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.

Predestination is corporate, but it has to be individual as well. Our God knows how many hairs are on our heads. He directly deals with each and every individual human being. Predestination is NEVER ever linked to the fate of unbelievers. I think it is a gross misinterpretation of scripture to place Predestination upon unbelievers in the sense that God predetermined them to the Lake of Fire. God said there will come a time when he will send unbelievers a strong delusion because they absolutely would not receive the truth. In other words, the offer for Life was right in front of them, and they themselves rejected of their own accords. 2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 2Th 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 2Th 2:12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. Read Romans 9 and then tell me God doesn't destine some for destruction. Satan foremost is destined for destruction. Rom. 9-11 is about the corporate election of Israel for service/mission. It is not about individual double predestination, a view that impugns the nature and character of God.

Man no longer has free will, unless he is saved. Adam lost our corporate human free will when he sinned. We get it back in Christ. Until a man is saved, he is a slave to sin and evil through his evil nature. Total depravity (Augustinian/Lutheran overstatement of bondage of the will) is not total inability. No free will=no love, relationship, moral responsibility. This does not mean we initiate, provide salvation or save ourselves. Our mind and will is involved in receiving or rejecting truth, Christ, God, Bible, gospel. No free will=no ability to choose between chocolate and vanilla.

Predestination is corporate, but it has to be individual as well. Our God knows how many hairs are on our heads. He directly deals with each and every individual human being. Predestination is NEVER ever linked to the fate of unbelievers. I think it is a gross misinterpretation of scripture to place Predestination upon unbelievers in the sense that God predetermined them to the Lake of Fire. God said there will come a time when he will send unbelievers a strong delusion because they absolutely would not receive the truth. In other words, the offer for Life was right in front of them, and they themselves rejected of their own accords. 2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 2Th 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 2Th 2:12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. I appreciate Spiros, but he has a Calvinistic bias and other great thinkers would disagree with him. Election is corporate, but cannot also be individual (it is either/or). To predestine believers necessitates the other terrible conclusion of double predestination (you can soften the words, but saving some and not saving others he could save is damning them apart from their choices, assuming TULIP). You are trying to mix determinism and free will (not possible).

I would suggest predestination, sovereignty, foreknowledge, free will need to be understood properly. Predestination does not have to mean pan causality. Sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control. Foreknowledge does not have to be exhaustive. Omniscience can be retained without EDF of future free will contingencies. Libertarian free will is more defensible than compatibilism (an attempt to reconcile a contradiction). Sovereignty and free will are said to be true, but unresolvable. I am going to suggest that the problem is a wrong view of the two and that a right view can be embraced without contradiction or inexplicability.

This is more a simple foreknowledge, Arminian view. It assumes something without proving it (begs the question). It also confuses time and space. The future is not yet, does not exist. It is not a thing, place, space that God can look at like a film and see it. In your view, free will creatures have settled the future and lived their lives before they are even born?! This is absurd, nonsensical, even for an omniscient God (you also confuse omniscience and omnipresence). Predestination, free will, exhaustive foreknowledge are simply not compatible. Calvinistic appeals to mystery, antimony, paradox, etc. don't cut it when there is a more biblical, coherent view available.

Are you an open theist? I really don't see how open theism could be realistic at all, from the position of God answering prayers, God giving prophesy with full assurance, and with God having foreknowledge of our sin enough to send Jesus to die for these sins before they would happen. You can drive a bus through the holes in OT. I do however agree with you about corporate election and predestination. God has predestined the church body, not the individual, to salvation. IMHO. Yes, guilty as charged (Open Theist). The view is an enhanced view of prayer (determinism is far less compatible with prayer than free will views). An omnicompetent God does not need to be omnicausal. A superior chess master can beat a novice without foreknowing or controlling (it is about ability/intelligence, not control). The world had centuries of sin before Christ actually came and died. The plan was implemented in Gen. 3 based on present knowledge, not exhaustive future knowledge (so that was a lame argument). The standard objections to Open Theism and Calvinistic proof texts and misrepresentations of Open Theism have been capably answered.

This is a classic theological question debated for centuries (sovereignty, free will, decretalism, problem of evil, election, etc.). The main views of providence are Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism. After decades of study, I believe the idea of two motifs in Scripture (take all passages at face value) with some of the future is predestined (e.g. first/second coming of Christ, corporate vs individual election of the church...the verses you quoted as individual..., etc.), while other aspects are partially open, unsettled, contingent (avoiding the problem of making an omnicausal God responsible for evil contrary to an omnicompetent God's holiness). God macro vs micromanages, is providentially in control without being all or tightly controlling (at the expense of love, freedom, relationship, moral responsibility). www.opentheism.info (read intro page and see if that does not resonate with reality). You are likely sorta Calvinistic. I would suggest that their view of predestination is not how God has chosen to govern. Election is corporate, in Christ, conditional, not individual, by decree, unconditional. I would not be dogmatic until one understands the strengths and weaknesses of the major views. Deterministic predestination is not compatible with libertarian free will (compatibilism is not true free will, but still deterministic). Exhaustive definite foreknowledge is compatible with exhaustive predestination, but not with libertarian free will. Molinism's 'middle knowledge' is essentially deterministic and philosophically convoluted. Arminian simple foreknowledge depends on 'eternal now', a wrong view of time/eternity (vs endless time). One cannot explain its mechanism, so it begs the question.

There are many beliefs in God/gods. Christianity is unique because it is revelation from the true God. Jesus Christ is the only way to God/Father because He is God in the flesh. He proved this by rising from the dead, unlike any other world religion. Check out Ravi Zacharias on youtube (former Hindu from India, Christian apologist now; oneminuteapologist; William Lane Craig, etc.). Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12 Jesus is the only way, truth, life because He is God-Man, risen from the dead. If these historical things are not true, then Christianity is a false religion. Other religions can be shown to be false, but not Judeo-Christianity. www.gotquestions.org would also have questions on why Jesus is the only way, etc.

Apart from a subjective, allegorical, nonsensical, eisegetical (vs exegetical) approach, there is no basis to say most of Revelation was fulfilled. A normative, literal approach to Scripture (which also recognizes symbolism, figures of speech, etc.) would lead to futurism, not preterism.

Rev. 1:19 is the interpretative key. Rev. 1 is past (to John), Rev. 2-3 is present (to John), while Rev. 4-22 is yet future (literal, futurist view vs preterism). Rev. 6-19 is the Tribulation period after the rapture (Christ comes FOR the church), before the visible Second Coming/Millennium (Christ comes WITH the Church). show me how revalation 12 with the man child has yet to come? not all of these prophecies are in the future but they could be visions of things past to show something that is to come or of christ nature. Like other prophetic passages, two events may be highlighted with an indeterminate interval in between. Rev. 12 does have a historical reference to Israel bringing forth the Messiah and then the end time events. Rev. 6-19 is yet future, but that does not mean one sentence or verse might not allude to a historical event. Look at the larger context and then consider any given verse on its own merits. Likewise, Rev. talks about Satan's future activity, but one verse may refer back to his original fall or work earlier in history. This does not negate the fact that almost every other passage is yet future. Likewise, in historical narrative, one verse may have prophetic application in the future (Messianic proof text), but most of the context was present to the writer or had historical fulfillment (or even dual fulfillment at times).