Holy Ghost baptism 2021

[coksiw]

I think we all have been a witness of how lightly they count the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Something that concerns anyone that sees it, and makes you wonder and gives you not good feeling of what’s going on.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

It may well be most. If so that is really sad. It’s really difficult, if not impossible to know the percentage but it could be higher than we hear about.

My daughter was told years ago by a children’s evangelist that she received the Holy Ghost. They had a scroll that they added her name to. There were many more children that had their names added as well. I don’t know about them but I was praying with her. It was news to me that she had received. I don’t know how many others were “signed up”. But it seemed to me that it was a numbers thing. If this evangelist has “ x” number of children receive the Holy Ghost, he can get more bookings. I asked a pastor about it and he sort of admitted it went on.

He said that they were speaking “evangelastically”.

The thing that is lack of ccountability. If the Pastor knew then he should openly correct it and hold the evangelist accountable.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think we all have been a witness of how lightly they count the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Something that concerns anyone that sees it, and makes you wonder and gives you not good feeling of what’s going on.

Hype and performance based ministry. Got to show you got the goods.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Acts 2:38-39
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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Trust that God will fulfill his promises. Do you believe that if someone repents and is baptized and passes away before speaking in tongues that God failed them? I don't. I believe that if such a person doesn't have the Holy Spirit that God will raise them up before judgment day and give it to them - because God keeps his promises.

Or perhaps some are regenerated without tongues. There is no verse that emphatically declares all who receive the Spirit will speak in tongues.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Or perhaps some are regenerated without tongues. There is no verse that emphatically declares all who receive the Spirit will speak in tongues.

While true, the problem with that argument is that we have zero examples in Scripture of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues. Absence of evidence is not itself evidence.

[shag]

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jito463

While true, the problem with that argument is that we have zero examples in Scripture of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues.

While true, your argument here presumes that our experiences should conform to the examples we have of early church practices.

As an example consider Acts 4:32-35:
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The only examples we have in the new testament of property ownership was believers selling their possessions and laying it at the apostles feet to be split up according to need. There are no scriptural examples in acts showing anything else. But surely you've not sold all your possessions and given them to the church?

Or as another example consider that the only time the gentiles received the holy spirit was before baptism. Is the example then that the gentiles should receive the Holy Spirit before baptism?

IMO, there's too much picking and choosing which examples to count as normative and which example to count as miraculous occurances.

Absence of evidence is not itself evidence.

IMO, Absence of evidence is itself a form of evidence. Not all evidence is proof though. And on that we agree. There isn't explicit proof either way. IMO, where the scripture is silent we should be silent.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Or perhaps some are regenerated without tongues. There is no verse that emphatically declares all who receive the Spirit will speak in tongues.

I've wrestled with that question and I don't know that it matters. Whether they have it now or will have it in the future because of God's promise, what difference does it make?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Jito463

While true, the problem with that argument is that we have zero examples in Scripture of someone receiving the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues. Absence of evidence is not itself evidence.

John the Baptist?

Luke 1

[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Elisabeth?

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:?

Zacharias?

[67] And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Jesus?
Luke 4

[1] And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by jfrog

While true, your argument here presumes that our experiences should conform to the examples we have of early church practices.

I'm not talking about practices, I'm talking experiences.

Originally Posted by jfrog

As an example consider Acts 4:32-35:
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

The only examples we have in the new testament of property ownership was believers selling their possessions and laying it at the apostles feet to be split up according to need. There are no scriptural examples in acts showing anything else. But surely you've not sold all your possessions and given them to the church?

The early church was never told by God to do this, they chose to do it of their own free will. The only reason Ananias and Saphira were struck down by God, is because they made a pledge and then chose to renege on it secretly and lie before God and the church. There is no Scriptural argument to be made that we should communally share what we own.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Or as another example consider that the only time the gentiles received the holy spirit was before baptism. Is the example then that the gentiles should receive the Holy Spirit before baptism?

This was done with specific intention by God, because otherwise Peter and the other Jews would never have accepted the Gentiles into their midst.

Originally Posted by jfrog

IMO, there's too much picking and choosing which examples to count as normative and which example to count as miraculous occurances.

If anyone here is "picking and choosing", it's you.

Originally Posted by jfrog

IMO, Absence of evidence is itself a form of evidence. Not all evidence is proof though. And on that we agree. There isn't explicit proof either way. IMO, where the scripture is silent we should be silent.

You can't say that just because something didn't happen a certain way, then it means something could/should happen that way. You can use it as a possibility argument, but not as evidence.