The Nature of Truth

image_pdfimage_print

Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"
— John 18:37-38b

If you used to be in the UPC then let me ask you, How many times have you heard someone say that they are thankful "for the Truth"? Or perhaps they said that they were thankful that God revealed "the Truth" to them. Or maybe they talked about how anointed a non-UPC singer or minister was, and then they said that it was a shame that the person they were talking about "did not have the Truth."

I used to hear those statements all the time! I think that we all have. But I am one of those people who likes to ask "Why" about everything. As a matter of fact, one of my favorite quotes says this:

"Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton was the one who asked why" (Bernard Baruch).

One of the things that many Christians do is rattle off a Scripture or a phrase without stopping to think about what it actually means. I think that we all do that; that’s certainly not something that’s limited to the UPC! But one thing that you do hear the UPC talk a lot about is "having the Truth." So in this article I want to examine this question: What does it mean for something to be true? Once I have investigated the meaning of truth then I will look at two central UPC doctrines to see whether or not they really are "true."

Now, a lot of people might be thinking that I’m silly for asking what it means for something to be true. After all, if something is true then it is…true! But what does that word mean? More specifically, how does the word apply to us Christians?

One good definition of truth is that it is consistent and it corresponds to reality. That is the definition that my systematic theology professor repeated until we practically had it coming out our ears! And it is certainly a good definition. Notice that the definition says that truth corresponds to reality, not to itself. The reason it says that is because there are plenty of people who teach and believe that truth just needs to correspond to itself. The problem with this is obvious: If a person starts with an untrue starting point then the rest of their system (whatever it might be) will also be untrue.

My philosophy professor used evolution as an example of a view of truth that corresponds with itself instead of corresponding to reality. He called it a "mesh" system, meaning that if any one point of it was proven false then a new theory was made to account for the portion that was proven false. In other words, there’s no way to prove evolution false to someone who believes strongly in the theory. Why? Because it corresponds with itself, even though many scientists would argue that the actual points of the theory are incorrect. (I believe that the UPC also has a "mesh" view of truth, but that is not the subject that I am discussing in this article!)

The point is this: There is more than one view of truth and knowledge that exists in the world today. For instance, many different religions believe that there is no one correct way to God; they believe that all paths are equally valid1. The Christian view stands in opposition to this because it claims that Jesus is the only way to God, but the religious pluralist responds by saying that the Christian view is right for the Christians but the Muslim view is right for the Muslims, etc.

So with that in mind let us return to the original question: What is truth?

Well, as I already said, my systematic theology professor defined truth as that which is consistent and corresponds with reality. I do believe that is a very good view of truth, so I want to use that for a starting point and break this subject down a little farther. Specifically, I want to explain why truth must be consistent and why it must correspond with itself. To do this we must look at three fundamental laws of logic. These are:

  1. The law of non-contradiction
  2. The law of the excluded middle
  3. The law of identity

Please bear with me here! I know it’s easy to zone out as soon as someone writes or says "fundamental laws," but this is important to understanding exactly what truth is! And I promise that it’s not that complicated either. Actually, these three laws are very simple and even intuitive.

The law of non-contradiction simply says: Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Example: Something cannot be green and not green at the same time and in the same way. That’s pretty simple, right? Similarly, I cannot be in my chair and out of my chair at this very moment in time. I am sitting in my chair, and it’s impossible for me to not be sitting in my chair at the same time.

The second law, the law of the excluded middle, says: Something either is or is not. In other words, something either exists or it does not exist. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Very simple and intuitive!

Finally, the law of identity says: Something is what it is. This is very similar to the first law. Something cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time.

These laws seem very intuitive (and they are) but the reason they are given names is because they serve as a starting point for all discussions. Even if a person does not know the laws by name they know them intuitively. Furthermore, these laws cannot be refuted. It’s impossible! Why? Because a person must use one the laws in order to refute the laws! Give it a try, it’s kind of fun! (I tried it when my philosophy professor presented these laws to us, and I found out that they are impossible to refute. I guess all those Ph.D.’s were right after all; at least on this point.)

Now that I’ve given these three laws let me bring it to a practical level by looking briefly at the UPC’s view of baptism. The UPC view of baptism is that a person must be baptized in the Name of Jesus in order to be saved2. However, it is my experience that many people in the UPC find it hard to accept the idea that God is sending almost every believer for the last 2,000 years to hell because they were baptized the wrong way. So, when backed into a corner, many in the UPC will say something like this:

"I refuse to put anyone in hell; I believe that God might let people into Heaven if they were baptized in the Titles and that was all they knew, but if they see the necessity of being baptized in the Name of Jesus and they refuse to obey ‘the Truth’ then they are responsible for their disobedience."

That statement sounds really good on the surface, but let’s apply the fundamental laws of logic to it. First, this statement is effectively saying that "the Truth" only becomes true once a person sees that it is true.

Think about that for a moment.That is like saying that the speed limit in front of my apartment only becomes 30 miles per hour when I see the sign, and that if I do not see that it is 30 miles per hour then the speed limit does not exist (or that it is not 30 miles per hour). See the fallacy? If the speed limit is 30 miles per hour then it is 30 miles per hour whether or not I realize that it is. In the same way, if baptism in the Name of Jesus is necessary for salvation then it is necessary whether or not a person realizes that it is. On the other hand, if a person can get into Heaven without being baptized in the Name of Jesus then baptism in the Name of Jesus is not necessary for salvation.

Put quite simply: Baptism in the Name of Jesus cannot simultaneously be necessary and unnecessary at the same time.

I believe that the illustration I just gave makes it easier to understand why the three fundamental laws of logic are so important! A doctrine or belief can sound really good on the surface, but it might not hold up when put to the logical test.

For instance, earlier in this article I commented on the Hindu believe that all paths to God are equally valid. This is what Dr. Norman Geisler has to say about that idea in his book "Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views" (the italics and bold print are added by me for emphasis):

How does one decide on a world view? They cannot all be true, for they hold mutually exclusive views on many essential points. For example, atheism and theism cannot both be true, for atheism affirms that “God does not exist” and theism affirms that “God does exist.” Likewise, God cannot be both finite (finite godism) and infinite (theism). Nor can miracles be possible (theism) and impossible (deism, atheism). The opposite of truth is falsehood. Hence, if one view is true, then the opposite must be false, unless, of course, one claims that there is no such thing as truth. But the problem with such a statement is that it claims to be true, thereby defeating its own claim that nothing is true3.

The last sentence is the most important. Did you catch the problem that Dr. Geisler is pointing out? He is saying that when a person says that all truths are equally valid (such as the pluralist belief that all paths lead to God) then they are claiming absolutely that there is no absolute truth! In other words, they are breaking the law of non-contradiction because they are claiming that there are absolutely no absolutes! They are making a statement that they claim is true, but the statement claims that there can be no truth!

So the pluralist claim that all paths lead to God sounds very good, just like it sounds good when someone in the UPC claims that baptism in Jesus’ Name only becomes necessary once a person realizes it is necessary. But when put to the test we find that both of these views are equally impossible from a logical standpoint. Of course, a person can still choose to believe these things, but they need to recognize that they are believing them purely because of faith and that there is no logical basis (nor can there be) for their view.

So let me summarize what we have covered so far, and then we will move on to examining two central UPC doctrines to see whether or not they are true.

For a general definition of truth I have chosen the definition given by my systematic theology professor: Truth is that which is consistent and corresponds to reality. For the rest of this article I am going to use a more specific definition for determining biblical truth:

Biblical truth is that which is consistent and does not conflict with other Scripture.

With that definition in mind let’s look at two UPC beliefs to see whether or not they are true. In other words, let’s see if these two beliefs are consistent and do not conflict with other Scripture.

The first belief that I have chosen to examine is the belief that a person must repent in order to be saved. The official UPC position says:

Luke 13:5…reads, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish". [sic] Plainly, then, the tragic alternative to repentance is eternal perdition4.

The question that we need to ask is this: Does the UPC belief that a person needs to repent of their sins in order to be saved contradict other Scriptures? Specifically, does that belief contradict other Scriptures such as Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13, which say that everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved?

On the surface it appears that there is a contradiction, but I am convinced that this contradiction is only an apparent one. I feel that repentance is indeed necessary for salvation. The reason that I believe this is simple: It is impossible to accept Jesus as Savior if a person does not believe that they are in need of saving. In other words, if I do not realize that I am a sinner then why would I call on the Name of the Lord and ask Him for salvation?

On top of this, Jesus commanded repentance (cf. Mat. 4:17, Luke 13:5). If a person blatantly refuses to obey Jesus and repent then I propose that they do not truly believe He is Lord. When a person truly accepts that someone is their Lord then it requires that they admit that they are not Lord. Put bluntly, the most difficult barrier to getting people to come to Christ is getting them to admit that He is God and that they are not.

So, once again, I do not believe there is a real contradiction between the UPC view that repentance is necessary for salvation and the Scriptures that say that a person just needs to call upon the Name of the Lord to be saved. I am convinced that calling on the Name of the Lord involves repentance, so the contradiction is only apparent, not real.

The score is therefore 1-0 for the UPC.Now let us look at another doctrine that is central to the UPC: The doctrine that says that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.

(Before I begin I should point out that the UPC view is that the Holy Ghost is necessary for salvation, and on this point I agree with them, just like every other evangelical Christian does. However, speaking in tongues is synonymous with the Holy Ghost to the UPC (since they believe that the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is that a person speaks in tongues5), so that is why I say that I am examining the UPC doctrine that says that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.)

The UPC uses three Scripture passages to "prove" that speaking in tongues is the evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost: Acts 2:1-4, Acts 10:44-48, and Acts 19:1-66. From these three passages the UPC extracts the doctrine that "The initial, outward evidence [of receiving the Holy Ghost] is speaking in tongues, which means speaking miraculously in languages the speaker does not know7."

But is this doctrine true, or does it contradict other Scripture? Specifically, does it contradict 1 Cor. 12:28-30, which says:

1Co 12:28-30 (NASB, bold print added for emphasis)
(28)  And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.
(29)  All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
(30)  All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

It is obvious from the context that Paul is asking rhetorical questions and that the answer to each question is "No." It is very important that Paul did not ask, "All do not have the gift of tongues"; Instead, he asked, "All do not speak with tongues, do they?" (This is a crucial difference since the UPC believes that Paul was talking about the gift of tongues in this passage, which the UPC believes is separate from "tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost." It is my opinion that if every believer who received the Holy Ghost was speaking in tongues then Paul never would have worded his question in the matter that he did. His goal was to cut down on confusion in the church at Corinth, not add to it!)

So at this point in the discussion the UPC has three Scripture passages that they claim are examples of people speaking in tongues when they initially received the gift of the Holy Ghost. From this they extrapolate the doctrine that all believers speak in tongues when they receive the Holy Ghost. In contrast to this we have a direct statement from Paul saying that all believers do not speak with tongues.

This definitely appears to be a true contradiction, but let us keep looking.

The question that we need to ask next is this: Are there any examples of people being filled with the Holy Ghost or receiving the Holy Ghost when they did not speak with tongues? Interestingly enough, there is one example: Paul himself.

Act 9:17-19a NASB (bold print added for emphasis)
(17)  So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
(18)  And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
(19)  and he took food and was strengthened.

Apparently Ananias did not plan on wasting any time. He walked in the door and told Paul that he had been sent for two reasons: 1) that Paul would regain his sight and 2) that Paul would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Then Ananias gets right down to business; he lays his hands on Paul and Paul’s vision is restored. Then what happened? Paul got baptized. Then what happened? He ate a meal.

And that’s it.

No mention of tongues.

So it appears that the UPC’s claim that "Speaking with other tongues has been connected with Spirit baptism since the beginning of the church age"8 commits the sin of omission by failing to include every applicable example of people being filled with the Holy Ghost. It is also interesting that there is no mention of any of the (approximately) 3,000 believers baptized on the Day of Pentecost speaking in tongues (Acts 2:41).

(Another example of someone being filled with the Holy Ghost and not speaking in tongues is when John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost. According to Luke 1:15 he was filled with the Spirit while still in his mother’s womb, and, while it is possible that he spokes in tongues, I find it rather unlikely.)

Also, on closer inspection of the UPC’s "proof Scriptures" for tongues being the initial evidence of a person receiving the Holy Ghost we find that one of the passages does not even qualify! Which one? Acts 19:1-6. The careful reader will note that the passage does not say that the 12 disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, it says that the Holy Ghost came upon them. This seems like a small difference, but it is a very important one. It was quite common all throughout the Old Testament for the Holy Spirit to "come upon" a person or group of people, yet we know from John 7:39 that the Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified. (For examples of the Holy Ghost coming upon people in the Old Testament see the following Scriptures: Numbers 11:25, 24:2, Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14, 1 Samuel 10:10, 11:6, 16:13, 19:20, 19:23, 1 Chronicles 12:18, 2 Chronicles 20:14.)

Finally, we have Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:22 which says that tongues is a sign to the unbeliever, not the believer. The UPC view of tongues stands in direct opposition to Paul’s statement, because the UPC teaches that tongues is the initial evidence to the believer (and by extension to those around him or her) that they have received the Holy Ghost. So the UPC makes tongues a sign to the believer when it is actually meant to be a sign to the unbeliever.

So, to summarize, we actually have two Scripture passages showing where people spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:1-6 and Acts 10:44-48). In contrast to this we have a direct statement by Paul saying that not all believers speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30) and the absence of any record of Paul himself speaking in tongues when he received the Holy Ghost. Last but not least, we have the fact that tongues is supposed to be a sign to the unbeliever, not the believer.

In light of all of this evidence I am forced to conclude that there is a real contradiction between the UPC view and the biblical view of tongues. In other words, the UPC view of tongues is consistent with itself but it is not consistent with the entirety of Scripture. The fact that the UPC view is consistent with itself makes it sound very good, but when the entirety of Scripture is examined then one finds out that the UPC view is not consistent with the rest of Scripture.

So the score is now UPC 1 – Bible 1.

What can we learn from all of this? Well, if you are reading this article and you have never taken a philosophy course or a course in logic then you probably learned that an idea that seems so simple (like truth) can actually be quite complicated! In all seriousness, though, I am hoping that those who read this article will have a better idea of what truth actually is and that they will know how to apply the basic principles of logic to other doctrines and teachings to find out whether or not they are correct.

It is my hope and prayer that readers will always remember to check out the entirety of Scripture when examining doctrines to find out whether or not the doctrine conflicts with itself logically and whether or not it conflicts with other Scripture.

References:

  1. This is known as "religious pluralism" []
  2. "Why We Baptize In Jesus’ Name", Accessed 8/12/2007 []
  3. Worlds Apart: A Handbook On World Views". Geisler, Norman L., Watkins, William D []
  4. "Except Ye Repent", Accessed 8/12/2007 []
  5. "The Gift of the Holy Ghost", Accessed 8/12/2007 []
  6. Ibid. []
  7. Ibid. []
  8. Ibid. []

16 thoughts on “The Nature of Truth

  1. js

    Acts 10:44 …the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

    Peter recalls the same event.

    Acts 11:15 …the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

    Whether the Holy Ghost falls on them or fills them, its all the same result, that person receives the Holy Spirit.

  2. Kimberly

    Preacher, your last sentance shows your spirit and it was not necessary to your arguement. It could be taken as sarcasm.

  3. The Preacher

    The gifts of tongues is divers kinds of tongues= many different languages in the spirit.
    Not a natural gift this is the tongues Paul was talking about when he said do all speak with tongues.= languages from the spiritual divers kinds of tongues= many kinds of tongues or languages.

    And no not everyone has this gift to speak in tongues more than one language in the spirit. but we all pray in an unknown tongue= singular= the initial sign of the holy ghost Acts 2:1-5 if the apostles got the holy ghost it this way we must to. The bible is the blue print. Mans words are not.
    In all your getting get an understanding……..

  4. The Preacher

    Don’t stop speaking in tongues
    1 Thessalonians 5:19 (KJV)
    19 Quench not the Spirit.
    Paul spoke in tongues
    1 Corinthians 14:18-19 (KJV)
    18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
    19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
    Paul said don’t stop speaking in tongues. But he said to do it in an orderly manner.
    This chapter speaks of order in the church so not to confuse the unbeliever.
    1 Corinthians 14:39-40 (KJV)
    39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
    40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
    Do all speak with tongues? No not everyone has the gift of langueages or many= divers kinds of tongues.
    1 Corinthians 12:10-11 (KJV)
    10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
    11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
    We must read above and below the scripture to get a good understanding. When I am praying many times my tongue or language changes in the spirit. These things are spiritually discerned you cant find a commentary who does not speak in tongues to rightly divide the word of truth.
    1 Corinthians 14:2 (KJV)
    2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
    If you don’t speak in tongues something is missing and you are not edified.
    1 Corinthians 14:4-5 (KJV)
    4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
    5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
    We must pray in an unknown tongue for this is in the spirit. But pray for interpretation he did not say stop praying in tongues. Paul said he will pray in the spirit and with an understanding. Paul is teaching the order of the gifts. If you don’t have the Holy Spirit you can’t pray in the spirit or tongues.
    1 Corinthians 14:13-15 (KJV)
    13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
    14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
    15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

    1 Corinthians 12:27-31 (KJV)
    27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
    28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. = (a gift of tongues=one of the gifts of the spirit.)
    29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
    30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
    31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
    Paul is saying everyone has their own gifts. The apostles spoke in tongues when they received the holy Ghost.

    Acts 2:1-13 (KJV)
    1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
    2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
    3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
    4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

    When they were filled with the Holy Ghost they spoke in tongues, the spirit gave them this utterance.
    Three thousand were baptized and joined the church. This is the only way to get into the church. The bible is right somebody’s wrong. the promise of the holy ghost and baptism in Jesus name is to all generations as you read, not just the jews.
    Acts 2:37-41 (KJV)
    37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
    38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
    40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
    41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
    If I were you I would not take a chance, and not get saved, that is baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost. You see I did not give you my opinion I gave you the scripture and the example of it. You se corrupt men come in and lead you stray from the faith they continue to study and learn but never come to understand the basic truth. We have been warned about men like this. If a man lack wisdom let him ask of God ask your pastor if he doesn’t have the answer wait on God to show you. Study to show thyself approved rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 3:1-9 (KJV)
    1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
    8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
    9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
    If you’re not baptized in Jesus name your sins have not been taken away therefore you have unforgiven sin; the unforgiven person will not go to heaven. I did not make the rules God did you must be buried with him in water baptism. in Jesus name then you are called by God’s name he is coming for those called by his name not titles.
    This is the Holy Ghost prophecy and speaking in tongues
    Isaiah 28:9-12 (KJV)
    9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
    10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
    11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
    12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
    Hear is the Baptism =Water and Holy Ghost= Spirit prophecy for Israel and us today.
    Ezekiel 36:25-29 (KJV)
    25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
    26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
    27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
    28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
    29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
    John 3:5 (KJV)
    5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    Your not in the kingdom unless you Baptized=Water and filled with the Holy Ghost=Spirit.

    When I received the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit I spoke in tongues 28 year ago and it has never left me. I still pray in tongues as the spirit gives utterance.
    Repent and get saved while there is still time. A change is coming that will test all of us……..

  5. The Preacher

    Josh you fight hard against the truth but I will tell you that many commentaries say that Mathew 28:19 was changed by King Constantine a pagan. Do some research on this? The Roman catholic church changed several scripture to suit their 3 God theory. There is only one God and his name is Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDx1elY9LN4

    The new doctrine of trinity started 325 AD the bible never points to three Gods this is the original concept of trinity. Three Gods.

    When you understand who God is you have no problem being baptized in his name. There is not one scripture in the bible where any one has ever got baptized in the name of the father son and holy ghost titles. So why should we do what is not written?

    Repentence and remissions of sins is in his name Acts 2:38 (KJV)
    38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    This is why the apostles Baptized in Jesus name for the forgivenes of sin.
    Notice the sinner’s prayer is to repent then be baptized. Not just to pray and say I am saved. Cornelius prayed but then he was baptized after going to Peter, to wash away his sins just like Paul has done using the name of the Lord in baptism.

    Mark 16:16 (KJV)
    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
    Jesus said it. So I say what he says, if you refuse to be baptized you will be dammed for eternity. Repent and be baptized and believe.

    Acts 8:14-17 (KJV)
    14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
    15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
    16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
    17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
    Acts 22:15-16 (KJV)
    15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
    16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
    You cannot be a witness without the baptism first. You must have his name to be a true witness. And the Holy Ghost
    Colossians 3:17 (KJV)
    17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
    Anything you do must be in the name not the titles father son and holy ghost.
    Acts 4:12 (KJV)
    12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
    You must use the name in baptism.
    1 Peter 3:21 (KJV)
    21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
    What does it save you from? Sin

    Acts 10:43-48 (KJV)
    43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
    44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
    45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
    46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
    47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
    48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
    After they got the Holy Ghost they got baptized. Notice these gentiles received the Holy Ghost just like the Jews did.

    These were John the Baptist disciple they believed but did not have the Holy Ghost. Belief is only the beginning. Belief alone does not mean you have everything you need as you will see here.
    Acts 19:1-7 (KJV)
    1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
    2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
    3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
    4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
    5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
    6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
    7 And all the men were about twelve.
    We can prove the name of Jesus in baptism but Trinitarians can’t prove theirs. where any one ever said father son or holy ghost in baptism. You say that baptism is not important, why then did these men get re baptized by the great apostle Paul? Are you smarter than him? God told Moses to build according to the pattern he has not changed he is the same yesterday today and forever. The apostles obeyed what Jesus said to do. We must follow their example……….

    The preacher………………..

  6. Josh (Site Admin) Post author

    JB, I appreciate your feedback. I carefully read and examined the points that you made. After examining your feedback, I have decided that the conclusions drawn in my article were correct and not flawed.

    This article was written specifically to people in the UPC and associated organizations. It was written in response to address the way that they use the phrase “in the Truth” (a phrase that an attendee will hear almost every service). This article was not meant to be an exhaustive study or philosophical discussion on everything that truth is and is not. It was meant to address one particular usage of the term amongst one particular group of people.

    With that said, my premise was not flawed. If you look up the word “Truth” in almost any dictionary and you will see that one of the meanings is “conformity to reality or actuality.” For example:

    Princeton Wordnet definition #2: “conformity to reality or actuality”

    Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary definition #1: “conformity to fact or actuality”

    Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definitions 2a (1) and (2): “the state of being the case : fact” and “the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality”

    Additionally, the opposite of truth is falsehood–at least according to Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Easton’s says that truth in the biblical sense is “that which is opposed to falsehood.”

    With that said, I agree with you that Jesus is Truth. I also agree with you that truth, in the sense of Christ, is a “who” and not a “what.” I have used those exact same words many times in personal correspondence. However, Truth in the sense of Christ “being the Truth” is not the only definition of the word in either a linguistic or biblical sense.

    So in the end I stand by my premise. My premise agrees with both secular and theological definitions of truth. Yes, Jesus is the ultimate Truth, but that is not the issue that I was addressing in this article.

    Thanks again for reading and for your feedback.

    In Christ,
    – Josh S.

  7. JB

    Josh,

    I’m not familiar with UPC. Your professors foundational premise (subsequently yours) concerning Truth is flawed. True and Truth are not always related. Your professor’s definition of Truth is the definition of “true” and quite distant from the meaning of Truth. What was the answer to Moses question to God “Who shall I say sent me”? I Am that I Am. What was Pilates’ question again? What is Truth?

    Truth isn’t a “what” it is a “who”. John 14:6 “(I AM) the way, THE TRUTH, and the life. The definition “Truth is that which is consistent and corresponds to reality” necessarily requires that evil be a part of Truth. Is evil consistent and does it correspond with reality? Yes. Is it eternal? No. Anything that is not eternal is not Truth.

    If the above is the definition of Truth then logically Jesus is evil and Jesus is God in the flesh therefore Father God is evil. Logic Law #1 broken through contradiction.

    Jesus cannot be Holy nor can he be Truth if evil is Truth. Evil is true. Evil will not last forever. True is relational. Truth is foundational.

    Lastly, you state that the opposite of Truth is falsehood. The opposite of “true” is falsehood. Eternally, there is no opposite to Truth. Duality is broken in Truth.

    There are 3 eternal attributes that people must know about God in order to live our lives as Jesus did and I encourage you and your readers to study them in depth and put them into practice….Holy, Truth, and Love.

    Quit wasting your time hammering your former church and looking for validation through it. God is the judge. Outlove everybody with your actions. The essence of the 2 greatest commands is the action word (verb) LOVE

  8. Sally

    My Oneness 20 year preacher husband argues the point of speaking in tongues. He states that the tongues spoken at pentecost were the initial infilling of the holy spirit. 1 Cor. verses were written to the church in Corinth, at a later date, and the ‘not all speak in tongues, do they?’ verse only refers to the church at that time, as those believers had already had the initial infilling of the holy spirit, which according to him is a separate occurence from ‘just’ speaking in tongues! Any help here? Ahhhhh

  9. Sean

    Josh,
    Can you email me? I cant find any contact email on this site for you, but respect your studies very much and wanted to ask you a question about tongues… I think 1 Cor 14:18 clearly shows Paul spoke in tongues… and theres another verse too but Im trying to find it… where Paul says they experienced it just as he had at the first…email me! Blessings!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *