A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal Chur
 

http://www.rickross.com/reference/upci/upci34.html

I found this online, and I wondered if anyone wanted to comment on the contents? PLEASE address the contents of the article, not any persons named in the article or the author.

This is not posted in any attempt to attack the UPCI, nor do I endorse the things written. However, sometimes it is a good thing to hear views from others that challange us to prayerfully search the scriptures.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

Just to let you know - I am reviewing the article.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

How is that critical to only the UPC? But, critical is the right word. I did not and will not read the whole article. It's too long.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

No, while the UPCI was the focus, the author was clear that his article is applicable across much of the modern [Western]Christian church.

While I have yet to make any notes, I have spotted a couple of areas in the 20+ pages I have read so for that are deserving of additional comment/clarification. But, all of that for later. More time and reading are required.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I got the point of not using the KJV. But I do use KJV and NIV.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

Me too! Actually, I usually end up doing my own translations of difficult verses or those that have become the center of controversy.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

Okay, I finally finished going through this document. Most excellent analysis, worthy of a serious study, except for one thing:

The author spent his time taking the UPCI to task in their doctrines and world view, in particular, and Pentecostalism in general. The problem? His analysis is applicable across the board to the entire self professing Christian community.

Change all references to Pentecostalism to 'the church' and all references to the UPCI to 'religious denominations', and it works for me.

One additional note: While not every charge the author makes is applicable to every Christian group,it is comprehensive enough that I can't think of one group that does not fall within at least one of his primary complaints.

It is reminiscent of the charges made by Jesus against the religious leaders of His day, as recorded in Matthew 23.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

So, Brother Matt, it looks like the task of reviewing this evaluation of the church (as noted above, I am divorcing the author's critique from a specific organization or movement and allowing it to stand as a mirror to the Western church body in general.

While I will take the task, it would be nice that I have some assistance from the members of the forum. The problem is time. I am still engage in a major study covering the book of Matthew, chapters five through seven, along with a number of additional discussions on other boards, plus personal ministry requirements. Taking on this additional task will have to take something of a 'back seat', work on it as I have time sort of thing.

However, there are a large number of others here who are very well qualified to also take up this challenge - if they can fit it into their schedules as well. The author of the paper has set before us a very serious, not a trivial, assignment.
:grampa

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

My personal recommendation would be to take each major subject area in turn, and to discuss each of his points in order.

The first point: The Ministry. What is 'the ministry' according to the Bible, i.e., its authority, scope, duties and responsibilities within the church body - starting with the definition(s) of the original language terms from which we derive our ministerial vocabulary.

Anyone have any ideas or opinions?

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I just personally think what people call THE CHURCH today is far removed from the ACTS church...however that is just my opinion.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

While the bolded statement above is true, I believe this assessment is more applicable to religious denominations that teach the one man rule of the "pastor".

The Howard Wheeler that was mentioned is now in a even more strict group near Waco, Texas called Heritage Homestead, even though he broke with the UPC or with KP in Austin, he did not depart from this type of oppressive leadership.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I skimmed through the article. Amazing he said that 'preaching' was not apostolic like pentecostals represent it. Preaching surely in Pentecostal, baptist, methodists, other protestant churches is in fact the climax of the service. While in Catholic churches and Orthodox the climax of a meeting is typically the Eucharist. Jesus taught the followers to teach them whatsoever I have commanded you. He did not say it could not be done in a pulpit or in a house. It seems the article espouses one view of teaching and exposition because that was the typical manner of the early church. The culture was meeting in houses. There were not great cathedrals where Paul could preach however no doubt Paul did use stages when he got the opportunity. The great arenas for instance would allow for such a group.

I mean how would gifts such as prophecy, tongues, discernings of spirits, etc operate if not in meetings? While definitely the early church was not "one" main person speaking, Paul taught that the would rather speak in a tongue knowing to believers versus one that they could not understand and edify. It think its a stretch to say preaching is totally upside down. I know how God has used me in preaching and I certainly wouldn't say it was not Him, for I know better!

I think there are practical and nonpractical traditions of churches today that are certainly not what the early church practiced. That does not make that practice wrong IF in fact it accomplishes the mission that is the apostolic mandate. That is the question and the deal breaker for me.

I will continue to love preaching as it continue to challenge me to go deepr in Christian service.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I agree, however, we also need to be careful to stop giving LIFE to the UPCI as if it is an organism, The Body of Christ is, the different organizations within it are not.

While certain characteristics (spirits) prevail and are what marks (leavens) any group, there are always exceptions, Godly people who set the standard, by which we can even see that those with bad spirits are among them, and in some cases the majority, (strait is the gate-narrow the path) we must humbly thank God, we can see the difference. And pray for the power to love the unlovable.

When I was in the military, I was a non-commissioned officer (NCO) and I learned that while I had the authority to give orders to those I lead, some would be leaders some day, and my influence would shape their style.

"To the Jew I'll be a Jew, to the Greek a Greek, that I may win some." I had to nurture those who showed promise, and there were some, that just had to have my combat boots to inspire them to do their job, and not get us killed along with themselves.

That is the problem with any human organization... Leadership

It is obvious in many small churches, that a small leader wants to keep the "pond" small so he seems big. It's a numbers thing, the more men in camp, the more the odds are a Saul will have a David rise up.

We have too many "spear throwing" Saul's and not enough Davids who would never throw a spear back at his Saul. A David knows God put the Saul there and God will take him away, and that there is a purpose for everything under the Sun.

There is a purpose for mean spirited nasty hypocrites, they are the "Tares" and it's not ours to pull them up, it's God's will for us to grow along side them and find out if we are wheat or tares. Wheat begats wheat, tares begat tares.

Like David, it may be many generations until the right seed comes along to take the Throne. We are reaping what we sowed. Time to treat the seed.

from a sermon I preached in 1992 Smutberries!"The smut 'berries,' or 'balls,' from an infected head contain millions of minute bodies, the spores or 'seeds' of the smut fungus. These reproduce the smut in somewhat the same way that a true seed develops into a new plant. A single smut ball of average size contains a sufficient number of spores to give one for each grain of wheat in five or six bushels. It takes eight smut spores to equal the diameter of a human hair. Normal wheat grains from an infected field may have so many spores lodged on their surface as to give them a dark color, but other grains which show no difference in color to the naked eye may still contain a sufficient number of spores to produce a smutty crop if seed treatment is not practised.

"When living smut spores are introduced into the soil with the seed wheat, or exist in the soil in which smut-free wheat is sown, a certain percentage of the wheat plants are likely to become infected. The smut spore germinates and produces first a stage of the smut plant in the soil. This first stage never infects a young seedling direct, but gives rise to secondary spores, or sporida, from which infection threads may arise and penetrate the shoot of a young seedling and reach the growing point. Here the fungus threads keep pace with the growth of the plant and reach maturity at or slightly before harvest-time.

"Since this disease is caused by an internal parasite, it is natural to expect certain responses to its presence. It should be noted first that the smut fungus is living at the expense of its host plant, the wheat, and its effect on the host may be summarized as follows: The consumption of food, the destruction of food in the sporulating process, and the stimulating or retarding effect on normal physiological processes.

"Badly smutted plants remain in many cases under-size and produce fewer and smaller heads. In the Fife and Bluestem varieties the infected heads previous to maturity exhibit a darker green color, and remain green longer than the normal heads. In some varieties the infected heads stand erect, when normal ones begin to droop as a result of the increasing weight of the ripening grain.

"A crop may become infected with smut in a number of different ways. Smut was originally introduced with the seed, and many farmers are still planting it every season with their seed wheat. Wheat taken from a smutty crop will have countless numbers of loose spores adhering to the grains, also a certain number of unbroken smut balls. These are always a source of danger, even when the seed is treated with fungicides before sowing.

"There are also chances for the infection of a crop if absolutely smut-free seed is employed. First, soil infection from a previous smutty crop; second, soil infection from wind-blown spores. Experiments have shown that separated spores from crushed smut balls lose their effective power in from two to three months, provided the soil is moist and loose, and in no case do they survive a winter.

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I skimmed through part of it but it's too long for my attention span.

so my input and discussion is:

"No comment"

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

Anything by Rick Ross is GIGO ,wouldnt waste my time !

Re: A Critical Analysis of the United Pentecostal
 

I don't believe Rick Ross said he wrote that, did he? He just posted it.