Postby Pastor Bill » May 22nd, 2003, 10:46 am
Michael, I agree with you, that that makes it seem that many we consider great leaders of the past were not Baptised in the spirit according to P/C doctrine, but what conclusion can we draw from that, I don't think it is mearly throwing out the doctrine, but we need to strive to understand it more.
1. They were not Baptised in the HG, but God was still able to use them in mighty ways (just as OT examples)
OR
2. They were Baptised, spoke in tonges, but it was never reported or recorded in any way because it wasn't seen as important compaired to other works God had used them in.
OR
3. They were Baptised without any evidence. Is there anywhere where the Bible says evidence is required?
As for using other signs for evidence, I am not comfortable with that, because there is no biblical presidence for it, the only gift refered to as being used for a sign is tongues, the only gift present in all instances of baptism of the HG in scriptures was tongues, the only example of the early church seeing the evidence and pointing it out was tongues.
Do people fake tongues, YES, does that mean that real people don't really see God move in this way for real, NO. Judging all who speak in tongues by those that fake (an act that I think would be a very spiritually dangerous thing, but that's another topic) would be no different than judging all Catholics by the actions of the priests who have been accused of child molesting, or judging all Muslims by the events of 9/11. Let's not go there.