Quote:
Originally Posted by bishoph
You're very kind! lol.......While I disagree with you on one hand, I do (at least in part) agree with you on another. The difference being that IMHO the biblical evidence of "tongues" being the "initial" evidence is quite compelling. (3 out of 5 times it is specifically mentioned as the initial evidential sign of Holy Spirit baptism.)
This would put me in what some would call the "initial evidence" doctrinal camp. Meaning, that I do not believe one can receive the true spirit of Christ without the fruit of that spirit being manifest in their lives. (No matter how much they speak with tongues.) The fruit of the spirit will bring progressive balance, control, and proper relationship, the lack of which would prove the absence of the Holy Ghost.
|
Again there is a difference between a sign and evidence. A sign points to the reality of what is; the evidence reveals what exists...
Threaded Mode
