hebrews 1:1 to questioning whether or not there is an initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost?

The whole context of Hebrews 1:1, as Rev DWW has already pointed out, is that true faith is evidenced by action: Abel built an altar; Enoch had a testimony; Noah built an ark; Abraham became a pilgrim; Moses forsook Egypt; etc...

The only reason to feel there has to be evidence or initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is the Scripture's testimony on the topic. Pentecostals have concluded that "other tongues" are the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost; most Baptists disagree with that conclusion.

Are there really Pentecostals who believe that receiving the Holy Ghost is such a non-event that there is no initial evidence of the event?

Salvation is by faith, and every aspect of the faith that brings salvation is accompanied by both initial and ongoing evidence of that faith. You believe in your heart and you confess with your mouth...

It's a bizarre world when Pentecostals create "abstract" arguments against speaking with other tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

It is bizarre, Maple Leaf. And so, so sad. I would imagine Jesus is sad too, when people insist on 'leaving Him in the grave'. And I believe that's what they do, when they don't want to follow through on what Peter told them they MUST do....