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

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Okay, here we go:

You keep saying, "It's not in the Bible." Holy Ghost seekers in the New Testament had no reason to doubt the Holy Spirit experience, because they had never experienced it before. They were all curious, and once they were willing to submit, they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2: they looked at one another and said, "What meaneth this?" They had no idea what the Holy Spirit was. After Peter explained what was going on, they sincerely wanted to receive the same gift. "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts 10: Would you deny that the Gentile believers didn't have the faintest idea what the Holy Spirit was before Peter came? Again, they were sincere seekers.

Acts 19: "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Again, they were ignorant of the experience, but they were sincere seekers.

Now, look at Acts 8. Philip preached and baptized many, but they did not receive the Holy Ghost until Peter and John laid hands on them. Would you agree that there was a lapse in time between Philip preaching and the believers receiving the Holy Ghost? In this instance, we don’t even read of doubt occurring in their hearts, and yet, they did not receive the Holy Ghost immediately. How do you explain this?

None of this says that anyone was "seeking" the Holy Ghost, as in, trying to speak in tongues but not being able. You might as well have quoted the book of Hezekiah, chapter 48, verse 11.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by notofworks

None of this says that anyone was "seeking" the Holy Ghost, as in, trying to speak in tongues but not being able. You might as well have quoted the book of Hezekiah, chapter 48, verse 11.

I guess you didn't read my second post. In Acts 2, Jesus told His followers, "Tarry ye at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high."

The 120 in the upper room didn't receive this power quickly. Would you say that they were seeking that power?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So asking is the obedience?

Generally speaking, would you say it is correct or incorrect that one must be in obedience in order to get the Holy Ghost? is that what you are saying by asking, or would you not consider that obedience?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by proudfather

If we are to only obey what the Bible says, period, then this would be a messed up world. There are some aspects of life that require common sense. For instance, there is nothing in the Bible that says, "Child porn is a sin". At least, I can't find it anyway.

When God gave the law to the children of Israel, they still needed judges to hear the cases of the people. Shouldn't the law be enough? Yes, additional teaching is required, because the law doesn't CLEARLY deal with every situation.

My point is this, we can't expect to find EVERY little detail in the Bible. However, foundation can be found in the Bible. We know that we shouldn't smoke because the word of God tell us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost and so on.

Also, would you say that the 120 in the upper room were seeking after God? Their Holy Ghost experience didn't happen right away. All they knew was that Jesus had told them to "tarry at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high". It didn't happen quickly, but they were seeking that power, wouldn't you agree?

Wow.....when the bible thumpers can't find a verse to match their heresy, suddenly the bible doesn't count. Amazing.

Look, this isn't that difficult....the bible does NOT give any precedent for someone "seeking" the Holy Ghost. Period. Even more so, it does not provide any precedent that someone "sought" the Holy Ghost and didn't get it...or more accurately, Him.

Luke 11 is very basic and not difficult to understand. Strong's Concordance isn't needed, no Greek lexicons are necessary, for it just simply says, anyone who asks for the Holy Spirit, receives it. If......IF.......any person EVER goes to the altar and "seeks for the Holy Ghost" and doesn't get the Him, then Jesus was lying in Luke 11.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I guess you didn't read my second post. In Acts 2, Jesus told His followers, "Tarry ye at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high."

The 120 in the upper room didn't receive this power quickly. Would you say that they were seeking that power?

Hold your horses...I can only get to one heretical post at a time.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

None of this says that anyone was "seeking" the Holy Ghost, as in, trying to speak in tongues but not being able. You might as well have quoted the book of Hezekiah, chapter 48, verse 11.

What you are regularly missing is the context of these points we are making. Put down the straw and the A.D.D. for a minute, and get what we are saying.

Proudfather is saying that the way YOU believe in the Holy Ghost requires no tongues or anything, and such people should have gotten it before John and Peter came along in Acts 8. But it distinctly says they did not get it beforehand.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Taking that out of context, as you do with the bible, makes anything look silly. lol

Take it out of context? How is that possible when I simply push the "Quote button"?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by proudfather

If we are to only obey what the Bible says, period, then this would be a messed up world. There are some aspects of life that require common sense. For instance, there is nothing in the Bible that says, "Child porn is a sin". At least, I can't find it anyway.

When God gave the law to the children of Israel, they still needed judges to hear the cases of the people. Shouldn't the law be enough? Yes, additional teaching is required, because the law doesn't CLEARLY deal with every situation.

My point is this, we can't expect to find EVERY little detail in the Bible. However, foundation can be found in the Bible. We know that we shouldn't smoke because the word of God tell us that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost and so on.

There is a difference between laws/commands/regulations and asking for the Holy Spirit (or for anything else, really). Sure, some common sense is needed for determining whether certain acts are sinful or not (just don't use too much common sense, like I do, or you might reach the "wrong" conclusion about certain things! ), but it doesn't make any sense to apply that principle to this matter of receiving the Holy Spirit. If the Bible says "do this, this, and this, and that will happen", how could common sense possibly (legitimately) add anything to the list of requirements?

Also, would you say that the 120 in the upper room were seeking after God? Their Holy Ghost experience didn't happen right away. All they knew was that Jesus had told them to "tarry at Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high". It didn't happen quickly, but they were seeking that power, wouldn't you agree?

Doesn't say how long it took, but OK. But we have some instructions in that famous verse, Acts 2:38. Repent and be baptized. That's what you do. Then you will get the gift. That's what God does.

Any other instructions? What about asking? Well, that is mentioned by Jesus, in his comparison of evil human fathers and the Heavenly Father. I don't think He meant to imply that if we ask the Father, we'll have to wait a long time, or won't receive what we ask for at all.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Hold your horses...I can only get to one heretical post at a time.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Take it out of context? How is that possible when I simply push the "Quote button"?

You did not quote the qualifier for my words which make your accusation of "WOW" look ridiculous. . You just stop reading at a certain point, as you do with the bible, and then do not look to see if your paradigm is what is being discussed or something totally different. Your mannerism reminds me of how Churchill had to deal with the culprit who asked something similar to asking him if he still beat his wife, yes or no, with no other answers. The truth is you cannot answer YES OR NO, when YOU NEVER DID BEAT YOUR WIFE. You have to read the context of what I said.