Defend your Faith

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Timmy

That's correct. The question is whether any of them support the heavenly language type of tongues that is common today. Some point to Romans 8:26, "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." But that doesn't work. The "groanings" cannot be uttered. Also, it is the Spirit praying, not us. Not the Spirit through us. For us.

Another question (which I know how OPs answer) is whether tongues are for today, or have they ceased (1 Corinthians 13:8).

I don't think Romans is talking about tongues. According to Strongs, which has been pointed out already, it leans more towards actual groans. The example I gave was when my bro-in-law went thru a horrible divorce. We were at the alter together and experienced these groanings.

I sincerely believe there are times we just don't know what to say or how to pray. I remember my Grandfather at times would just groan under his breath.

[Sister Alvear]

Tongues are for today...Peter heard the gentiles speak with tongues....are we not a part of that?

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Tongues are for today...Peter heard the gentiles speak with tongues....are we not a part of that?

Some people believe that the "...that which is perfect is come..." in the scripture is in reference to the canon. They believe that once the Bible was put together, the gifts of the Spirit ceased to operate.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Fascinating thread! Somehow, I skipped it till today.

Some observations and questions from an outsider -- non-Apostolic, non-Pentecostal, neutral Oneness/Trinitarian (if that makes sense) -- if anyone's interested:

1. We say "God is good", "God cannot sin", etc. What does that really mean? If I were to do some of the things God is recorded as doing, or going to do, in the Bible, I would be thrown in jail and likely executed. (Before you say it, yes I know -- I am not God! I'm just asking what we mean when we say God is "good". Does it mean whatever He does is fine, no matter what it is, since He's God? Is there anything He might conceivably do that would actually not be "good"?)

E.g., what if I were to punish my child for something (anything!) by holding his hand a few inches over the flame of the gas range? How about for, say, a mere 60 seconds? The blistering and charring would be unthinkably horrible. The pain would be far more intense than anything most of us have ever experienced. His hand would never heal, and my life sentence in jail (or execution, even better) would be well deserved.

And yet God will burn me forever, just for not believing you OP guys??? Not 60 seconds, forever! Not just one hand, my entire body! And yet God is good and just. (Some here don't believe in eternal torture, just burning for a "while". Then annihilation. This is somewhat more tolerable, but not much!)

2. Did I say God is just? So, He will punish those who choose to believe their parents and follow their religion their whole lives -- if that religion is "wrong"? That's just? He will reward those who are lucky enough to hear your message (the Apostolic-Pentecostal-Oneness message -- the right message) and believe it and obey it? He will punish those who hear it and don't accept it? (They "don't love truth", as many of you say.) He will punish those who hear Billy Graham's message and (oopsie!) believe it? He will punish the countless generations who have lived their entire lives, never hearing the right message? Oh yeah, if they're "sincere", God will send an Apostolic minister to them. Uh huh. I guess then, by definition, nobody in those countless generations was sincere.

3. Babies. They get a pass. Aborted fetuses get a pass. That's good. Glad to hear it. Now, tell me this: if a baby grows to adulthood, there is a good chance he/she will not choose to believe the only saving message (as you guys so fondly describe it), correct? So, it's something less than 100% certain they will make Heaven, correct? Let's say it's 50%. (Though it's really way, way lower than that, I think you'll agree, especially counting the billions of non-OP parents.) So if you kill your children before they grow up, they will be in Heaven, 100% certain. If you do not kill your children, well, we're not so sure. 50/50 (or less). So tell me: how is it not the most loving thing you could possibly do for your baby to kill it?! In fact, how is it not the most horrible and hateful thing you could do to let it live to adulthood?!

Oh sure, train up a child etc. Well, I'm sorry, scripture notwithstanding, not all children accept the way they are trained. Some "depart from it", never to return to it! You are taking your chances, playing dice with your children's eternal life.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating killing your children! Do not say that I am! I am just asking if this heaven/hell/only-saving-message thing is really, really what you believe, and if so, where is my logic faulty? PLEASE DO NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN!! But do explain why you will not and why you should not!

BTW, the explanation that God says do not kill -- that doesn't cut it. If you are disobeying God and thereby risking your own eternity in killing your child, so much the more noble and unselfish it is!

4. "God will judge, not I." OK fine, but His Word, according to the OP doctrine, does say what the fate of the lost will be, doesn't it? And everyone (again, according to OP) who does not obey Acts 2:38 (and in the OP interpretation of it, of course) is lost. Is God a liar? No, that would not be "good" (see #1). So, ya die lost, ya burn. Right or wrong?

That's it for now. Can't wait to hear the accusations -- these are somehow "dishonest" questions, whatever that means. And the "answers" -- we don't understand some things, we just have to take it on faith. You have to know it with your heart, not your head. Can't wait. But maybe you can do better than that. I've never heard any better, but I'm listening. Go for it!

Anyone else care to respond?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Kutless

You are assuming that the tongues in Corin were a Heavenly language? Or were they actual languges?

The tongues in Acts were understood. The next thing to determine is from what text the new church read and studied, because if it was anything other than the Septuagint I have question.

I'm not assuming anything, just posting the verses in NT related to tongues. I do believe there was more than just interpreting the Septuagint. Why was it that the new believers were the ones speaking in tongues and glorifying God?

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I'm not assuming anything, just posting the verses in NT related to tongues. I do believe there was more than just interpreting the Septuagint. Why was it that the new believers were the ones speaking in tongues and glorifying God?

How do we know they were glorifying God? Was it something separate from the tongues or was it that they understood what was being said?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Anyone else care to respond?

Nobody?

I don't blame you. Questions like these are part of what bothered me to the point of leaving the AG. You might think it would be terrible to leave the OP faith, just because you can't answer such questions, either. If so, and you're happy where you are and are afraid to even think about leaving, then don't think about questions like this. Simple! (Or answer them!)

Back when I was still an AG faithful, questions like this would come up, e.g. in youth meetings, or from my own kids (or myself!). The only answers I could ever give (or ever heard from anyone else) are ones like I gave the other day: We can't understand everything. Can't know in your head, only in your heart. Trust God to sort it all out. If answers like these are satisfying to you, fine. Carry on. But you better not think about them too much, or you'll end up like me.

BTW, I'm fine! No regrets. Much happier now. Back then, I got so tired of all the pretending and lying, the crazy rules (the AG has their share of them, too!), the inconsistencies and hypocrisy. I was told there is no perfect church, and that's true. And I won't agree with everything taught in any church I attend. I can live with that. But the AG was just too much, and most other churches don't have the unwritten rule that you must never question anything. Have to stick to the party line. Act like you believe it even if you don't. I had to get out of there.

Originally Posted by Timmy

1. We say "God is good", "God cannot sin", etc. What does that really mean? If I were to do some of the things God is recorded as doing, or going to do, in the Bible, I would be thrown in jail and likely executed. (Before you say it, yes I know -- I am not God! I'm just asking what we mean when we say God is "good". Does it mean whatever He does is fine, no matter what it is, since He's God? Is there anything He might conceivably do that would actually not be "good"?)

There are two possible answers to this.

A. Whatever God does is "good" because God always chooses that which His innate and omniscient "conscience" recognizes as good. In others words, God is indeed subject to moral law, and always chooses to do that which is morally "good". This interpretation maintains that actions of moral agents have inherent moral value determined by the actions' relations to the moral agents involved, and those moral agents' relations to each other.

B. Whatever God does is "good" because "good" is a relative term defined primarily as God upholding His end of any contract ("covenant") He enters into. In other words, "good" is determined by God's Covenantal obligations and requirements. (For example, lying is "bad" when it is done contrary to Covenant responsibilities [thou shalt not bear false witness, etc] but it is "good" when it is done to further Covenant purposes [Rachab the harlot at Jericho, etc]). This interpretation maintains that actions are in themselves neutral, and that moral value is determined by the framework within which they are viewed, rather than in any intrinsic elements of the actions themselves.

As to which interpretation is the correct one, I must say I have generally held to A but am now investigating as to whether B may not be more Biblically accurate.

2. Did I say God is just? So, He will punish those who choose to believe their parents and follow their religion their whole lives -- if that religion is "wrong"? That's just? He will reward those who are lucky enough to hear your message (the Apostolic-Pentecostal-Oneness message -- the right message) and believe it and obey it? He will punish those who hear it and don't accept it? (They "don't love truth", as many of you say.) He will punish those who hear Billy Graham's message and (oopsie!) believe it? He will punish the countless generations who have lived their entire lives, never hearing the right message? Oh yeah, if they're "sincere", God will send an Apostolic minister to them. Uh huh. I guess then, by definition, nobody in those countless generations was sincere.

This question is basically a restatement of the first question. See above.

3. Babies. They get a pass. Aborted fetuses get a pass. That's good. Glad to hear it. Now, tell me this: if a baby grows to adulthood, there is a good chance he/she will not choose to believe the only saving message (as you guys so fondly describe it), correct? So, it's something less than 100% certain they will make Heaven, correct? Let's say it's 50%. (Though it's really way, way lower than that, I think you'll agree, especially counting the billions of non-OP parents.) So if you kill your children before they grow up, they will be in Heaven, 100% certain. If you do not kill your children, well, we're not so sure. 50/50 (or less). So tell me: how is it not the most loving thing you could possibly do for your baby to kill it?! In fact, how is it not the most horrible and hateful thing you could do to let it live to adulthood?!

This assumes that eternal happiness is more important and more valuable than free choice and personal responsibility. In other words, it is better to be eternally happy than to be given the opportunity to make one's own decisions. No true American, let alone Christian, would accept such reasoning. It is the fundamental reasoning behind socialist/statist philosophies.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating killing your children! Do not say that I am! I am just asking if this heaven/hell/only-saving-message thing is really, really what you believe, and if so, where is my logic faulty? PLEASE DO NOT KILL YOUR CHILDREN!! But do explain why you will not and why you should not!

If you truly believed your own argument which you presented, then to be consistent you must advocate the killing of all children, even if there is no such thing as a "God". You say it is better to kill children and guarantee them Heaven than to allow them to live and risk the possibility they will sin and suffer punishment. But notice, according to this reasoning, even if one were a stone cold atheist, it is better to kill children and guarantee them oblivion than to allow them to live and risk the possibility of any kind of suffering whatsoever in this life.

4. "God will judge, not I." OK fine, but His Word, according to the OP doctrine, does say what the fate of the lost will be, doesn't it? And everyone (again, according to OP) who does not obey Acts 2:38 (and in the OP interpretation of it, of course) is lost. Is God a liar? No, that would not be "good" (see #1). So, ya die lost, ya burn. Right or wrong?

I do not understand the connection between "God will judge, not I" and the rest of your paragraph. They are unconnected, unless you are suggesting that telling someone they will suffer God's wrath if they do not repent and believe the gospel is "judging" and is contrary to the oft heard statement "God will judge, not I" or "I do not judge you, but..."

Quite honestly, any Christian who says "I do not judge" is a liar. Not only that, but any Christian who actually did not judge would be in sin, for disobeying the command to "prove all things" and also the command to "judge righteous judgement".

The confusion extends from one single statement - "judge not, lest ye be judged". But taking that passage in conjunction with the whole of Scripture, one must either conclude that the "judge not" command is contradictory to the rest of Scripture, or else that the "judge not" command is grossly misunderstood by people today. Perhaps Jesus meant that His disciples were not to condemn people without careful consideration of all the known facts, and without recourse to mercy, lest they be likewise judged (condemned).

That's it for now. Can't wait to hear the accusations -- these are somehow "dishonest" questions, whatever that means. And the "answers" -- we don't understand some things, we just have to take it on faith. You have to know it with your heart, not your head. Can't wait. But maybe you can do better than that. I've never heard any better, but I'm listening. Go for it!

Funny how you ask questions yet indicate you are already prejudiced against whatever answers you imagine to be forthcoming. Might make people think your questions were, in fact, "dishonest".

[Timmy]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. (Finally!)

Originally Posted by Eliseus

There are two possible answers to this.

A. Whatever God does is "good" because God always chooses that which His innate and omniscient "conscience" recognizes as good. In others words, God is indeed subject to moral law, and always chooses to do that which is morally "good". This interpretation maintains that actions of moral agents have inherent moral value determined by the actions' relations to the moral agents involved, and those moral agents' relations to each other.

B. Whatever God does is "good" because "good" is a relative term defined primarily as God upholding His end of any contract ("covenant") He enters into. In other words, "good" is determined by God's Covenantal obligations and requirements. (For example, lying is "bad" when it is done contrary to Covenant responsibilities [thou shalt not bear false witness, etc] but it is "good" when it is done to further Covenant purposes [Rachab the harlot at Jericho, etc]). This interpretation maintains that actions are in themselves neutral, and that moral value is determined by the framework within which they are viewed, rather than in any intrinsic elements of the actions themselves.

As to which interpretation is the correct one, I must say I have generally held to A but am now investigating as to whether B may not be more Biblically accurate.



This question is basically a restatement of the first question. See above.



This assumes that eternal happiness is more important and more valuable than free choice and personal responsibility. In other words, it is better to be eternally happy than to be given the opportunity to make one's own decisions. No true American, let alone Christian, would accept such reasoning. It is the fundamental reasoning behind socialist/statist philosophies.



If you truly believed your own argument which you presented, then to be consistent you must advocate the killing of all children, even if there is no such thing as a "God". You say it is better to kill children and guarantee them Heaven than to allow them to live and risk the possibility they will sin and suffer punishment. But notice, according to this reasoning, even if one were a stone cold atheist, it is better to kill children and guarantee them oblivion than to allow them to live and risk the possibility of any kind of suffering whatsoever in this life.



I do not understand the connection between "God will judge, not I" and the rest of your paragraph. They are unconnected, unless you are suggesting that telling someone they will suffer God's wrath if they do not repent and believe the gospel is "judging" and is contrary to the oft heard statement "God will judge, not I" or "I do not judge you, but..."

Quite honestly, any Christian who says "I do not judge" is a liar. Not only that, but any Christian who actually did not judge would be in sin, for disobeying the command to "prove all things" and also the command to "judge righteous judgement".

The confusion extends from one single statement - "judge not, lest ye be judged". But taking that passage in conjunction with the whole of Scripture, one must either conclude that the "judge not" command is contradictory to the rest of Scripture, or else that the "judge not" command is grossly misunderstood by people today. Perhaps Jesus meant that His disciples were not to condemn people without careful consideration of all the known facts, and without recourse to mercy, lest they be likewise judged (condemned).



Funny how you ask questions yet indicate you are already prejudiced against whatever answers you imagine to be forthcoming. Might make people think your questions were, in fact, "dishonest".

Yes, I guess I tipped my hand a bit, but I only said it because I have, in fact, heard only trite answers before, not well thought-out ones. Perhaps I didn't try hard enough. I don't think I ever tried internet searches, e.g., only conversations with individuals. Oh and a few books have tried to address some of them. "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel, e.g. I wouldn't call it trite, I suppose, but not very satisfying, either.

I'll respond to the rest later. (I will add, however, I haven't killed any of my kids, and it's too late now: they're grown! )

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

There are two possible answers to this.

A. Whatever God does is "good" because God always chooses that which His innate and omniscient "conscience" recognizes as good. In others words, God is indeed subject to moral law, and always chooses to do that which is morally "good". This interpretation maintains that actions of moral agents have inherent moral value determined by the actions' relations to the moral agents involved, and those moral agents' relations to each other.

If it's immoral take revenge on someone by dismembering their children and slashing open the pregnant women (Hosea 13), then I guess answer A isn't right. And then there's the flood, where God drowned thousands of men, women, and children. (I could go on!)

B. Whatever God does is "good" because "good" is a relative term defined primarily as God upholding His end of any contract ("covenant") He enters into. In other words, "good" is determined by God's Covenantal obligations and requirements. (For example, lying is "bad" when it is done contrary to Covenant responsibilities [thou shalt not bear false witness, etc] but it is "good" when it is done to further Covenant purposes [Rachab the harlot at Jericho, etc]). This interpretation maintains that actions are in themselves neutral, and that moral value is determined by the framework within which they are viewed, rather than in any intrinsic elements of the actions themselves.

Sounds like situational ethics! I suppose there could be situations (covenants?) where cutting up babies and pregnant women is "relatively good", in some way. I, for one, would not be comfortable carrying out that "good".

As to which interpretation is the correct one, I must say I have generally held to A but am now investigating as to whether B may not be more Biblically accurate.



This question is basically a restatement of the first question. See above.

Yes, kinda. But more specific. Being "just" is part of being "good". Do the things I mentioned sound just, to you? (Not sure how hard-core you are on these things.)

This assumes that eternal happiness is more important and more valuable than free choice and personal responsibility. In other words, it is better to be eternally happy than to be given the opportunity to make one's own decisions. No true American, let alone Christian, would accept such reasoning. It is the fundamental reasoning behind socialist/statist philosophies.

But, in the dogmatic belief that God will send everyone to hell who hasn't "obeyed Acts 2:38", the choice isn't even given to 99.99% of the people! It will come as a complete surprise for them to wake up in the lake of fire. Think they would have chosen that, if they knew all the facts up front?

If you truly believed your own argument which you presented, then to be consistent you must advocate the killing of all children, even if there is no such thing as a "God". You say it is better to kill children and guarantee them Heaven than to allow them to live and risk the possibility they will sin and suffer punishment. But notice, according to this reasoning, even if one were a stone cold atheist, it is better to kill children and guarantee them oblivion than to allow them to live and risk the possibility of any kind of suffering whatsoever in this life.

Huge difference between guaranteeing eternal bliss in heaven (and avoiding eternal torture) vs preventing the possibility of some suffering on earth (mixed in with a lot of happiness and joy, typically). Night and day.

I do not understand the connection between "God will judge, not I" and the rest of your paragraph. They are unconnected, unless you are suggesting that telling someone they will suffer God's wrath if they do not repent and believe the gospel is "judging" and is contrary to the oft heard statement "God will judge, not I" or "I do not judge you, but..."

Quite honestly, any Christian who says "I do not judge" is a liar. Not only that, but any Christian who actually did not judge would be in sin, for disobeying the command to "prove all things" and also the command to "judge righteous judgement".

The confusion extends from one single statement - "judge not, lest ye be judged". But taking that passage in conjunction with the whole of Scripture, one must either conclude that the "judge not" command is contradictory to the rest of Scripture, or else that the "judge not" command is grossly misunderstood by people today. Perhaps Jesus meant that His disciples were not to condemn people without careful consideration of all the known facts, and without recourse to mercy, lest they be likewise judged (condemned).

I was referring to the idea that God decides each person's eternal fate, once they die, not "I". Some OPs have said this to wiggle out of the uncomfortable position of believing the everyone who dies "lost" will suffer eternal torture (or torture for a while, then anihiliation, as some OPs say). They hint that God may make exceptions, when it's fair and just to do so. Perhaps they have in mind the sincere but deceived Trinnies, or the billions who have lived and died already never having heard the Gospel.

Funny how you ask questions yet indicate you are already prejudiced against whatever answers you imagine to be forthcoming. Might make people think your questions were, in fact, "dishonest".