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

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Ah, yes. It's the old, "We can't answer his questions, so we'll just make him look stupid" tactic. Joey was right about this forum. -

[LadyRev]

The problem lies between our ears. God doesn't have a problem giving the gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone.

But just as God isn't going to give the gift of eternal life to someone who hasn't repented, likewise, hes not going to give the Holy Ghost to someone who hasn't repented. Thats just plain ole common sense.

Some of you post like God is just in the gift giving business with no requirements.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

The problem lies between our ears. God doesn't have a problem giving the gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone.

But just as God isn't going to give the gift of eternal life to someone who hasn't repented, likewise, hes not going to give the Holy Ghost to someone who hasn't repented. Thats just plain ole common sense.

Some of you post like God is just in the gift giving business with no requirements.

Then I've been successful!

He definitely gives gifts, not as a reward for something we've earned, but because that's his nature. His gifts are always undeserved.

Now that doesn't mean, independent of his gift, that he doesn't expect things of us. He wants our devotion, trust and heart. He's a lover wooing us in.

Proudfather, continue to post. You won't like how everyone disagrees on here, some won't get into the fine details with you, others will. Then again, those who enjoy the details may feel like you aren't wanting to go there with them either. So, just stick around.

[ouden katakrim]

Hmmm...the idea of us asking God for His Spirit by faith and Him not giving it is a degradation of God's character.

I know the OP songbook on this subject note by note and it is egregious in it's representation of God.

ouden

[Aquila]

Once. I went to the altar, repented, and prayed for the Holy Ghost. I got it and spoke in tongues for nearly 45 minutes. My memory of the service is very hazy. Almost like my memory of a certain New Years Eve party... but that's an entirely different story. lol

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Ah, yes. It's the old, "We can't answer his questions, so we'll just make him look stupid" tactic. Joey was right about this forum. -

Joey is my good friend. I like him.

So far, you haven't asked me any questions, that I know of. I've been asking one for many pages here and you, my dear proudfather, have not answered it.

I think it's important, that if you're going to participate in an action pattern within the culture of your religious beliefs, that you should have some biblical foundation for it. I'm just simply asking this....don't you think it's important, if you're going to try to "pray people through to the Holy Ghost" unsuccessfully,that someone in the bible should have "prayed through to the Holy Ghost" unsuccessfully?

[On The Wheel]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

The problem lies between our ears. God doesn't have a problem giving the gift of the Holy Ghost to anyone.

But just as God isn't going to give the gift of eternal life to someone who hasn't repented, likewise, hes not going to give the Holy Ghost to someone who hasn't repented. Thats just plain ole common sense.

Some of you post like God is just in the gift giving business with no requirements.

That is true. However, speaking from my own personal experience receiving the Baptism of the HG and from observations of others assaying to do the same, I've observed some things that do give me pause.

I repented of everything I could ever think of and not think of and still did not speak in tongues. I think in my desperation, I even repented for what my friends had done. The sincere and the penitent often leave the altar without speaking in tongues, including children, like my own (see a previous post for elucidation).

Of course now we have altar workers, HG coaches, folks who know how to "pray people through", and so forth. I thought the HG descended as a result of the confession of the seekers faith, not the faith of the surrounding crowd?

I know we've heard from those who say scripture can't be held accountable to broach every subject that will ever face mankind in the church, and that is true. However, the actual moment of conversion is pretty important. If we don't fully understand how that happens, then all the rest of scripture is in vain. I just can't imagine the apostolic writers neglecting to mention long tarrying services (other than the first group awaiting the promise) or giving encouragement to those who left the altar dejected because they were not able to speak in tongues. Why did Peter not instruct the churches in proper altar working techniques?

Perhaps because we are demanding a physical experience that is not required?

[noeticknight]

To reiterate my main point earlier, I believe the difficulty for me accepting “Initial Evidence” becomes clearer when viewed in light of Christianity’s core virtues. What is the cornerstone of all Christianity? It is love. Period. This is what should motivate every spiritual pilgrim, and draw him closer to God with every step of the journey. However, there is another force that compels…fear. It is by understanding why certain religious groups who value strong external identifiers, who think in terms of “black and white” (or binary thinking as Pel puts it,) and who have aligned the framework of their spiritual motivation with fear and emotionalism, that we may gain more clues as to why this doctrine is widely acceptable to them, (in spite of more theoretical holes than a house-sized block of Swiss cheese). I have observed folks in the past (myself included) who have developed a tendency to measure spirituality by external devices or outward behavior. Many of us have been able to correctly recognize that this is wrong, specifically regarding teachings about “outward holiness standards,” separation (asceticism,) etc. However, it is my opinion that the aggregate mindset has bled over into how groups interpret and view their basic approach to God.

I will preface my next statements by saying this: I believe in obedience to God 100%. It has its specific meaning and purpose, but I suppose I may disagree with many on the significance of it. As mentioned above, and for Christianity to work, I believe obedience must be a direct result of love. When one comes to God believing with faith in the heart and mind, I believe it imperative that the individual receive encouragement to build a relationship with Christ. This is crucial, because if that individual is trained that coming to God is a long list of steps before you can “get accepted,” then a warped concept of His benevolent character and unconditional love has already been established. This undermines future spiritual growth, because now the seeker has become just that, a seeker who is depending on their own ability to “get rid of sin first,” extinguish doubt, or deal with a “million” other little “unknowable” things that must be limiting God’s grace from reaching. A performance-based relationship fails later on when the signs are absent, or when the flesh cannot muster the Spirit by force of will. The idea seems to obtain all the marks of a Christian without first realizing that the benefits, gifts, and power do not precede the New Birth, but naturally follow. It must be the cause before the effect, not the reverse. “But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name” (John 1:12) John tells us that we are reconciled and made heirs, based on this underlying premise of relationship.

This is why I believe “Initial Evidence” is the moralist’s version of approaching the Father. They view the Gospel as steps existing after belief/conversion unto Christ as the means which merits salvation. Again, they are placing the effects before the cause. The Spirit of Christ causes us to seek HIM, not the signs or miracles that He is able to produce. The outward “signs and wonders” are not the regenerative force, but God’s Spirit indwelling. And yet, this is precisely what “Initial Evidence” tells us, “you do not belong to, or are not accepted of Christ until you produce the sign first." Paul writes, “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,” (Ephesians 1:13). We are baptized by His Spirit as a result of faith within. We are baptized in water as result of our pledge to His burial, and as obedience to the command of Christ. We are not saved by our record, but we are justified and redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

“Initial Evidence” elevates the sign of tongues above all others, as the supreme indicator of God’s stamp of approval on a person’s life. The advocates for it teach simple logic which suggests, if you do not exhibit tongues, you do not have Christ. However, they are unable to produce one explicit commandment or demonstrate how this was actively involved in the Early Church, other than the specific corporate examples which were, btw, significant for their time and purpose. Never mind the accounts of God’s initial Spirit outpourings which were diverse in signs, with and without. Never mind the history of the doctrine, which popped up recently, and has been horribly struggling for burden of proof. Never mind the rest of Christianity. Never mind the “rejected” faithful who go months and years (or even a lifetime) without experiencing the sign, and yet, will travel to far off lands and be executed for Christ’s sake. Never mind your experience, because “my experience trumps yours!” (I would ask: Did our Lord honor you also with “tongues of fire” above your head)? Never mind reality. Never mind the precious millions who cannot physically speak, or have never spoken, because fate has apparently predestined their path to Hell. Never mind the innocent children who do not break the magic code. Never mind God’s sovereignty, others are now able to conjure it up. Never mind the fakes, for it cannot really be told objectively one way or the other. Never mind charity, after all doesn’t that come after?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Occam's Razor also says that there is one type of tongues in Acts and that it is the same as the one in 1 Corinthians 12. Thus, Occam's Razor also says that not all speak in tongues as those in Acts did.

EDIT: Of course I'm sure you'll claim that what I am calling the simplest explanation isn't really the simplest... Of course that would only further prove that simplicity is subjective and that as long as simplicity is subjective then Occam's Razor is also subjective...

No, on the contrary, you are right about tongues and 1 Cor 14. Occam's razor DOES propose that.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, on the contrary, you are right about tongues and 1 Cor 14. Occam's razor DOES propose that.

Please elaborate, because if you are saying what I think you are saying then I am amazed!