Apostolic Truth Questions

[Backseat Radio]

sorry if i seem a little quick to judge. i am knew to the word and am carefull as to what i listen to.(now)
  some times i am quick to disregard something and maybe i should take time to consider,but in no way is this a weakness only a defence mechenism.

                                                   -yo

Really any Christian whether they're new to the word or not should use caution in what they accept and believe.  I do believe God gave us our mind and our Bible so that we can study and sort out the various things we hear and see from religious groups and science and disguard whats not true.  Even the apostle John told us this...

1 John 4:1(KJV)  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

most of us that post in the Bible Discussion section (myself included) agree on these things...

1)  There is only one God
2)  Jesus is God manifest in flesh
3)  The gospel message of the early church is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and our obedience to the gospel in repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and walking in newness of life (renewing of the Holy Spirit as Paul put it)

[Backseat Radio]

Also for your sake since your very new to all of this I'll not post the oddball stuff that I'm sometimes known to post.  I would encourage you to search and study the scripture for yourself and follow what it says. 

[yosemite]

hey thanks!!!   now we can do that!!   glad to see mutual ground.    -yo

[Q-tip]

Have to be at work soon so I just quickly responded to some of your points OGIA.  All of the following responses were done in a friendly spirit.  If they come across otherwise it was not intentional.

It is my understanding that God created angels before the earth:

Job 38
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I don't know how that affects your theory, but just thought I'd throw that in there.   

I think it supports it. Here is what I presented in an earlier discussion.

John:
1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.  The same was in the beginning with God.
3.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Being that there was nothing but God in the beginning then it could possibly be concluded that the angels could not have existed because there was no place for them to exist.   

So in the beginning the heavens were created:
1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We know that God created the stars on the fourth day:

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Citing Job 38:7, many believe that the angels were present on the day the stars were created.  If this is the case then it could possibly be concluded that the angels were created on either the 1st day or sometime before the 4th day.  Nonetheless, the angels were in existence prior to the temptation of Eve.  In this time period the angels were created and the fallen angels were ejected from heaven.

I'm not sure how this applies?

It has always been my understanding that man and sin could not survive in his actual presence.   I believe there is scripture that suggests such but don't have time to find it right now.    If God is omnipresent, then how could the world be so full of evil.  How could such things exist in his presence.

I think God knew "very well", even perfectly, and knows the same at all times.  This is where foreknowledge comes into the picture for me.  Existing in eternity (though it might be more accurate to say that God IS eternity) and seeing "the end from the beginning" really takes away (for me) the possibility that God created Lucifer so that man could attain free will....if that is what you are implying.

To  me it adds to the idea that God created him for said purpose.  Personally, I can not see how free will could have existed without God creating something for the purpose of opposing him.

I believe God created Satan "as is"  knowing very well the future events that would occur.  Which makes since that he would use Satan to represent all that opposes him since God could not do it himself.  God being all knowing could have simply not created Satan or he could have simply caused him to not exist.

If he did not have a purpose for Satan then why would  he allow him to exist?  Why would he give him dominion on the earth as the "prince of the world".  Why did he allow Satan to tempt Eve?

The very order of events in the Garden of Eden further suggests to me that it was Satans purpose oppose God thus presenting Free will.

The tree (an object of temptation) was placed in the garden.  Ever wonder why?
God gave the command not to eat of it........?
Satan was allowed to enter the garden. ......?
Satan's role was to convince Eve to eat from the tree which was against Gods will.

And it was then that the sinful nature of man entered the scene.

I believe anything that God creates is created with the same freedom He has to choose right and wrong.  The difference is that God CANNOT choose wrong.  It's just not in His vocabulary.  But, it was and is in the angels' and ours.  "Not God" is fallible, but God chose to create "not God" anyway.  THAT act brought about free will, not Satan.

This raises an interesting question.  If God can not choose wrong, then how could he have chosen to create free will (being all knowing)  in the fallen angels.   I don't think God directly created free will, but did create something to oppose his will to create free will.

Did you ever wonder if God created man because of Satan's fall

Yep.  But I like the other explanation because (for me) it makes more sense.

I think this is a fatal dagger in your thought.      You cannot discount the fact that Jesus is God in flesh or that the Holy Ghost is this same One Spirit active in our lives and in the world.

Absolutely. But not a dagger.

Jesus was God in the flesh just like the Holy Ghost is in us.  Key word here is "in".


If  omnipresent then he would be equally in everything at all times.  He would be in all people and not just the believer. 

For us to be filled we must take on something that was not previously there.  The Holy Ghost had to come from one place and fill another.

If God is truly omnipresent then why does one have to receive the HG?

If God is not everywhere, how are sinners being saved everywhere?  Unless the Father, the Spirit, draw a sinner he/she cannot be saved.  God MUST be everywhere or neither you or I would be born again.

Who spreads his word?   Christians do of course.

It is what Believers are encouraged to do.   Gods works through the believer and reaches out to the unbeliever.

The NT does not need to say that God is omnipresent.  His nature cannot change, for He is immutable.  The HG is God's "presence" active in the world today.  It (and I use that term to emphasize the role and not the person that is the HG) is not a "fill in" for God while He takes a sabbatical (pun intended   ).

If the Bible does not suggest that God is omnipresent then I believe that it is a nature of God worthy of  exploration.   Since the Bible is his word and how we obtain our understanding of him then we should be able to look there to find an answer.  If one explanation is supported but another is not then it has merit.



God Bless.

Chris.

[OGIA]

ogia, it is my recent discovery (maybe) that you and i may be on the same old path. in another post you made to a just beleive person, i saw a resemblence of the paths we take. at this time i can only say thanks for that comment and your latest post here and i agree. i'll be studying your posts more indepth from now on. there are some here that i am just going to disregard totally.

Well, yo, I do see a whole lot of merit in the "old paths".  I see (through conversations with my mom and old timers) so much more consecration in the generations before me.  Now, I'm speaking exclusively about the USA, not across the world.  I don't really know about that other than what I hear. 

It does seem that the Apostolic Pentecostals of my generation forward to today are getting lazier and lazier and that there is more worldliness in the Church than ever before.  It seems there is less anointing, which makes sense.  And, unfortunately, I am just as guilty of the ones I am criticizing.  I pray for God's mercy everyday, that He doesn't smite this U.S. Church into the ground!  It just seems to be getting worse and worse.   

i have only recently discovered that staying on the old path is better than publicly stating ideas or thoughts where the bible does not go into detail. publicly, i prefer to stick to what the apostles preached word for word. this is and always will be the old path. it is not subject for debate and does not change from one person to the next nor does it change with time.

One of the problems I've noticed is that it seems that preachers are having to come up with more and more entertaining material each year.  They always have to have some "new" revelation it seems, or the crowd is not going to ask them to come back.  WE have created that monster!!  Plus, I fear many of the newer ministers (and even too many of the older ones) are trying to soft soap the Gospel too much in an effort to grow, using the justification that they don't want to run the sinner off.  Here in Louisiana is probably where most of this started.  People want entertainment.  They want to "know Him in the power of the resurrection" but not in the "fellowship of suffering".  Yep....I'm guilty of that, too!   

the only thing that changes is us. we may grow in knowledge of the spirit but the truth never changes.

Exactly!!   

sorry if i seem a little quick to judge. i am knew to the word and am carefull as to what i listen to.(now)
  some times i am quick to disregard something and maybe i should take time to consider,but in no way is this a weakness only a defence mechenism.

It's taking (present tense) me a long time to get this forum stuff down.  I had to take a sabbatical from GP about 2 years ago, I guess.  I was very quick to lash out at others.  Has my theology changed?  Some of it, but it's only solidified what I knew.  I hope I've matured in my knowledge and not traded it in for something new. 

I think way too many are always looking for some "new thing", as the Epicurians on Mars Hill.  They are not content with the "old paths", as they are called.  I believe that sometimes canned answers are the only answer.  If someone doesn't like it, they will likely go looking for some "new thing" or new revelation, even if they have to get it from someone else.

I've decided that I will NOT change in the areas of Oneness and what constitutes the new birth [John 3:3-8; Acts 2:38].  My understanding will hopefully deepen about both topics, but I don't see any other doctrines more perfect and true than these.  If they are "old paths", then so be it.  It was good enough for the old timers, and it should be good enough for me.  I just pray that some in the various Oneness organizations in this country do a quick about face.   

[Melody]

one thing I want to toss my 2¢ in about.   

Canned answers only have become a cliché because folks with little or no anointing throw them about as if to make a show of their authority.  This has and always will turn people off of them and the the phrases they use.  Plenty of people can quote the Bible folks!  That means nothing.  But to have understanding of what their quoting, and impart that understanding; while bearing the fruit of the Spirit, that is what makes what they say stick and get repeated.  So using a canned answer only has any value if ya have a clue to what you're talking about and can do it in the right spirit. 

[yosemite]

yeah!!!! thats it!! now that will preach!!! would love to converse more on this, but for now i'm headed to church. there will be a preacher there that can read the mail(if you know what i mean). man i hate to leave now, its gettin good. but ohhh well.  this goes to ogia havnt got time now to read others posts. sorry,gotta go!!
 ttfn-yo

[titushome]

John:
1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.  The same was in the beginning with God.
3.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Being that there was nothing but God in the beginning then it could possibly be concluded that the angels could not have existed because there was no place for them to exist.  

So in the beginning the heavens were created:
1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We know that God created the stars on the fourth day:

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Citing Job 38:7, many believe that the angels were present on the day the stars were created.  If this is the case then it could possibly be concluded that the angels were created on either the 1st day or sometime before the 4th day.  Nonetheless, the angels were in existence prior to the temptation of Eve.  In this time period the angels were created and the fallen angels were ejected from heaven.

I have just one comment I thought I'd throw in: it depends on what "beginning" you're talking about.  In the very beginning, before God created anything, then of course there was, by definition, nothing and no one but God.

But the "beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1 isn't necessarily the very beginning.  I believe it refers to the beginning of planet Earth as we know it.  If that's the case, then there's nothing that says God couldn't have created the angels - or other worlds, or whole other universes - prior to the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1.

[yosemite]

i used to dwell in these areas myself and have recently realized there are no scriptures for this and is mans foolishness to try and fill in these blanks.

God told us what we needed to know for salvation,the HG will lead into all truth. will HG tell us what God did before? dont know!!

  we will understand it better by and by!!      

[Q-tip]

But the "beginning" referred to in Genesis 1:1 isn't necessarily the very beginning.  I believe it refers to the beginning of planet Earth as we know it.  If that's the case, then there's nothing that says God couldn't have created the angels - or other worlds, or whole other universes - prior to the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1.

When I think on controversial subjects (really all subjects)  I always keep in mind this scripture..

1 Corinthians 14:33-   For God is not the author of confusion......

With that in mind I search for what explanation  is  most supported by scripture and makes the most sense.



We are given no information that suggests that anything else existed before the creation in Genesis.  But based on what we are given...


God created light on the first day. 

We are not told that light existed elsewhere but we are told that he created it at this time.  It could not have existed since he created it.  So "the beginning"  is the beginning of all light.



God created the Stars (which would include other galaxies) on the 4 th day.  Which to me pretty much verifies that the beginning refers to the beginning of all other worlds and universes and not just the earth.

1.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2.  The same was in the beginning with God.
3.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Since I assume that this tells us that there was absolutely nothing but God in the beginning, I conclude that the angels did not exist.  Otherwise it would most likely have said that "In the beginning was the word and the angels.  After all, the angels have played a vital role in Gods dealings with man.

 
God Bless.

Chris.

[titushome]

We are given no information that suggests that anything else existed before the creation in Genesis.  But based on what we are given...


God created light on the first day. 

We are not told that light existed elsewhere but we are told that he created it at this time.  It could not have existed since he created it.  So "the beginning"  is the beginning of all light.

Ah, but He is the light.  So as long as He has existed, light has existed.

But maybe I'm just stirring the pot now?   

God created the Stars (which would include other galaxies) on the 4 th day.  Which to me pretty much verifies that the beginning refers to the beginning of all other worlds and universes and not just the earth.

That would be referring to the stars we now know.  What if there were others that came before?

[skeet5413]

OK, I got a question..when did the dinasaurs come into the picture? was it before Gen. 1:1 or somewhere before 1:2?

[skeet5413]

  Here!Here! I'm a Pentecostal and proud of it!!   Apostolic all the way

[skeet5413]

 :great:Hey, I'm a newbee and I can say that as long as its the truth and its scriptual...like I heard someone say before give me that ole time religion its good enough for me!!

[Backseat Radio]

OK, I got a question..when did the dinosaurs come into the picture? was it before Gen. 1:1 or somewhere before 1:2?

Since the Dinosaurs would class in the animal kingdom they would have been made on the 5th and 6th days of creation.  I personally believe the dinosaurs were around at least through the time of Job because of the description Job gives of the behemoth.  Moving his tail like a cedar would be a perfect description of something like what we call a brontosaurus.  The fosils we have today could have easily been the result of the great flood.

[Q-tip]

Ah, but He is the light.  So as long as He has existed, light has existed.

The light of the world.

So since he created the light and he was the light, then he created himself before he existed.  Am I understanding this correctly?  

But maybe I'm just stirring the pot now?

That would be referring to the stars we now know.  What if there were others that came before?

If there were such evidence provided then I would certainly be willing to consider it.  However there is none.  Not even a scripture that could  be misconstrued to suggest so.   Or is there?

Even if it were so we are still left with nothing but God in our beginning.  In our beginning there was God and no mention of angels.


*Hands the spoon back to Titushome*

:grin:

[OGIA]

If  omnipresent then he would be equally in everything at all times.  He would be in all people and not just the believer. 

I'm not sure why this needs to be true?  I do believe there is "something" of God in every person, be it that measure of faith or the soul or whatever.

For us to be filled we must take on something that was not previously there.  The Holy Ghost had to come from one place and fill another.

The very definition of omnipresence precludes something having to come from somewhere else.  It is.....well, it just is.  In this case, "it" is God.  He does not have to move to go somewhere else.  He is already somewhere else.  He is in places outside of the universe He created.  He is there now and always has been.  He is everywhere present at all times. 

If God is truly omnipresent then why does one have to receive the HG?

God being omnipresent and someone having to partake of His divine nature don't contradict in my mind.  It's clear that God even exists in hell, but that does not mean He resides there or has taken residence in demons. 

If the Bible does not suggest that God is omnipresent then I believe that it is a nature of God worthy of  exploration.  Since the Bible is his word and how we obtain our understanding of him then we should be able to look there to find an answer.  If one explanation is supported but another is not then it has merit.

But, the Bible does speak to God's omnipresence.  If He said in the very first verse of the Bible and never again, He is still omnipresent.  God is not a man that He needs to convince us by repeating Himself.  I think He only does that out of sheer mercy. 

:grin:

[yosemite]

wow!

[OGIA]

                yo! 



                                                           

[Q-tip]

I do believe there is "something" of God in every person, be it that measure of faith or the soul or whatever.

This, of course, is subject to debate.

God being omnipresent and someone having to partake of His divine nature don't contradict in my mind

The idea of omnipresence suggests that he is fully everwhere and in everything at all times.  This does not necessarily coincide with many, many scriptures that suggest that things or people were sent to or from God.  There are so many "to's and fro's" that the idea of omnipresence may cause more confusion with the word than it would if he were not omnipresent.     

It is not suggested that God is in every person whether partially or fully.  It does say we receive him.  Suggesting to me that he was not necessarily already there.  Even Acts 2:38 is clear when it says that we "shall receive the Holy Ghost".  How do we really take on something if it is already there?  We receive him when we believe, repent and are baptized... right?

How can God and Gods nature be separated?

The very definition of omnipresence precludes something having to come from somewhere else.  It is.....well, it just is.  In this case, "it" is God.  He does not have to move to go somewhere else.  He is already somewhere else.  He is in places outside of the universe He created.  He is there now and always has been.  He is everywhere present at all times.

Is he?  :grin:

So, if he is everywhere and in everything, why do I have to believe, repent and be baptized in order to receive him?  Scripture is clear that things either come from or go to him.  If he were already there then there would be no coming or going. 

Can we make "omnipresence" compatible with Gods word.  I feel that "not omnipresence" is much more compatible.

But, the Bible does speak to God's omnipresence

The good thing about discussions on such topics ( when conducted in the proper manner ) is that we can test the validity of our ideas or beliefs through different perspectives and thoughts on certain scriptures.  Which is mostly why I brought this up.  I was unable to find where it suggests that he is and always has been omnipresent and by presenting this idea I knew that someone would point it out if it did say so. 


Where does it say that he is omnipresent?


*throws stirring spoon away and breaks out blender*



Good night and God Bless.

Chris.

[yosemite]

i think god is everywhere, with everybody, saved and unsaved. walking right there beside them, waiting for them to reach out and receive him. if God was in everyone from birth it kills free will autamatically. to live for God is to die to self.

   i love the old poem foot prints in the sand.-yo

[titushome]

Ah, but He is the light.  So as long as He has existed, light has existed.

The light of the world.

He's more than the light of the world:

"This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "  I John 1:5

So since he created the light and he was the light, then he created himself before he existed.  Am I understanding this correctly?  

Yep.  (More or less.  )  He's the self-existant One.

That would be referring to the stars we now know.  What if there were others that came before?

If there were such evidence provided then I would certainly be willing to consider it.  However there is none.  Not even a scripture that could  be misconstrued to suggest so.   Or is there?

Neither is there any scriptural evidence that God did no other creating before the creating described in Genesis.  But as I mentioned before, this is all just speculation.  It's ultimately pointless, and could go on endlessly.  I'll let it go. 

[yosemite]

Neither is there any scriptural evidence that God did no other creating before the creating described in Genesis.  But as I mentioned before, this is all just speculation.  It's ultimately pointless, and could go on endlessly.  I'll let it go. 

no scripture =unfounded conversation and will lead in circles, so i agre with titushome.-yo

[OGIA]

Where does it say that he is omnipresent?

It's kinda pointless to continue supposing if this is a point of disagreement. 

There are many scriptures that describe God's omnipresence.  Psalm 139 is a good start.   :grin:

[Q-tip]

"This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. "  I John 1:5

Then if God is omnipresent there can be no darkness at all since all things would be in him.  

Scripture says that in the beginning there was only god.  No darkness and no light, nothing but God was in existence.

Any reference to God being the "light" in the Bible only relates to him being the light of the world.  If it were otherwise he would have said so.

Yep.  (More or less.  )  He's the self-existant One.

But this is not supported by Genesis 1:3 which states -"And God said, Let there be light and there was light".

God could not have made more simple and clear....God existed before he created light.  

Neither is there any scriptural evidence that God did no other creating before the creating described in Genesis.  But as I mentioned before, this is all just speculation.  
 

So why speculate?  Lets just accept what scripture does say..."In the beginning.."  

Lets just take Gods word "as is".

It's ultimately pointless, and could go on endlessly.

I love to explore how God deals with us.  My thoughts may not be acceptable to traditional Christian beliefs but they do agree with scripture ( well... to me anyway).  As such I don't agree that it is pointless.  

As far as it being endless well, that could apply to just about every conceivable topic up for discussion.  

I'll let it go.

I hope I am not stirring up any frustration within you.  It is not my intention.  I know I can be relentless but discussing ( and defending ) an idea is the only way to test its validity.  

God Bless.

Chris.