Becoming An Ex-Pentecostal

[Brad Murphy]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Absolute faith is hard huh?

I just disagree with the notion that "you must believe in something or you will fall for anything". I am suspicious and distrustful of pretty much everything, which will make it kinda hard for me to "fall for anything". As for having faith, the problem is that you have to choose what to have faith in, and there are too many choices.

[A_PoMo]

For most people I think it boils down to personal taste and an honest attempt to interprete scripture the best they are able. Really, isn't that why there are so many different flavors and brands of Christianity. Christianity has become a niche market with every spin-off denomination and group that has it's own distinctives. Kind of like 7-UP. You can buy regular, diet, cherry, dark cherry, and today I even saw pomegranate 7-UP. Pomegranate? Huh? Who would like pomegranate 7-UP? Not me, but I'm sure somebody will like it. Churches are like that too aren't they? All churches cater to their base in terms of style/liturgy/ecclessiology. Birds of a feather like to flock together.

Plus, the Bible is more open to interpreation than most OP's want to admit. Not to mention lack of education and knowledge illogical logic, bad hermeneutic that result in faulty conclusions that go into formulating doctrinal positions. I believe there is absolute truth, but I doubt that any of us have it all figured out exactly right. So, sincere people attempt to be intellectually honest and due to their humanity come to different conclusions about biblical interpretation and over time they move away from each other in terms of regular fellowship and association. Once they do they find other people who agree with their theology and whose worship style/liturgy/ecclessiology they prefer and they become ex-whatever they were before.

I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily.

[ReformedDave]

PoMo- you hit it 100%- In my case it was through study and was not a sudden thing. It took years. It started with the inability to defend my 'faith' and not agreeing(Biblically) with much that I saw around me. Actually it came with a quest for objective Truth (PoMo- you might disagree here) that was defendable.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

PoMo- you hit it 100%- In my case it was through study and was not a sudden thing. It took years. It started with the inability to defend my 'faith' and not agreeing(Biblically) with much that I saw around me. Actually it came with a quest for objective Truth (PoMo- you might disagree here) that was defendable.

Ditto: as Epley says, "first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine"

When I began to see that our scriptural basis for "pentecostal holiness standards" was bankrupt i had to ask my myself this very serious question.

If we are so in error on rings to sleeves to beards to dreeses only....then what else have we errored on.

We laugh at the JW's and mormons....but we got plenty of false doctrine among us too.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Ditto: as Epley says, "first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine"

When I began to see that our scriptural basis for "pentecostal holiness standards" was bankrupt i had to ask my myself this very serious question.

If we are so in error on rings to sleeves to beards to dreeses only....then what else have we errored on.

We laugh at the JW's and mormons....but we got plenty of false doctrine among us too.

And you are in error on both!

[Light]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

And you are in error on both!

Br. you say freeatlast is wrong on both accounts. I say there is plenty of false doctrine in the pentecostal ranks yet 3 steppers continue to fellowship with these people.

How can one who believes one must obey all of acts 2:38 to be saved join them self with one who believes one is saved at repentance?

If one fellowship's with those that teach false doctrine one gives credence to their false doctrines and are as guilty of a lie as they are. (1 step, light, and friends of the bride doctrine's).

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Ditto: as Epley says, "first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine"

When I began to see that our scriptural basis for "pentecostal holiness standards" was bankrupt i had to ask my myself this very serious question.

If we are so in error on rings to sleeves to beards to dreeses only....then what else have we errored on.

We laugh at the JW's and mormons....but we got plenty of false doctrine among us too.

My case had nothing to do with 'standards' of dress. It was doctrinal.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Ditto: as Epley says, "first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine"

When I began to see that our scriptural basis for "pentecostal holiness standards" was bankrupt i had to ask my myself this very serious question.

If we are so in error on rings to sleeves to beards to dreeses only....then what else have we errored on.

We laugh at the JW's and mormons....but we got plenty of false doctrine among us too.

Someone walking away from standards is no excuse for walking away from the Pentecostal faith, as some have done.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Someone walking away from standards is no excuse for walking away from the Pentecostal faith, as some have done.

I'm gonna take my chances with faih in Christ, his atonement for my sins, his rightousness inputed to me.

You go with faith in pentecost.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Ditto: as Epley says, "first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine"

When I began to see that our scriptural basis for "pentecostal holiness standards" was bankrupt i had to ask my myself this very serious question.

If we are so in error on rings to sleeves to beards to dreeses only....then what else have we errored on.

We laugh at the JW's and mormons....but we got plenty of false doctrine among us too.

but... are you not currently UPC?