What is the official position of the various Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.) regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine and the conflict between them?

Claims of unexpected and spontaneous fillings or full restorations of teeth with gold are not unheard of in many faith healing services and other religious gatherings. For example, in a [video](https://youtu.be/j09HsDbjLPg?t=28) recorded at the [Demonstrate Conference](https://www.facebook.com/events/living-faith-church/demonstrate-conference/390125865229060/) (an event hosted by [Jennifer Eivaz](https://www.jennifereivaz.com/)) , a woman testifies (*): > [...] I was, you know, asking God ... Holy Spirit to come ... and the miracle started happening ... **and then I got a gold tooth**! And it's so crazy, because you open your mouth, and everyone has their cameras looking at your mouth ... so I can't wait to brush my teeth and look at my gold tooth. Similarly, in [this thread](https://www.christianforums.com/threads/its-a-miracle-i-got-a-gold-tooth.3262453/) a woman shares (*): > [...] I attended a healing/revival meeting tonight, put on by Jeff Jansen, of Global Fire Ministries, and **the Lord gave many people gold teeth**!!! I had been praying and fasting all week for the Lord to show Himself big and make Himself soooo real to me !!! And guess what? **I got one, too**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [...] > **Many people got gold teeth tonight** and NO ONE can tell me that it wasn't real because I saw it with my own eyes....one lady first noticed that **God turned 3 of hers gold on the top and I looked and saw them**. A few minutes later, **two of hers on the bottom had turned and I saw them**. **A few minutes later, 8 had turned gold and I saw them all--before and after**!!!! (*) Emphasis mine. In fact, the phenomenon seems to be relatively widespread, as many more examples recorded in different places and countries can be found with a quick YouTube search: [A](https://youtu.be/Y8GK_I5aiHc) , [B](https://youtu.be/yS4zzVCpXG0?t=35) , [C](https://youtu.be/ojyo_P5FBA4?t=35) , [D](https://youtu.be/wXu96t8ar4g) , [E](https://youtu.be/b402eJ3TdUc) , [F](https://youtu.be/1nNc6_Ycg_o) , [G](https://youtu.be/y7YaOdFlSqY?t=162) , [H](https://youtu.be/_0Iqk2YREyM) , [I](https://youtu.be/WW-dUYjVJwg) , [J](https://youtu.be/UItU6qlKvvA) , [K](https://youtu.be/nS6w5qAw7XY) , [L](https://youtu.be/5Qwn9JA8HU4) , etc. What are the oldest records of this phenomenon? Is it a relatively recent phenomenon in Church History (a few decades old) or can we find older records?

According to the Wikipedia article on [Territorial spirit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_spirit) : > **Territorial spirits** are national angels, or demons, who rule over certain geographical areas in the world, a concept accepted within the Charismatic movement, Pentecostal traditions, and Kingdom Now theology. This belief has been popularized by the novel, *This Present Darkness* by Frank Peretti, as well as by the ministry of Peter Wagner. The existence of territorial spirits is viewed as significant in spiritual warfare within these Christian groups. > Peter Wagner promotes **"Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare"** (SLSW) which involves the practice of learning the names and assignments of demonic spirits as the first step to effective spiritual warfare. Opponents of this theological construct, and associated beliefs in "spiritual warfare", point out that while the Bible may describe some form of demonic control over geography, it does not prescribe many of the behaviors and teachings that proponents advocate in response. There is no mention in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament of believers banding together and praying a form of "spiritual warfare" against particular territorial demons. The battles occurring in the spiritual realms (as described in Daniel 10) have no Biblically identified link to the actions and prayers of God's people in the physical world. Are the belief in "territorial spirits" and the practice of "Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare" innovations of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement? Did they borrow these ideas from prior sources? Can we find evidence of similar beliefs being held in other periods of church history? _____ **Note**: an interesting book that reports the alleged application of these ideas in the context of the Argentine Pentecostal Revival is [*Listen to Me, Satan!*](https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Me-Satan-Carlos-Annacondia/dp/1599792346) by Carlos Annacondia (an interview is available at [Carlos Annacondia: The evangelist at the forefront of revival](https://www.premierchristianity.com/home/carlos-annacondia-the-evangelist-at-the-forefront-of-revival/2092.article) , and a YouTube documentary called [Carlos Annacondia - "Listen to Me Satan"](https://youtu.be/gaK67UFQ6kI)) .

1. Do Pentecostals teach that only people who speak in tongues are baptized with the Holy Spirit? 2. Do Pentecostals teach that we should all strive to pray in tongues? Or is this something that Pentecostalism is divided about?

This question regards those who support and participate in the modern 'speaking in tongues' and asks what their answer would be regarding the emphasis of scripture. Note that it is not a matter of 'cessation' (or not). It is a matter of *emphasis.* ----------------------------------------------- There is but one mention of tongues in the four gospel accounts, namely in Mark 16:17. Although I do not, many do dispute the acceptance of the last sixteen verses of Mark into the canon of scripture so I will pass over that single text as I assume so few would bring it up in answer to my question, that it would be regarded as moot. **Acts** There are two mentions in Acts which specifically refer to the apostles speaking in known foreign languages such that persons from other nations, attending the event, were able to understand those foreign languages. Then there are two mentions more, both of specific and special occasions, one being the matter of gentiles receiving the gospel, 10:46, and then the matter of twelve receiving the gospel who had not (yet) heard of the Holy Spirit, 19:6. In neither case is it stated what, exactly, the 'tongues' were. These four occasions are the only documented record we have of people actually speaking in tongues and they are all special and specific occurrences upon which the tongues were a sign - a signification. **1 Corinthians** Paul mentions tongues twenty one times in first Corinthians (never in second Corinthians) and his quest is to regulate the matter, as it appears to have got out of hand and to have become disorderly, so he corrects the situation and applies rules. Only if an interpreter is present can anyone speak in an unknown tongue. Paul does not comment on the *origin or the kind of the tongue* in question. He simply regulates all future utterances - of any kind - in the assembly, in such a way that all hearers, on every occasion, must be informed, intelligently - in their own mother tongue - of what is uttered at the gathering, so that all may be edified in an understandable way. **Elsewhere** There is no other mention that I can find of such occurrences in the Greek scriptures. Paul does not mention the subject again to the Corinthians in his second epistle and he never mentions it in any other epistle to any other group or church. (From a purely forensic point of view, this would be circumstancial evidence that only the Corinthians were practising the procedure.) Paul fails to mention the subject in his epistles, shortly before his death, when he instructs the younger ministers, Timothy and Titus, regarding ministerial conduct, teaching of doctrine, and matters of church government. John fails to mention tongues in any of his four books. These books are clearly written at a later stage, clearly complete the canon of scripture and clearly contain all that is relevant to the remainder of the Church Age, prior to the Lord's return. Peter never makes mention of tongues. James never refers to them. Jude, likewise. Nor does the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that author may be. Matthew makes no historical record in his gospel account. Luke, likewise, in his gospel account. ----------------------------------------- If tongues were as central (1) a feature of church activity as some suggest, if tongues are an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit on every occasion, if tongues are essential to the life of the church, if tongues are also essential to the edification and sound spiritual health of every single believer in the body of Christ . . . . . . . . then why do we see just four mentions in Acts on special occasions when a sign was necessary to mark a particular event, and why do we see just a chapter, or so, and that only when Paul regulates a matter that had got out of hand ? Why is there silence *from every other book and from every other author* ? Leaving aside the matter of 'cessation' that one might therefore expect that tongues - being a sign, given at a specific juncture in the inauguration of the New Testament - had ceased altogether, is it not questionable that there is a matter of emphasis to be considered ? To be even more plain, is there not a *justifiable question of imbalance* with regard to the modern emphasis on the speaking of tongues ? What is the response of those who participate in the speaking in tongues ? --------------------------- Please note that I wish to read responses from persons who actively do speak in tongues, as to their thinking regarding the subject ; or to read references to those persons. I am not looking to read theoretical assumptions from persons who do not actively practice the technique. --------------------------- Please further note that my research was from Young's Analytical Concordance and covered every occurrence of the word tongue/tongues. It could be that this subject is alluded to in different words which I have not listed. Also, I have deliberately not referred to the Old Testament and particularly not to prophetic passages, which require specific interpretations, e.g. Isaiah 28:11. I am interested in keeping the inquiry (and the response) within the compass of that outlined above. -------------------------- (1) This word added as an edit after the comment (below).

The question is: According to Pentecostalism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Pentecostal definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250

How does the Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal denominations justify the practice of following teachers given this in scripture? > "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and > you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing > teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and > just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.", 1 Jn 2:27 and, this > "No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, > ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them > to the greatest.", Heb 8:11 Obviously, they are appointed in the Church: > "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second > prophets, **third teachers**, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of > helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.", 1 Cor 12:28 Then, apparently "you" should be teachers at some point, > "by this time you ought to be teachers", Heb 5:12 Then, there's 1 Jn 2:27 and Heb 8:11 . If you back up to Heb 8:10, this is largely acknowledged as the New Covenant where the Holy Spirit is given to dwell within believers transforming their nature to keep God's ways: > "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after > that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and > write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my > people.", Heb 8:10 That appears to be the anointing in v11. And, that anointing says you have no need of a teacher. So, why do the denominations justify their followers remaining under teachers, most their entire lives in the church? Here's a New Testament example of how to conduct "When you come together": 1 Cor 14:26-39, and some points: > "**everyone has** a psalm or **a teaching**, **a revelation**, a tongue, **or an interpretation**.", v26 > "Two or three prophets should speak the others should weigh carefully > what is said. **And if a revelation comes** to someone who is seated, the > first speaker should stop", v29-30 >**For you can all prophesy** in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged", v31 > "If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him > acknowledge that **what I am writing you is the Lord’s command**.", v37 The above is quite different from conventional church services.

According to Pentecostal doctrines, can a widower marry a divorced person without committing a mortal sin? Does it make a difference if that person was the victim of marital infidelity? If there are significant differences between Pentecostal denominations, please give an overview of their different stances.

Building upon my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101680/61679 and the excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101815/61679) by GratefulDisciple, I would like to delve deeper into how Reformed Protestants understand and respond to the concept of [Christian mysticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism) . This concept has a long Patristic and Medieval tradition present in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and is also evident in more recent movements such as [Pentecostalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism) and the [Charismatic movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement) . To keep the scope narrow, I would like this question to focus solely on **Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement**, leaving the discussion of Christian mysticism as traditionally understood by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches to a [separate question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101844/61679) . In addition, I think in this context it is worth mentioning Daniel Castelo's insightful book, [Pentecostalism as a Christian Mystical Tradition](https://www.amazon.com/Pentecostalism-as-Christian-Mystical-Tradition/dp/0802869564) , which GratefulDisciple's answer also references. Castelo's book argues for reinterpreting Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition within the broader historical framework of Christian mysticism. The book's synopsis states: > *Informed reassessment of Pentecostalism as a mystical tradition of the* > *church universal* > > Pentecostalism, says Daniel Castelo, is commonly framed as > "evangelicalism with tongues" or dismissed as simply a revivalist > movement. In this book Castelo argues that Pentecostalism is actually > best understood as a Christian mystical tradition. > > Taking a theological approach to Pentecostalism, Castelo looks > particularly at the movement's methodology and epistemology as he > carefully distinguishes it from American evangelicalism. Castelo > displays the continuity between Pentecostalism and ancient church > tradition, creating a unified narrative of Pentecostalism and the > mystical tradition of Christianity throughout history and today. > Finally, he uses a test case to press the question of what the > interactions between mystical theology and dogmatics could look like. With all that said, what are the views of Reformed Protestants on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement?

I'm interested in understanding the specific ways in which God's presence and intervention are consciously experienced by Christians in their daily lives. In this question, I'm narrowing the scope to **Pentecostalism/Charismatics**. Do Pentecostal/Charismatic teachings provide specific guidelines for how Christians should or could experience/encounter God in everyday life? Moreover, are there particular types of divine experiences accepted by Pentecostal/Charismatic churches that other denominations would be more reluctant to accept or actively promote? For context, I'm asking this as a follow-up to my previous question, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97604/61679*

Scripturally speaking, we know that apostleship was one of the most important offices in the early Church: > 28 And **God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues [1 Cor 12:28 ESV] > > 11 And **he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [Ephesians 4:11-12 ESV] > > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles** and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV] > > 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of **a true apostle** were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. [2 Cor 12:11-12 ESV] However, the term "missionary" is not strictly speaking a Biblical term (as far as I'm aware), and it typically denotes someone who is sent somewhere (usually an unevangelized area) to carry out some specific service(s) related to the expansion of God's kingdom. However, the concept of apostle is also sometimes more loosely understood as "sent one", which to my ears sounds pretty much the same as a missionary, so the distinction between the two terms becomes a bit blurry. What is the difference between an *apostle* (as understood by the early Church, and as recorded in Scripture) and a *missionary* according to Pentecostal & Charismatic Christianity? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/48591/50422

I'm interested in learning about the origins and evolution throughout Church history of manifestations such as shaking, trembling, jerking, contorting, collapsing or fainting attributed to the Holy Spirit (i.e., not due to a diagnosed medical condition). For further context, I posted a related question asking for the neurological and psychological causes of these manifestations on [Psychology.SE](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25631/is-there-a-scientific-explanation-for-dramatic-body-shaking-and-trembling-in-rel) . Feel free to check it out. For illustrative purposes, here are two testimonials about these manifestations that were recorded in 1995 during the first few months after the beginning of the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) : - Brownsville Revival - Alison Ward Testimony - August 18, 1995 - Amy Elizabeth Ward Mercy Seat Alison Ward Brownsville Revival Pensacola FL I understand that events such as the [Toronto Blessing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Blessing) (1994) and the [Brownsville Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_Revival) (1995) have played a very influential role in promoting these manifestations the last two or three decades, but, what about the past? Were these relatively recent events pioneer regarding these manifestations or can we find older records of similar manifestations in Church history? What are the oldest records? ______ Update: according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slain_in_the_Spirit) the oldest records of these manifestations in Protestantism would pertain to the [First Great Awakening](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening) that took place in the 18th century. However, it would seem very strange to me if there were no records prior to that. Is it truly the case that there are no records of these manifestations during the first 17 centuries of Christianity and that they suddenly began to take place from the 18th century onward? If so, why?

A friend of mine who is a Christian made a mistake and lost her virginity before marriage. According to the rules of the Assemblies of God denomination, can she still have a church wedding?

My beloved (somewhat conservative) presbyterian-pentecostal mother spends hours every week on dubious, supposedly Christian websites and then regurgitates their dubious prophesies and conspiracy theories. I rarely get to have a normal conversation with her anymore without her bringing up the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab in ways which completely overestimate their significance and/or nefarious nature. The issue is that she believes we are in the end times and her need to inform herself about anything and everything which could herald the end times has become insatiable. To the extent that she has completely lost her grasp of what constitutes a reliable source of information and will accept anything the internet feeds her. So I want to help my mother by occasionally referencing reliable Christian-oriented sources which will allow her to keep up to date about real global issues which she can pray about. Can I use Christian Science Monitor, or would me pushing this likely be seen negatively in her very conservative Christian church? I do not want her friends to advise her that my reading Christian Science Monitor only shows that I have become wayward in my faith (because CSMonitor has origins in Christian Science, which other members of my mother's congregation would almost certainly consider to be a non-Christian grouping), which would be very counter-productive. In wider society it has a stellar reputation and I am under the impression that it does not push Christian Science per se, but what is its reputation among very conservative Christians who are very sincere about their faith? My mother is a member of the linked denomination, but I appreciate insight on how Christian Science Monitor is viewed more widely. See: [Apostolic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church_(1916_denomination))

I've noticed here and there the odd practice of inducing an **extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking** in oneself, which seems quite strange to me; it's not at all clear what the purpose is. Some people claim that it may have come from the Quakers, although Pentecostal's do it, and it occurs when the Holy Spirit fills the body . It also seems to be encouraged in some Evangelical circles, as it was explicitly said to be the force of the holy spirit in the movie *Jesus Camp* (2006). ## **What exactly is this practice called, and where did it come from?** I don't recall reading anything about it in the Bible. If you require an example, since I don't know what it's called I'm unable to find videos of it successfully on Google ("christian shaking" doesn't quite work), but what reminded me of it was the [few seconds of this clip](http://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k?t=1m14s) of one of the "Sweet Brown" remixes.

Is the Pentecostal cult in Romania affiliated to any international Pentecostal association or organization or movement? If yes, then which one? Do they have a website?

Here in Brazil, there are some Pentecostal preachers who claim that Satan (Lucifer) was the "Minister of Praise in heaven" or the "ruler of the Celestial Choir". According to a Pentecostal perspective, what the biblical basis for such an assertion?

[Azusa Street Revival](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azusa_Street_Revival) was just concluded in 1915 and the [Assemblies of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblies_of_God) denomination was just founded in 1914 when a few years later the 1918 Influenza pandemic hit which lasted to the summer of 1919: - [CDC timeline](https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/pandemic-timeline-1918.htm) - *History.com* article [Spanish Flu](https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic) My question is: what did the nascent Pentecostal churches taught their members to interpret the pandemic, specifically connecting recovery / death with faith, healing gift, expectation of protection, or other factors (such as God's judgment or eschatological expectations)? Answers need to include documented quotes from primary materials (such as church bulletins / sermons) or from secondary materials that reference primary materials.

From [Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 5): The Baptism In the Holy Spirit](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit/doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit-part-5) : > #### Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit > > Today we want to look at the baptism and fullness of the Holy Spirit. **There’s a great deal of confusion in Protestant circles concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit because certain Pentecostal and charismatic Christians claim that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace in the life of the believer which brings one into a fuller and deeper experience of the Holy Spirit**. They believe that when a person becomes a Christian he is indwelt by the Spirit but he is not baptized in the Holy Spirit. In order to come into this deeper walk with God you need to have a second work of grace – a second experience of the Holy Spirit – called the baptism of the Holy Spirit often accompanied by speaking in tongues which will initiate you into this deeper walk in the Spirit. > > **I think this view is completely wrong. It seems to me that the Scripture is relatively clear that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a second work of grace, but it is an initiatory work of the Spirit by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ**. It is through the baptism of the Holy Spirit that we are indwelt by the Spirit and made to be members of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 seems to make that clear: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” Here the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the universal experience of the church, the initiating act by means of which we are placed into the body of Christ. > > **Charismatics will usually appeal to the stories in the book of Acts to show that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not an initiatory act but is a second work of grace. But, in fact, a close examination of those stories in the book of Acts reveals that in every single case it is clearly an initial experience of the Holy Spirit that is being described and not a second experience**. For example, in Acts 2 you have the story of Pentecost where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to the church in Jerusalem and Judea. This is an initial baptism in the Holy Spirit that they were to wait for. They were not to leave Jerusalem until they received this baptism in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 8 you have the story of how the Holy Spirit is given to the Samaritan believers. Again, a close reading of chapter 8 indicates that they did not have the Holy Spirit until they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then in Acts 10 and 11 you have the story of Cornelius and his household in which the Holy Spirit now is given to the Gentiles. And once again this is clearly an initial act of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Cornelius and his household. Peter says that the Holy Spirit fell upon them in the same way that he did upon us at Pentecost in the beginning. Then in Acts 19 you have this very strange story of the Ephesian disciples of John the Baptist whom Paul runs into and who says we haven't even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. Paul then baptizes them into the Holy Spirit and they likewise become Christians. > > So, although the baptism of the Holy Spirit in these acts is differently related to water baptism (sometimes preceding it; sometimes actually coming after water baptism), nevertheless it is clear that in every case the persons who experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit are experiencing an initial act of the Holy Spirit and not some sort of secondary act of grace which puts them into a deeper walk with Christ. From [Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Part 6): The Filling of the Holy Spirit](https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit/doctrine-of-the-holy-spirit-part-6) : > #### Why Are So Many Christians Not Filled With the Holy Spirit? > > Last time we saw that there is a difference in the New Testament drawn between Christians who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Christians who are filled with the Holy Spirit. All Christians have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and are therefore indwelt by the Holy Spirit. But as we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3, Paul says that although all Christians are indwelt with the Holy Spirit some Christians still are living under the domination and influence of the flesh, that is to say the fallen human nature, and therefore do not produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Instead these Christians exhibit the works of the flesh that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. > > **We saw that the signs of the Spirit-filled life are not charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues or prophetic utterance or working of healing miracles. The church in Corinth exhibited all sorts of charismatic gifts and yet was one of the most carnal churches in the New Testament. Rather, the evidence of the Spirit-filled life is the fruit of the Spirit that Paul talks about in Galatians chapter 5. Those who are walking in the Holy Spirit, who are filled with the Spirit, produce the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than the works of the flesh.** > > The question that I left us with is this: why is it that so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit? Why is it that so many Christians seem to fall into that category of carnal Christians – Christians who are still living under the domination and influence of the fallen human nature? Why do so few seem to enjoy the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let me suggest two reasons as to why so many Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit. > > [...] **Question**: How do Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians rebut William Lane Craig's objections against their views on *the Baptism of the Holy Spirit* and *the Filling of the Holy Spirit*? ___ **Related**: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92043/50422

My side: I believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit , in Bible (solo), that it's possible to have deep experiences nowadays with God as Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Paul did by fasting and seeking souls, and if you to die in sin you'll lose your salvation, they usually call this in my country as Pentecostalism. This [post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48/what-is-the-biblical-basis-to-claim-that-masturbation-is-a-sin) (**What is the biblical basis to claim that masturbation is a sin?**) doesn't have answers that answers me, their answers are either about adultery in heart, that masturbation is not sin by itself but the impure thinking is, onan based (which is a very poor argument) and rational arguments (see below). First of all, I'm not wondering with myself if it's a sin or not (I will not go with answers that doesn't consider it as a sin by itself), but when I'm being tempted some questions comes up and I fall in sin because the little doubt space if it's a sin, I'd like to know a straightforward answer that proves it's a sin (although I know it's a sin) without rational arguments, by that I mean some stuff like: "you get sad masturbating", "this brings you closer to pornography", "this pollutes your mind", summarizing it all it means "arguments that are based in empiricism, subjectivism, abuse of logic..." Another argument which I will not go with is "you are commenting adultery in your mind" because it's not from what a masturbation is by own but just a consequence, I know the Bible doesn't state about that very clear... but I'm hopefully in to find out a raw argument, I was studying about that, those bellow are the best arguments that I find out but I'd like to find something stronger: - In my language, fornication is any sexual act from marriage outside but in English dictionary is to have sex with another one without being married to each other so from Portuguese dictionary masturbation is easily a sin but on English one not. - Masturbation can be seen as an immoral sexuality but some Bible translate this as fornication and there is no formal definition for sexual immorality. - The strongest one is Jude 1:7: "7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.", I'm not sure what "gone after strange flesh" really means but in my Portuguese Bible it means "non natural sexual relationship" since a natural relationship from the bible seems to mean "sex in marriage" is easier to go masturbation as sin but I'm not satisfied with the such argument because the Bible doesn't say "a natural sexual relation is...." PS: I'm not accepting rational arguments because by rational arguments so many things don't make sense in bible, example why is "OK" pay within an eternity for something you done in your finite life? by logic the bible has some contradictions and so on...