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

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, not necessarily. I am saying Occam's Razor concludes that.

Okay I don't think I have a problem with Occam's Razor anymore... jkjkjk.

I still don't believe that it is a good proof for whether something is right or wrong. I still think like I always have that it is useful, I just don't think it should be used as proof or a trump argument. Its more of a study guide that doesn't always have to be followed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Okay I don't think I have a problem with Occam's Razor anymore... jkjkjk.

lolololol

Oh, but that means one case for Occam's Razor in regards to Holy Ghost baptism or indwelling conflicts with another case in regards to tongues.

Dr. Geoff Webb (scientist) did say, "more complex decision trees are shown to have - on average - for a variety of common learning tasks higher predictive accuracy than the less complex original decision trees"

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Acts 5:32 KJV ... the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.


What think ye of the context of the term OBEY? ASKING is obeying? I think not.

Why are you stuck on getting people to admit that people must "Obey" in order to receive the Holy Spirit? Who's ever said that people DON'T have to obey? The problem is....obey WHAT? You want the answer to that question to be a the agenda that agrees with your theology. But you can't make it something it's not.

[mfblume]

Anybody (ahem) else? Is ASKING obeying?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Anybody (ahem) else? Is ASKING obeying?

Believing, repenting, and being baptized is obeying.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Noeticknight, I know some people have done with tongues what you claim and indeed gave it a bad name. But I only look at them and say, "By reason of whom the way of truths shall be evil spoken of." We cannot determine lack of veracity of doctrine by any abuse of it. So I do not agree with your assessment. It is considering doctrine subjectively instead of objectively. Regardless of how something is abused or not, we must find our source of the doctrine in exegetical study of the bible only.

Since anti-"tongues as initial evidence" people make such a concern over the abuses of those who propose tongues as initial evidence as their main point against the idea, this shows me a divergence away from the bible as "the" foundation for their concerns.

Your response reminds me of a famous quote from Sun Tzu, "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak..." Are we trying to change the terrain now?

Of course, my original thoughts on this did stem from proper/improper interpretation of the scriptures. I do not concede to your assertion that my main point of contention here is the "abuse" of tongues. The inherent qualities of this teaching, and how they play out in the real world are, imo, definitely game for discussion. So yes, A. "Initial Evidence" could be incorrect Biblically. And B., "Initial Evidence" may be causing harm and damage.

Subjectivity doesn't necessarily invalidate a claim, and on the flip side, objectivity doesn't necessarily validate it.

[Jeffrey]

Mike,
What's the context of Acts 5. Civil disobedience. They respond saying obeying God is more important than obeying man. He basically called the Pharisees disobedient... when they heard this they were ready to kill Peter and Co.

Mizpeh, inserting a formula into this context is dishonest. But some things never change.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by Brad Murphy

I'm more of a Black Swan theory kind of guy... in that just because we haven't seen a black swan, doesn't mean that black swans do not exist...

Absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. The problem occurs when evidence is presented, or, at least, more evidence than the other party is presenting...

My thing is, I don't presume to be the expert here. My questions are pretty basic, and my main argument is very simple. Signs and wonders still happen, but they are not requirements for making it past the Pearly Gates. I think there's plenty of scripture to support that, and very little to prop up IE, unless that is, black swans do exist, but God enjoys not telling us about it.

[easter]

When I first became saved I knew I had received the Holy Spirit.Took years to know the difference between the sealing of the Holy Spirit and to be Baptised in the Holy Spirit.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Your response reminds me of a famous quote from Sun Tzu, "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak..." Are we trying to change the terrain now?

Of course, my original thoughts on this did stem from proper/improper interpretation of the scriptures. I do not concede to your assertion that my main point of contention here is the "abuse" of tongues. The inherent qualities of this teaching, and how they play out in the real world are, imo, definitely game for discussion. So yes, A. "Initial Evidence" could be incorrect Biblically. And B., "Initial Evidence" may be causing harm and damage.

Subjectivity doesn't necessarily invalidate a claim, and on the flip side, objectivity doesn't necessarily validate it.

My point is that objectivity is how we ascertain doctrine. Our foundation is the Word, not people's experiences. You mentioned holes in the initial evidence doctrine, but never stated what they were, and felt to emphasize the subjective angle of the issue. Though you may claim the doctrine is full of holes scripturally, what are they? Who really cares about subjective experiences in the end?