Questions Pentecostals CANNOT answer!

1. If salvation is "solely by grace," w y are not all !eo!le save" since "t e grace of #o" t at bringet salvation at a!!eare" to all $en" %Titus &'11() &. *n. 1+',+ teac es t at *esus an" t e -at er are one. .ut "oes t is $ean one !erson or a unity between !ersons) /oes 1 Cor. ,'0 t en $ean t at Paul an" A!ollos were one !erson) /oes 1! . 2',1 $ean t at a usban" an" wife are one !erson) 3ee also #en. 11'4 an" *n. 15'&1 for e6a$!les. *n. 15'&1 in"icates t at t e "oneness" of t e "isci!les was to be 7ust li8e t at between *esus an" t e -at er. ,. 3ince Acts &',0 teac es t at t e ba!tis$ co$$an"e" is "for t e re$ission of sins," is t ere any reason to believe t at any ot er cases of water ba!tis$ were !ractice" for any ot er reason %e.g., Acts 1+'90, 1:'2() ;If so, w ere are t e scri!tures t at in"icate it)< 9. 3ince Acts 0',4=,0 teac es t at ba!tis$ is by i$$ersion %i.e., ""own into water" ... "u! out of t e water"(, is t ere any reason to believe t at any ot er cases of water ba!tis$ were !ractice" in a "ifferent way %e.g., Acts &'91, 1+'90, 14'12,,,() 2. 3ince Acts &'9=11 teac es t at w en $en s!o8e in tongues %i.e., "as t e 3!irit gave t e utterance"(, t ey s!o8e actual, un"erstan"able u$an languages, w y believe t at any ot er cases of tongue s!ea8ing were in languages w ic coul" not be un"erstoo" %e.g., Acts 1+'94, 1:'4, 1 Cor. 1&=19() 4. 3ince all e6a$!les of $iracles in t e NT were "efinitive an" clearly visible signs, won"ers an" !owers ;review t e$ all to verify t is<, w y a!!ly t e wor" $iracle %in t e biblical sense( to t ings t at clearly "o not fit t at "escri!tion to"ay) #o" acts in t e affairs of $en to"ay, but if t ese actions >ualifie" as NT $iracles, t ey woul" be i$!ossible to "eny %*n. 11'95=2,, Acts 9'1,=&&(. 5. 3ince t e $iracles in t e NT were for t e !ur!ose of confir$ing t e newly= reveale" wor" %?8. 14'&+(, w at new revelation %i.e., not in t e New Testa$ent( is being confir$e" by $iracles to"ay) 0. If we cannot un"erstan" t e bible ali8e, ow are we to un"erstan" t e confusion being generate" by everyone clai$ing to s!ea8 un"er t e influence of t e @oly 3!irit %1 Cor. 19',,() :. If so$eone receives t e @oly 3!irit w en t ey are save" or at ba!tis$, w y "i" t e 3a$aritans, w o were save", in Acts 0 not yet ave t e @oly 3!irit)

1+.3o$eone clai$ing to s!ea8 in tongues an" eal, s oul" also be able to "rin8 "ea"ly !oison, be unaffecte" by t e bites of !oisonous sna8es, an" eal wit 1++A success. 11.1 Cor 1,'0=1,' B et er Paul inten"e" it or not, one cannot wal8 away fro$ t is illustration, wit out t in8ing t at #o" was telling t e Corint ians t at t e s!iritual gifts belonge" to a "c il" oo"" stage in t e c urc . @ence, s!iritual gifts are not a sign of "s!iritual elitis$", rat er t ey infer t at so$et ing is $issing or not yet co$!lete. 1&.B y "o !eo!le loo8 over t eir sol"ier for t e catc er, 7ust before t ey are slain in t e 3!irit) 1,.If tongues is so centrally i$!ortant, w y is t e gift of tongues not again $entione" after Acts 1:'4 an" t e boo8 of first Corint ians)

19.

B y are Pentecostal ealing revivals -CDD of genuinely an" un"is!ute"ly cri!!le" w eelc air=ri""en !eo!le w oN1E1F #1T @1AD1/)))