godrulz

Yes, it was today.

I am in a large, classical Pentecostal church that has historical roots to Azusa Street. It was also not mentioned in our Pentecostal church. We are not liturgical, but I think this lacks wisdom/opportunity/emphasis. It would be like not mentioning fathers/mothers on those days or Good Friday, etc. I sent an article before the day as a reminder and will follow up after (I am an elder). I don't think you were out of order, but we also don't want to be legalistic/liturgical if we are not of that tradition. Wisdom dictates it is an opportunity to emphasize our distinctives even as we remember communion (which is explicitly commanded). It is more important to be Pentecostal by experience than name/nominal. Even cessationist vs continuationist churches reflect on first century Pentecost. http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/the-strang-report/32736-shouldnt-pentecostals-celebrate-pentecost-sunday Yes, Pentecostals should celebrate Pentecost Sunday.

The quote on essentials is the Moravian Motto. I agree that we need to distinguish essential, salvific truth from peripheral doctrinal debates.

Oneness/Sabellianism/modalism (Jesus Only, UPC, Apostolic), Arianism (JW), polytheism (Mormonism), etc. are heretical, defective views. The biblical, historical, orthodox view is trinitarianism. The case was closed centuries ago, but under attack by aberrant groups ever since. www.bible.ca/trinity

Katy, what group, website, author, leader, etc. do you identify with? Your views are not far off from JWs. Jn. 1:1-14 shows that Word/Logos is a title for Christ, not generic 'truth' (though Jesus is the Truth). To claim to be Son of God was a claim to equality with God (hence the Pharisees wanted to stone Him for blasphemy, mere man claiming to be God/equal with God). Your view is condemned Arianism.

A denial of the Deity of Christ is cultic/Arian, a denial of biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity. Oneness/modalism is not as severe, but they are also wrong. It is nonsense to link trinity with pagans, just Catholics, just creeds, etc. It is biblically defensible.

tongues is just another word for languages in the KJV Bible. I used to speak what you call tongues but then i stopped it when i found it to be unbiblical. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Speaking%20in%20Tongues/speaking_in_tongues.htm what are you trying to achieve? Words have a semantical range of meaning. It can refer to languages, but in the context of spiritual gifts, it is a supernatural endowment from the Holy Spirit for self and corporate edification, prayer, etc. Exegete the Bible instead of listening to anti-charismatic sites (the evolution of cessationism vs continuationism can be seen in Church history by guys like Calvin, etc. overreacting to Catholic issues, etc.). Here is a scholarly source, unlike your link: http://www.amazon.com/Cessation-Charismata-Protestant-Post-biblical-Miracles-Revised/dp/0981952623

Tongues is NOT preaching in known languages. In Acts 2, tongues was worship and praise to God. Some who knew the languages understood them, but the speakers did not understand their supernatural gift. The gospel was preached in Peter's known language to an audience that understood him naturally. Peter did not preach in tongues?!

I Cor. 14:4 talks about speaking in tongues personally TO God without interpretation for self-edification. This is contrasted and denoted by the phrase 'BUT in the CHURCH' where tongues in corporate worship is for Body edification when INTERPRETED. One must read I Cor. 14 verse by verse to see the changing context and 3 points about tongues (self-edification, corporate edification with interpretation, sign for unbelievers in our midst). It is both/and, not either/or.

Paul said tongues are speaking to God, not men. God understands all extant, extinct, heavenly languages. Some earthly languages are actually just a series of clucks and clicks, so just because they are gibberish to you does not mean they are to God/angels/some others.

www.bible.ca/trinity The triune understanding is the biblical, historical, orthodox view attacked by Arians (JWs) and Oneness (modalists; Jesus Only). God is compound unity, not solitary. Within the one eternal, uncreated spirit nature/substance/essence/being of God are 3 personal distinctions/conscious centers. They are co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential, not 3 gods (tritheism/Mormonism/polytheism). The first step is to understand the Deity of Christ...Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh. The Holy Spirit is personal, not impersonal. The trinity follows.

Loud and clear. Calvinists are dogmatic and frequently misunderstand and misrepresent Open Theism (I am reading 'Beyond the Bounds'). I would also reject the straw man caricature you have of the view. Calvinists also misrepresent Arminians. You underestimate the strengths of opposing views and the problems with your own view. You overestimate that your view is biblical, logical. It is highly problematic. Perhaps you could start with Roger Olson's 'Against Calvinism' (he is Arminian).

Israel and the Church were predestined/elected to be the people of God. Those who freely receive His grace are added to the group individually. The individual is not arbitrarily decreed to be in the group from eternity past, no choice of their own. Calvinists proof text these corporate verses and try to apply them to individuals (decretal) to support TULIP. The biblical mindset was highly corporate, while modern North Americans are very individualistic. Regarding your statement, "There is no theodicy without free will," are you ever going to address my question: Mankind is morally responsible for the sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-21). Where's the free will in that? Ezekiel says that the soul that sins will die. Individual sin can affect the group. You are assuming Augustinian Federal Headship THEORIES. I am not responsible for Hitler's sin. I am not to blame for Adam's sin. Sin involves personal responsibility even if my sin affects others negatively. Rom. 5 shows that Adam's sin was the occasion of sin entering the race and physical depravity affecting us/creation. It was not the cause of me sinning or becoming a sinner (using this logic from Rom. 5 would lead to universalism because Jesus died for all, yet all are not saved). This should not be confused with moral depravity that is personal, volitional. Rom. 5 is subject to interpretation and should be considered in light of Rom. 1-3, an extended harmartiological (doctrine of sin) passage. Rom. 5 is about justification. Physical depravity like death is not a free will issue. Moral depravity and spiritual separation from God is a free will issue. We are not culpable because we are conceived, but because we follow in Adam's footsteps (Rom. 5 talks about Adam's sin, but then says....because all have sinned).

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is not compatible with free will. This can be shown with very technical arguments (modal logic, etc.) or common sense.

Israel and the Church were predestined/elected to be the people of God. Those who freely receive His grace are added to the group individually. The individual is not arbitrarily decreed to be in the group from eternity past, no choice of their own. Calvinists proof text these corporate verses and try to apply them to individuals (decretal) to support TULIP. The biblical mindset was highly corporate, while modern North Americans are very individualistic.