I had a list of  (supposed) Impossible to Answer questions directed toward Pentecostals that someone sent to me.  They claimed that NO Person who held Pentecostal beliefs could answer these.  The amusing thing is that MANY of these questions concerning Pentecostal beliefs don't seem to be Pentecostal at all. 

In any case, though, let me answer these "Impossible Questions" 

Q:  If salvation is "solely by grace," why are not all people saved since "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11)?

A:  Where did you get such an idea that Pentecostals believe that?  Most Pentecostals do NOT believe that. (At least none of the ones I've known for 42 years).  Let me answer anyway.  Salvation is NOT solely by grace.  Salvation is by OBEYING the gospel as spelled out not only in the book of Acts (chapters 2, 8, 10, 16, 19) but also by the Apostle Paul (Romans 6, Colossians 2, Galatians 3).  I'm not sure, friend, how you came to this question while browsing THIS site!

Q:  Since Acts 2:38 teaches that the baptism commanded is "for the remission of sins," is there any reason to believe that any other cases of water baptism were practiced for any other reason (e.g., Acts 10:48, 19:5)? [If so, where are the scriptures that indicate it?]

A:  I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here, but I think the question is "Can you prove that baptism was practiced for any other reason (other than the 'remission of sins')"?   Is that the real question?   The answer to that is NO.  Baptism is not for any other reason.  It is for the "REMISSION of SINS" just like the scriptures say.  The scriptures you quote are exactly correct and show that there was a COMMAND given to those disciples who began to believe at those times.  Paul himself states that he was told to "Arise and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord"  (Acts 22:16) 

Q:  Since Acts 8:36-38 teaches that baptism is by immersion (i.e., "down into water" ... "up out of the water"), is there any reason to believe that any other cases of water baptism were practiced in a different way (e.g., Acts 2:41, 10:48, 16:15,33)?

A:  Uh...I think you're questions have been directed to the wrong person.  Baptism IS by immersion, and you're asking me if I believe there is any other way?  Not at all.  We see the examples of Jesus in John 3:23.  Though it says he baptized not, but his disciples did, we see the statement for the reason they were there.  "There was much water there"  Now we also have the example (in addition to the scriptures  you quoted above) of the Eunuch.  Acts 8:38-39 indicates that Philip and the Eunuch went DOWN INTO the water and that when they "CAME UP OUT OF" the water, Philip was "caught away".

Q:  Since all examples of miracles in the NT were definitive and clearly visible signs, wonders and powers [review them all to verify this], why apply the word miracle (in the biblical sense) to things that clearly do not fit that description today? God acts in the affairs of men today, but if these actions qualified as NT miracles, they would be impossible to deny (Jn. 11:47-53, Acts 4:13-22).

A:  I agree with you whole heartedly in your question and I have asked the same thing many times.  I do know of several times, though, that it is absolutely impossible to deny a miracle. 

I have a child who was pronounced dead at birth and who suddenly 32 minutes later gasped for breath.  Circumstance?  I think not.  I was diagnosed by several different eye surgeons in 1992 and 1993 with having cellophane maculopathy, an incurable eye disease which can cause rapid loss of vision.  There was no doubt from these Military doctors that this disease (disorder if you will) was present.  It is medically documented and verifiable.  After much fasting a prayer, my eyesight was cured instantaneously when I received prayer from a fellow minister whom I did not know and who knew absolutely nothing about me.  I have no traces of the disease and no after effects or scarring from it.  The medical reports were quite lengthy and now state that (quote) "only a miracle could explain the sudden absence of cellophane maculopathy as previously verified in this patient's medical records".  I could go on about several others.  It matters little to me whether you believe or not.  Truth cannot and will not be denied. 

Let me finish the answer according to your question though.  Does God act in the affairs of men today?  Yes.  Undeniably, yes.  How does he do that? Can you provide me with a few examples yourself?  Now, do I call everything a miracle?  Not at all.  I have seen many instances where someone receives prayer for a "cold" or cancer or some other need and continue in the medical sciences receiving treatment until finally it disappears and folks call THAT a miracle.  I on the other hand DO NOT call that a miracle.  I call that deception.  There is NO instance of a miracle that took weeks and weeks to happen.  Not a single one.  There is only ONE instance of Jesus praying for a man twice. (Matthew 8:22-26).  

For the most part, I have to ask your same question to many who are in Pentecostal churches today.  "Why do you call a 'recovery' of a sinus infection (which by the way you've spent much money and taken much medication for) that clears up after 6 weeks, a 'miracle'?"  Why do you do that?

Q:  If we cannot understand the bible alike, how are we to understand the confusion being generated by everyone claiming to speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:33)?

A:  I've often asked the same question.  I can say with a surety, that there are MANY who "claim" to speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but who forget one very important thing.   They ignore the fact that IF and WHEN God speaks today through anyone, he will NEVER violate his Word to do so.  I believe there are many who say "God told me" that have no clue what they are talking about. 

In summary to that:  Not everything that "CLAIMS" something really has it.  Look at Acts 16:16-18.  This woman followed Paul around (apparently trying to make herself out to be a part of that ministry).  Paul discerned the spirit which was inside her and cast it out.

I believe Pentecostals today are walking some very dangerous ground in many of their claims that they have a "word" from the Lord.

Q:  If someone receives the Holy Spirit when they are saved or at baptism, why did the Samaritans, who were saved, in Acts 8 not yet have the Holy Spirit?

A:  Again, I must say that you have asked your questions of the wrong person here.  I DO NOT believe you received the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) if you will, at the moment of salvation or at baptism.  The scriptures don't even teach that, as you've pointed out already.

Q:  This isn't a question but a statement from the scriptures:  Someone claiming to speak in tongues and heal, should also be able to drink deadly poison, be unaffected by the bites of poisonous snakes, and heal with 100% success.

A:  Actually, this question (statement) is a totally misguided one on your part to which I will only briefly answer.   Nowhere in the scriptures do you see anyone WILLINGLY drinking poison or WILLINGLY being bitten by a viper and living.  It is a fool who would willingly do such things.  We have Paul's account in Acts chapter 28, of being bitten by a viper and he just "shook it off".  A quick reading of Foxe's Book of Martyrs will show you some other very amazing things such as this, that occurred.  One CANNOT willingly drink poison any more than the Word of God would allow you to throw yourself down from a tall building and expect to live.

Q:  Why do people look over their shoulder for the catcher, just before they are slain in the Spirit?

A:  Good question.  Why do they?  I'd like some of the churches to answer that one.  I DO NOT allow ANY "catchers" at Apostolic Temple...period.  Why?  Because I want you to understand, if GOD moves upon you to the point that you are "slain" in the Spirit, it had better be real.  If you come in HERE and expect someone to "catch" you as you're falling backward, the you Sir or Ma'am are a lying deceiver.  You only want people to THINK you are somehow more "spiritual" than someone else. 

I'm not sure how I could have answered that question by the Word of God, but there is MY answer.

Q:  If tongues are so centrally important, why is the gift of tongues not again mentioned after Acts 19:6 and the book of first Corinthians?

A:  I believe that MOST Charismatic and Pentecostal churches today put WAY too much emphasis on the "speaking of tongues".  I have heard many proclaim at a good old fashioned prayer meeting that someone "Must seek to speak in tongues".  Friend, you may hate me, but THAT is an outright lie.  You BETTER NOT seek just to "speak in tongues".  If that is all you are seeking, then YOU are NOT seeking the true Spirit of God.  You are seeking an emotional, charismatic experience that will most likely bring you a "tongue" but it won't be of God.   What you BETTER do is to seek JESUS. Period.

Anyway, (see how you get me started?)  I could ask you the same question about Baptism.  There are nearly  as many scriptures on speaking in tongues as there are about baptism but once you get into the "meaty" portion of scripture, you don't read about it.  Now, in all fairness, there are other doctrines that aren't really covered either BUT they are necessary to understand in order to lay a rock solid foundation of belief and doctrine.  Have you read Hebrews 6:1-2? 

"Hebrews 6:1-2 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

Where do we see the doctrine of  "Laying on of Hands" being taught?  How about the plural of "baptismS"? 

I believe your answer is found somewhat in the Book of Jude.  Look at verse 3.  Jude says (my paraphrase)  I WAS going to write to you of the COMMON SALVATION, but it was needful for me to write to tell you that you need to contend for the faith!   Apparently, there was a common salvation that was accepted and understood to be such.  What could that possibly have been (How about THE plan of Salvation that was first preached as Jesus proclaimed it would be...at Jerusalem!)?

Q:   Why are Pentecostal healing revivals FULL of genuinely and undisputedly crippled wheelchair-ridden people who NEVER GET HEALED???

A:   I have the same question.  My belief concerning revival, though is "RE-VIVAL".  It is for the Saints to become "re-energized" or "revived" in their spirit.  We all had a zeal and a first love when we initially repented and came to God.  Over the years MANY grow somewhat stagnant.  I believe a REVIVAL is what is needed to Stir Up the Saints again and to encourage them to FIGHT the good Fight. 

If healings occur, so be it...if they don't ...so be it.  Too many today are chasing after signs and wonders and this, my friend, is wrong.  Pure wrong. 

I know that you are referring to these so called "miracle crusades" and "healing crusades"   My question is exactly the same in such cases.  They always have someone healed who has an "unseen" problem.  I can't see a headache or an earache or some rare disease.  Many times these healers will proclaim that someone is healed of cancer (yet that poor soul has to wait to get back to a doctor only to find that the cancer is still there).   There are just as many more, as you stated, that are in wheelchairs that NEVER get healed.  My question to these "Faith-Miracle Crusaders is the same"   How do you explain that?

Do I believe in healings and miracles?  Absolutely.  I've experienced the genuine.  Do I believe they happen over and over and over again 1000 times a day?  Not hardly.

I believe this pretty much sums up all your questions.  Feel free to send more at any time. 

It's an interesting thing:  I never received any further correspondence from this particular gentleman.