Holy Ghost Baptism (Holiness.com Response)

Hello brother XXXX,

Thanks for the sincere feedback. You raise two important concerns in
your email: The first being whether a Holiness website should use a
"crude" acronym like FART to represent offensive/harmful theological
concepts. The second concern you raise concerns our belief that the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the experience of being Born
Again.

As regards your first concern, let me recap the main thrust of your
thinking. You stated that: "In reviewing your FART (which is crude, by
the way, on a website based on holiness)…". You also stated: "Please sit
before the Lord and ask Him about the FART acronym and how offensive
that could be to a 90 year old lady that is seeking to find God." You may have a point. Maybe I should entertain changing the acronym. Can I pose a few questions to you before making a decision whether or not to change the acronym?
1)  My first question is: Do you believe that the Bible as written by
the various authors is totally God-inspired?
2)  Do you consider any of the verses included in the Holy Bible as
crude and offensive?
3)  Of the Holy scriptures listed in the response article under
[Reviews/Letters From Our Guests/"IS F.A.R.T. OFFENSIVE"], would you
give me your thoughts on which (if any) of these scriptures you consider
"crude".
4)  Finally, if your answer to questions 2, or 3 is "yes", what do you
propose that we do we these scriptuters? A) Remove them from the Bible?
B) Ignore them? C) Take grandmama's Bible away because she may run upon
these verses and be offended?

Of course I am being sarcastic as I don't recommend any of the choices
listed in A,B, or C. But, maybe you have a "D" choice that I have not
thought of.

The most amazing thing Brother XXXX is that the Killer Fart may be the
most widely read article of all those on Holiness.com to date. Among
both those who profess to being Born Again and those who do not, among
teenagers, young adults, middle agers, and older adults, this article
has been read and re-read. And believe it or not, those who object to
the title even read this article. I think part of the reason for the
wide circulation is the "crude" title.

But lets move on to the other very import concern that you raise. You
make note of Acts 2:37&38 as scriptural evidence that when a person is
born again they receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. More precisely,
you seem to be saying that this passage of scripture demonstrates that
the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is a component of being born again and
that this Baptism is experienced (always experienced) simultaneously the
instant that a person is Born Again. Have I accurately represented your
position thus far??

If I have accurately represented your position thus far, the outcome of
what you say is that one must believe

1)  that every person who is born again has the Baptism of the Holy
Ghost.
2)  every person (without exception) who does not have the Baptism of
the Holy Ghost has not been born again and is thus not a true Christian.
 

Next Page