Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

One of the weakest arguments made by those who do not speak in tongues is the cessationist argument. Partial cessationism is more probably the case, according to the historical record, but to say that complete cessationism is the case can't actually be the case based on the argument to substantiate it.

That's my opinion.

ouden

Partial cessation by God's design or because of the actions or inactions of the church?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Prax, if you say so. Saying "your throne is God" just doesn't really fit. Saying his throne, or dominion of forever and ever makes a better fit. I'm not sure of the NET Bible's theologians but what they say the Son being at the same level as the angels is a biblical position, not necessarily partial to one's particular view of the godhead. Both you and Beisner would agree on that one. Point being, there are MULTIPLE considerations for their translations. BTW, I've never used any of these translations... and I use quite a few interlinears and parallel Bibles.

Im not arguing it should be "Your throne is God". Im quoting commentaries by actual greek scholars like A.T. Robertson.

But yes, point being there are a number of considerations, maybe not all verses, but at least we know in some cases

I use the NET bible. I think Daniel Wallace was on committee. I use the ESV and the NKJV (MKJV for esword)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What is your point here with this reply? What are you saying?

QUestion: Does CARM represent ALL Trinitarians? Even 20%?

The RCC also burned people, burned books, sold purgatory.... let's refocus the discussion to the here and now.

See who and what I was replying to and it will make more sense

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

Again, you misunderstand me...I said "I know" as of right now, in the present, many groups, even among those at CARM probably, who disagree with each other but would not condemn each other. I think you'll find more 'trinitarians' who practice that same type of liberality concerning OP's than the opposite...myself being one of them. Besides the original point is about making truth claims based on the historical data which, as in the OP case, is lacking. The problem with this is two fold...just on a human basis you have some Johnny come lately's who state they have THE truth thereby insulting Christians down through the centuries...and insulting God's ability to sustain, preserve, and save folks down through the centuries. So the OP comes along and insults the trinitarian personally and his God. Can you blame them?

And when it comes to stacking bodies...well I think trinitarians and arians have the modalists beat.

In my opinion, trinitarians and OP's ARE Christians. And for those who like to dump the OP into the same stew as the Mormon or the JW...well I take them to task also because when a person proclaims Christ as God...he's my brother. We can then argue about the specifics.

Nobody believes perfectly...that's why it's by grace.

ouden

Im not so sure "than the opposite",but it may be true. I think as a percentage it is growing less and less. Many OPs are 1 steppers and include Trinitarians and even many 3 steppers admit they could be wrong, admitting others.

Trinitarians may not condemn each other, however given what I have seen of some Trinitarians on the subject of baptism they would condemn catholics for what they call baptismal regeneration. Saying such a group are unsaved because they believe they are adding to the cross works, and are therefore not saved because they trust in their own works and not Christ.

As far as history goes, could not protestants claim they have the truth...a truth the Roman Catholics that came before them did not?

I just think the "I have the truth" stuff works both ways. All groups do it. Trinitarians to anyone that does not believe in the Trinity. JWs to everyone that is not a JW. OPs to anyone that denies Oneness.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Partial cessation by God's design or because of the actions or inactions of the church?

Well to say that it's not God's design is to impugn His sovereignty and will. I say partial cessation because of the obvious ceasing of the normalcy of the gifts and I say partial because I am not privy to God's overall purpose and will. But it does appear to me that He did not intend the gifts to be a normal activity of the church through the ages.

God is not tied or bound by the church's inactivity in any arena including the gifts. He does what He wants, when He wants, to whom He wants...and if He wanted this to be a normal activity of the church as a whole down through the ages it would have been. It wasn't.

ouden

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

Well to say that it's not God's design is to impugn His sovereignty and will. I say partial cessation because of the obvious ceasing of the normalcy of the gifts and I say partial because I am not privy to God's overall purpose and will. But it does appear to me that He did not intend the gifts to be a normal activity of the church through the ages.

God is not tied or bound by the church's inactivity in any arena including the gifts. He does what He wants, when He wants, to whom He wants...and if He wanted this to be a normal activity of the church as a whole down through the ages it would have been. It wasn't.

ouden

As far as His sovereignty and Will...that might be another discussion. I don't believe God controls absolutely everything, right down to the minute and second a cat sneezes. We have free will, it's not God's design that false doctrines were introduced, so if the gifts passed or partially passed do to some action or inaction of the church I don't see that having to do with God's will

God is not bound, as you said, but then again I don't believe He took the gifts away. They were always available as they are today, but today we have churches that don't believe in them and so they probably are not operating in those churches.

Same might be said of individuals. Look at faith. Some people had faith and some had great faith according to Jesus. The same can be true for us today individually and organizationally on many levels

Even within Pentecostalism that are some churches were the gifts operate more freely and some where they do not.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I see I have missed alot by being away for a brief bit.

[ouden katakrim]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

As far as His sovereignty and Will...that might be another discussion. I don't believe God controls absolutely everything, right down to the minute and second a cat sneezes. We have free will, it's not God's design that false doctrines were introduced, so if the gifts passed or partially passed do to some action or inaction of the church I don't see that having to do with God's will

God is not bound, as you said, but then again I don't believe He took the gifts away. They were always available as they are today, but today we have churches that don't believe in them and so they probably are not operating in those churches.

Same might be said of individuals. Look at faith. Some people had faith and some had great faith according to Jesus. The same can be true for us today individually and organizationally on many levels

Even within Pentecostalism that are some churches were the gifts operate more freely and some where they do not.

Well the gifts, the normalcy of them or not, is not the same thing as a cat sneezing. Of course a cat sneezing really has nothing to do with free will, a sneeze being an involuntary action. But a cat sneezing does bring God glory, it being a consequence of His creative decree. So He has ordained cat sneezing in order to bring Him glory...and in that sense Has "willed" it to happen.

Free will does not exist because there is no such thing as a decision made for no reason. All decisions are wrapped up in reason and are based on the actor's desires and affections. But our desires and affections are a secondary cause of events, God's creative decree and His ordaining what becomes whether by allowing or directly affecting (whichever works for you...it's basically the same thing)...that is the primary cause of ALL events including false doctrine. False doctrine is the winnowing process which God ordains. So false doctrine brings God glory and is ordained by Him to do such.

He controls everything and is active in His creation and church. To say that He allows certain events, because of man's free will and his evil intent, makes Him the guilty bystander, seems to me. But to say that He ordains, controls, wills and purposes certain events, even evil events, for good, using man's evil desires and evil intent, alleviates Him of the guilt of the bystander...even if the result is false doctrine. Him just leaving he course of events up to evil men is immoral.

As far as the gifts and the lack thereof, saying that the non-existence or relatively non-existence is simply a result of man's own devices and not God's desires then He is not, nor has He been, the shepherd of His church NOR is He the author of History...not to mention the "author and finisher" of our faith. And there's nothing wrong with the author

If the book doesn't look like the way you want it to look, then He is just not writing the book you want to read.

What happens, happens because He wants or desires that to happen.

ouden

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by ouden katakrim

Well the gifts, the normalcy of them or not, is not the same thing as a cat sneezing. Of course a cat sneezing really has nothing to do with free will, a sneeze being an involuntary action. But a cat sneezing does bring God glory, it being a consequence of His creative decree. So He has ordained cat sneezing in order to bring Him glory...and in that sense Has "willed" it to happen.

Free will does not exist because there is no such thing as a decision made for no reason. All decisions are wrapped up in reason and are based on the actor's desires and affections. But our desires and affections are a secondary cause of events, God's creative decree and His ordaining what becomes whether by allowing or directly affecting (whichever works for you...it's basically the same thing)...that is the primary cause of ALL events including false doctrine. False doctrine is the winnowing process which God ordains. So false doctrine brings God glory and is ordained by Him to do such.

He controls everything and is active in His creation and church. To say that He allows certain events, because of man's free will and his evil intent, makes Him the guilty bystander, seems to me. But to say that He ordains, controls, wills and purposes certain events, even evil events, for good, using man's evil desires and evil intent, alleviates Him of the guilt of the bystander...even if the result is false doctrine. Him just leaving he course of events up to evil men is immoral.

As far as the gifts and the lack thereof, saying that the non-existence or relatively non-existence is simply a result of man's own devices and not God's desires then He is not, nor has He been, the shepherd of His church NOR is He the author of History...not to mention the "author and finisher" of our faith. And there's nothing wrong with the author

If the book doesn't look like the way you want it to look, then He is just not writing the book you want to read.

What happens, happens because He wants or desires that to happen.

ouden

I love calvinists

[Maximilian]

Re-read this thread. It was interesting to watch how all of this unfolded. From Page 22 on. Began with someone asking questions about MD Treece, Pel's comments about UPCI's lack of scholarship, NOW's speculation that "it's the same place that Trouvere and her husband got theirs," Baron's research and then WHAM. Here we are.