UPC General Conference updates

[A. R. Kensington]

Hi Everyone,

I was asked to update all our fellow UPC folks on the happenings at General conference.

I hope this will be okay with the owner.

You are welcome to post anything newsworthy.

[A. R. Kensington]

*Update*


Bro Haney said that since Tampa the UPCI has licensed 589 new ministers
and that we've had a record year of growth







.

[Weary Pilgrim]

keep the updates coming, Thanks!

[DividedThigh]

cool, keep it coming brother, dt

[A. R. Kensington]

*Update*

Haney just called for a "closed minister business mtg" tomorrow




.

[tstew]

Thanks for the info, bro.

[SecretWarrior]

What is the meeting for?

[A. R. Kensington]

I think it's about the "emerging church"

[A. R. Kensington]

Haney said we need to have a talk as ministers about what we believe....

[Digging4Truth]

It would be interesting to know how many were lost as well to see what the over post Tampa status is as well as the average number of ministers from year to year.

[Weary Pilgrim]

Details please! lol

[A. R. Kensington]

Details please! lol

I don't have many details sorry.
What little I know, UPC ministers have been attending seminars put on by the "emerging church".

[deltaguitar]

:evilglee There is absolutely no way that they will have a closed meeting to discuss the emerging church. The UPC is 180 degrees from the emerging church.

[Digging4Truth]

How wise, fantastic and future ensuring that would be.

I hope there is at least some truth to that... unless they are meeting on how to combat it.

[Timmy]

What is the meeting for?

Magic hair?

[Timmy]

:evilglee There is absolutely no way that they will have a closed meeting to discuss the emerging church. The UPC is 180 degrees from the emerging church.

Retreating church? :winkgrin

[Jermyn Davidson]

Maybe they will do something that formally recognizes a "one-stepper's" right to exist openly WITHIN the organization!

COGIC just doesn't seem like home to me-- not to knock them, I consider them my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

But there is a difference. (Or maybe I'm just plain prejudiced when it comes to this stuff.)

[rgcraig]

Are you physically at GC?

[SecretWarrior]

The leaders need to sound the alarm on this. The so called "emerging church" is a very dangerous and perverted teaching that ought to be
dealt with before it takes root in the UPC.

The "emerging church" is heading down the same path as the universalist
and the acceptance of homosexuality.

[Indy]

There is always an alarm to sound. Always another doctrinal crisis on the horizon. Always someone who is afraid of impurity in the ranks. Fear reigns and people are lost. Hold the fort mentality never takes the frontier.

[deltaguitar]

The leaders need to sound the alarm on this. The so called "emerging church" is a very dangerous and perverted teaching that ought to be
dealt with before it takes root in the UPC.

The "emerging church" is heading down the same path as the universalist
and the acceptance of homosexuality.

Can you explain what the doctrine of the emerging church is? Is there a website that I can go to that will explain their vision and what they believe?

[SecretWarrior]

Can you explain what the doctrine of the emerging church is? Is there a website that I can go to that will explain their vision and what they believe?


Ever hear of the "rethink conference" ?

Here's an eyewitness account of it

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c73_pf.shtml



I'll post more info. on it as I have time

[A_PoMo]

How wise, fantastic and future ensuring that would be.

I hope there is at least some truth to that... unless they are meeting on how to combat it.

I'm sure it's seen as a threat.

[Renee29]

I don't know of any church in UPC that is accepting of homosexuality. Every church here in Southern California is fighting to have marriage restored to hetrosexual couples only.

The leaders need to sound the alarm on this. The so called "emerging church" is a very dangerous and perverted teaching that ought to be
dealt with before it takes root in the UPC.

The "emerging church" is heading down the same path as the universalist
and the acceptance of homosexuality.

[A_PoMo]

Ever hear of the "rethink conference" ?

Here's an eyewitness account of it

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c73_pf.shtml



I'll post more info. on it as I have time

There is no doctrine of the emerging church, there is no single website that is representative of the emerging church. It's a movement that has all sorts of variant streams of thought contained within it. Generally, the thread that runs through it all is the desire to impact post-modern generations with the gospel as it's generally agreed that current methods will not work in the future. Other than that there is very little agreement even by those w/in the EC movement.

[A_PoMo]

The leaders need to sound the alarm on this. The so called "emerging church" is a very dangerous and perverted teaching that ought to be
dealt with before it takes root in the UPC.

The "emerging church" is heading down the same path as the universalist
and the acceptance of homosexuality.

You need to do some more reading. Sure, there are some within that emerging church that are liberal as you say, but no more or less so than the traditional church. The vast majority of the emerging church is conservative on the issues you name.

[Digging4Truth]

Can you explain what the doctrine of the emerging church is?

I would be interested in seeing the answer to this portion myself.

[SecretWarrior]

I don't know of any church in UPC that is accepting of homosexuality. Every church here in Southern California is fighting to have marriage restored to hetrosexual couples only.


I wasn't referring to the UPC but rather the "emerging church"
and reason why our leaders need to alarm the ministry.

[Digging4Truth]

I wasn't referring to the UPC but rather the "emerging church"
and reason why our leaders need to alarm the ministry.

What on earth leads you to believe that the acceptance of homosexuality in the church is an "emerging church" thing?

[deltaguitar]

There is no doctrine of the emerging church, there is no single website that is representative of the emerging church. It's a movement that has all sorts of variant streams of thought contained within it. Generally, the thread that runs through it all is the desire to impact post-modern generations with the gospel as it's generally agreed that current methods will not work in the future. Other than that there is very little agreement even by those w/in the EC movement.

Right, this is what I have experienced. I don't actually see a problem with the concept of the emerging church. There are folks out there who are trying to make it out like there is some group with a doctrinal statement that actually calls themselves "THE EMERGING CHURCH".

[deltaguitar]

I wasn't referring to the UPC but rather the "emerging church"
and reason why our leaders need to alarm the ministry.

Just more lack of understanding. No one needs to be alarmed about anything. Can we not trust ministers to follow the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to lead them? Sure there are going to be fringe nuts in every movement but 99% of UPC ministers have virtually no chance of going down this path that you claim the emerging church is going down.

[Digging4Truth]

Right, this is what I have experienced. I don't actually see a problem with the concept of the emerging church. There are folks out there who are trying to make it out like there is some group with a doctrinal statement that actually calls themselves "THE EMERGING CHURCH".

Indeed...

There are those of the emerging church that preach false doctrine... there are those of the "regular" churches that preach false doctrine.

I would love to see an answer to some of these questions so that I can get some concept of what in the world SW has been told.

[SecretWarrior]

Guys, research it. There is a tremendous amount of information on this topic and the vast majority of it points to teachings that are completely damnable.

I also want to highlight the warnings are coming from evangelicals and not anyone from the oneness camps.

[Digging4Truth]

Guys, research it. There is a tremendous amount of information on this topic and the vast majority of it points to teachings that are completely damnable.

I also want to highlight the warnings are coming from evangelicals and not anyone from the oneness camps.

You'll never guess what.

I have done some research and your standard type "non emerging" church has bookoodles of false doctrines. We need to sound the alarm because church with big buildings and steeples are teaching false doctrine.

[A_PoMo]

Guys, research it. There is a tremendous amount of information on this topic and the vast majority of it points to teachings that are completely damnable.

I also want to highlight the warnings are coming from evangelicals and not anyone from the oneness camps.

just because i can find a bunch of stuff out there about a flat earth or that the moon landing was a hoax doesn't make it true and doesn't make it representative of the mainline thought.

And there is just as much misinformation about EC in the evangelical camp as there is in the oneness camp. D.A. Carson, one of the fiercest evangelical opponents recently actually attended an emerging church conference and after actually TALKING to them and SEEING them he said something to the affect that 'this isn't what i thought it was." Geez, one of the leading evangelical theologians 'studies' an issue and publishes polmics against it and he hadn't even checked it out first hand? Puhleeze!

That's the problem. Just as Pentecostals are often put in the category of snake handling wack jobs so do most emerging church folk get put in the same category of the somewhat liberal side of the movement. It's not accurate or fair to do that when the vast majority of emerging folk are conservative in orthodoxy.

[Praxeas]

To bad the constituents of the UPC...where most of the money comes from....are treated as outsiders in the process in at least NOT being allowed to hear things pertaining to these great issues.

It's for this reason I always say I attend a UPC but I am not "UPC", because it's really a paid members club

[Praxeas]

Just more lack of understanding. No one needs to be alarmed about anything. Can we not trust ministers to follow the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to lead them? Sure there are going to be fringe nuts in every movement but 99% of UPC ministers have virtually no chance of going down this path that you claim the emerging church is going down.
That kind of attitude has led a lot of groups who started out one way to end up another.

Look at the Lutherans how they started out and where they are now

Look at the Methodists who started out red hot and now they are dead.

Look at the first church and how eventually baptism in Jesus name was changed, fewer and fewer historical references to people receiving the Spirit and tongues and gifts etc etc.

The bible actually takes a very alarmist view. It's this sort of complacency that makes churches watered down and dead.

2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Tit 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Tit 1:10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.
Tit 1:11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.
Tit 1:12 One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
Tit 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Tit 1:14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
Tit 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.
2Pe 2:3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
2Pe 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked
2Pe 2:8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);
2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones,
2Pe 2:11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction,
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you.
2Pe 2:14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!
2Pe 2:15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing,
2Pe 2:16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.
2Pe 2:17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.
2Pe 2:18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.
2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pe 2:21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
2Pe 2:22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."
2Pe 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
2Pe 3:2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles,
2Pe 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
2Pe 3:4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."
2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
2Pe 3:7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2Pe 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
2Pe 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

[Sarah]

I have to admit.........I don't know anything about the "emerging church". But I don't like the very sound of it.

Emerging from what? The church has been here for two thousand years. We just need to be a part of the book of Acts church........and be very careful about falling into false doctrine.

[A_PoMo]

I have to admit.........I don't know anything about the "emerging church". But I don't like the very sound of it.

Emerging from what? The church has been here for two thousand years. We just need to be a part of the book of Acts church........and be very careful about falling into false doctrine.

it's just a term used to describe the church's response to post-modernism and as such will be distinctive from the modern church and thus is emerging from the modern church to engage a new culture that is emerging from a old culture. the idea is that culturally we are in a time of transition from one age to another and these 'new' forms will be distinctive and as we are in the transition stage we are 'emerging'.

[A_PoMo]

That kind of attitude has led a lot of groups who started out one way to end up another.

Look at the Lutherans how they started out and where they are now

Look at the Methodists who started out red hot and now they are dead.

Look at the first church and how eventually baptism in Jesus name was changed, fewer and fewer historical references to people receiving the Spirit and tongues and gifts etc etc.

The bible actually takes a very alarmist view. It's this sort of complacency that makes churches watered down and dead.


[/B]

What you say is true and there certainly is no shortage of scripture combatting false doctrine. But it seems to me the UPC has bigger fish to fry than the 'emerging church'.

Of course this assumes that the closed session is indeed about the EC. Has anyone confirmed this?

[A_PoMo]

To bad the constituents of the UPC...where most of the money comes from....are treated as outsiders in the process in at least NOT being allowed to hear things pertaining to these great issues.

It's for this reason I always say I attend a UPC but I am not "UPC", because it's really a paid members club

True dat. The UPC is a ministerial association, thus a members only club of sorts. Technically, as you say, if you don't have a card you're not "UPC".

[Timmy]

True dat. The UPC is a ministerial association, thus a members only club of sorts. Technically, as you say, if you don't have a card you're not "UPC".

So UPCI isn't really a church. So the C should be in quotes.

UP"C"I

And how united is it, really?

"U"P"C"I

Is it really Pentecostal? I betcha some would say no!

"U""P""C"I

Now. That leaves the I. International? Well, it does have a foreign missions department. And some of its districts are in Canada. OK. Keep the I!

:toofunny

[Praxeas]

True dat. The UPC is a ministerial association, thus a members only club of sorts. Technically, as you say, if you don't have a card you're not "UPC".
I wonder what if any affect this can have on the over all health and number of the UPC to have an alienated class of people who are tithing to support such a group but have no voice whatsoever nor even a passive participation...knowing a lot of things are done in secret.

[El Apostolico]

I remember reading somewhere that the P.A.W. is also a Ministerial Alliance, I think brother Horace Smith actually said something like that. The concept of a "Ministerial Alliance" is alien to me though...

[A. R. Kensington]

* Update *

Entire top section of the coliseum is draped with a black curtain....

[A_PoMo]

I wonder what if any affect this can have on the over all health and number of the UPC to have an alienated class of people who are tithing to support such a group but have no voice whatsoever nor even a passive participation...knowing a lot of things are done in secret.

it's almost cultic huh? :aaa

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally posted by, "The Mrs"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hataish
Hi Guys,

I am here new. I have registered here recently. I have something special for all my friends.
Are you a spammer Hataish?

If so, we have something special for you too!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam,

Are you physically at GC?


These two posts are so hilarious!!!!

[Neck]

Can you explain what the doctrine of the emerging church is? Is there a website that I can go to that will explain their vision and what they believe?

It is the doctrine of inclusion.

[George]

Adam, have you been to the prayer room and walked through the replica of the tabernacle? I was curious how that turned out.

[Encryptus]

Perhaps that is where the subversive emergents are having their secret meetings?

:evilglee

[Ferd]

Looks like the leaders of the mothership are getting exactly what they want this year!

(and that is a GOOD thing)


And that would be a nice quiet General Conference with very little if any contraversy!

YEA UPCI!

[mfblume]

Looks like the leaders of the mothership are getting exactly what they want this year!

(and that is a GOOD thing)


And that would be a nice quiet General Conference with very little if any contraversy!

YEA UPCI!

Cause the disgruntled to have a reason to leave, and that is only what can result!

[A. R. Kensington]

*Update*

resolution 4 passed strongly

closed door meeting to reaffirm our doctrine .....

[tstew]

I'm reading a lot of criticisms concerning the structure of the UPCI. Does anyone have any info as to how it compares to the structure of other organizations?

[ManOfWord]

Which one? 1 or 3 step? :D


Sorry, I couldn't help myself! LOL That's one meeting I would like to be in. But not enough to get a card.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

I'm reading a lot of criticisms concerning the structure of the UPCI. Does anyone have any info as to how it compares to the structure of other organizations?

Should we compare ourselves amoung ourselves?

Which organizations do you see in the Bible?

-Bro. Alex

[tstew]

Which one? 1 or 3 step? :D


Sorry, I couldn't help myself! LOL That's one meeting I would like to be in. But not enough to get a card.

...enough to put on some proper britches? :tease

[tstew]

Should we compare ourselves amoung ourselves?

Which organizations do you see in the Bible?

-Bro. Alex

Bro. Alex, I know that you would like to have every organization done away with. I'm just curious as to whether the structure of the UPCI is so far oput of the norm...I even read the word "cult" like in the thread. I am genuinely curious about whether this is an anomoly.

[1:27]

Do you know what the amendment to Resolution 4 was? (It was amended: http://www.unitedpentecostal.net/GC2008/News/Business_Meeting2.asp)

And do you know for sure what the other resolutions were? I knew that at least one was supposed to be added.

[Ferd]

Do you know what the amendment to Resolution 4 was? (It was amended: http://www.unitedpentecostal.net/GC2008/News/Business_Meeting2.asp)

And do you know for sure what the other resolutions were? I knew that at least one was supposed to be added.

my understanding of res 4 is that it allows a dist. sup to send a representative instead of going himself, to a church that is disaffiliating.

[Ferd]

Cause the disgruntled to have a reason to leave, and that is only what can result!

Brother Blume did you need to get that off your chest?


I believe that the UPCI leadership has intended to spend the next few years working to create some needed calm in the organization. The last few years have been pretty contentious politically and there is a need for calm.

[Dimples]

According to Lookupsocial's web page:

Friday Business Meeting Notes from General Conference
October 17

11:26 AM The closed Ministers’ Meeting was opened in prayer.

11:25 AM The Business Meeting was adjourned.

11:24 AM The Great Lakes University was ratified as an endorsed organization of the United Pentecostal Church International.

11:22 AM Due to an incidental oversight, the Business Meeting was called to order once again.

10:57 AM The Business Meeting portion of the Ministers’ Session adjourned.

10:56 AM Brother Paul Mooney called the Conference to thank Brother Kenneth Haney for conducting a fair, orderly business meeting.


10:51 AM Brother Mason read Resolution 6. Resolution 6 Passed

10:50 AM Brother Mason read Resolution 5. Resolution 5 Passed as Amended

9:38 AM Brother Mason read Resolution 4. Resolution 4 Passed as Amended

9:31 AM Brother Mason read Resolution 3. Resolution 3 Defeated

9:22 AM Brother Mason read Resolution 2. Resolution 2 Passed

9:19 AM Brother Francis Mason, the Chairman of the Resolutions Committee read Resolution 1. Resolution 1 Passed

9:15 AM Brother Jerry Jones opened up the Business Meeting with prayer and reading from Acts 17:22-29.

[1:27]

my understanding of res 4 is that it allows a dist. sup to send a representative instead of going himself, to a church that is disaffiliating.

Oh. I thought it was the resolution that gave all ministers in good standing the vote. I must be getting my numbers confused. That's the one I want to know about.

[Michael Phelps]

Did they say how many had turned license in this past year?

[Michael Phelps]

I have to admit.........I don't know anything about the "emerging church". But I don't like the very sound of it.

Emerging from what? The church has been here for two thousand years. We just need to be a part of the book of Acts church........and be very careful about falling into false doctrine.

Uh, really?

So, the Oneness church "emerging" from the trinitarians wasn't a good thing? The evangelical church "emerging" from the Roman Catholic church wasn't a good thing?

No offense, but this "hold the fort" mentality is the damnable doctrine, here.

[ManOfWord]

...enough to put on some proper britches? :tease

Hmmmmm.....I take that back! :D

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sarah
I have to admit.........I don't know anything about the "emerging church". But I don't like the very sound of it.

It is a pretty scary thing to see those 2 phrases put together in one statement.

Emerging from what? The church has been here for two thousand years. We just need to be a part of the book of Acts church........and be very careful about falling into false doctrine.

The church has been around for 2000 years... but not in the same form. Not practiced with the same side dressings & trappings.

Indeed we do need to be a part of the book of Acts church and let everything outside of the writings of the apostles be up to the individual group. The emerging church doesn't have a doctrine to worry about.

The emerging church is more about the way people meet... the way we look at building the church (not buildings...the church... people) etc. The doctrine...just like other "types" of churches is strictly up to those who are putting their effort into the work.

To shun away from the emerging church as oneness folks all we accomplish then is allow this new form of outreach (or should I say newly revisited old form of outreach) to be dominated by those who are not oneness.

We then find ourselves conceding an entire method of outreach to those who do not know or promote this gospel.

[Steve Epley]

I am happy to confess I am a Hold the Fort preacher unashamed.

[A. R. Kensington]

No mention of how many left....


Jonny Godair was present last night as was Nate Wilson's wife

[1:27]

I have just heard from a pretty reliable source that the resolution to change the voting rules passed.

All UPCI ministers in good standing are now eligible to vote at GC.

For those of you unfamiliar with the inner workings of the UPCI, this is huge.

That's all the info I have. If anyone has anything additional, please let us all know!

[tstew]

Oh. I thought it was the resolution that gave all ministers in good standing the vote. I must be getting my numbers confused. That's the one I want to know about.

They voted in a resolution that allows all ministers to vote at the national and district level.

[Weary Pilgrim]

No mention of how many left....


Jonny Godair was present last night as was Nate Wilson's wife

They are showing up to see what the attendence is, how many short dresses they see, who's on the platform with facial hair, blah, blah, blah.......

They need more fodder to preach about. Plus, they want to go away and say, "It's nothing like the old days."

[tstew]

I have just heard from a pretty reliable source that the resolution to change the voting rules passed.

All UPCI ministers in good standing are now eligible to vote at GC.

For those of you unfamiliar with the inner workings of the UPCI, this is huge.

That's all the info I have. If anyone has anything additional, please let us all know!

I believe they can also vote at the district level as well.

[Digging4Truth]

I am happy to confess I am a Hold the Fort preacher unashamed.

I think we were commanded less to hold some fort and more to simply carry the Gospel.

Sometimes the Gospel may find itself encumbered with all this fort holding.

[A_PoMo]

I am happy to confess I am a Hold the Fort preacher unashamed.

Remember the Alamo!! :snapout

[Sister Alvear]

Well...we are still in the dark...ha...

[Sister Alvear]

I am praying for us all to be saved.

[lookupsocial]

They are showing up to see what the attendence is, how many short dresses they see, who's on the platform with facial hair, blah, blah, blah.......

They need more fodder to preach about. Plus, they want to go away and say, "It's nothing like the old days."

Both Johnny and his brother Kenny were there last night. I made sure I got a picture or two.

[George]

They are showing up to see what the attendence is, how many short dresses they see, who's on the platform with facial hair, blah, blah, blah.......

They need more fodder to preach about. Plus, they want to go away and say, "It's nothing like the old days."

:ursofunny
You now know what they will be preaching at the next WPF conference. :dance

[George]

Both Johnny and his brother Kenny were there last night. I made sure I got a picture or two.

Don't tell us you have pictures and not post them. :tease

[mfblume]

Brother Blume did you need to get that off your chest?

No. I actually thought it was speaking well of the UPCI. Those who left were disgruntled and should have left. :) Not all who ever left, though, were disgruntled.

I believe that the UPCI leadership has intended to spend the next few years working to create some needed calm in the organization. The last few years have been pretty contentious politically and there is a need for calm.

I agree.

[mfblume]

I am happy to confess I am a Hold the Fort preacher unashamed.

Isn't "HOLD THE FORT" a defeatist song that indicated we're barely holding on, under attack to close annihilation, waiting for Jesus to come?

[Jermyn Davidson]

I'm reading a lot of criticisms concerning the structure of the UPCI. Does anyone have any info as to how it compares to the structure of other organizations?

From my experience, the organizational structure and support for the individual church that I found while attending the UPCI is unparalleled within the ranks of Apostolic organizations.

This is the impression I got from what I personally witnessed, what I have heard people discuss and what I have experienced while attending other Apostolic, non-UPCI churches.

[MissBrattified]

I am happy to confess I am a Hold the Fort preacher unashamed.

Thanks to Martin Luther and others, though, you are no longer a Catholic. :)

I'm glad ML didn't try to "hold the fort." Nail the theses to the door!!!!!! Dratted Roman Catholic Basilica building fund indulgences!!!!! Off with their proverbial heads...oh wait...that was the fate of thousands of Huguenots in France in the mid-1500's--because they tried to reform the RC "Fort."

Holding the Fort is good--but sometimes, it's bad. Soooooo...as long as the "fort" means the "Word", then I'm all for it. :coffee2

[lookupsocial]

Don't tell us you have pictures and not post them. :tease

Here you are. Sorry for the poor lighting and resolution. These were taken pretty much on the fly.

[Encryptus]

Isn't "HOLD THE FORT" a defeatist song that indicated we're barely holding on, under attack to close annihilation, waiting for Jesus to come?

It does seem to be the opposite of go out unto all the world doesn't it?

[aegsm76]

LOL, you guys need to read/watch some history about forts! Forts were where people went when they were under attack. You did not live in the fort, (typically). Most forst even had the soldiers' quarters outside. The common people lived outside, sometimes several miles away.
But, I know it is sometimes much better to have fun at an old songs expense!
Just don't make a theological statement out of it:)

[MissBrattified]

LOL, you guys need to read/watch some history about forts! Forts were where people went when they were under attack. You did not live in the fort, (typically). Most forst even had the soldiers' quarters outside. The common people lived outside, sometimes several miles away.
But, I know it is sometimes much better to have fun at an old songs expense!
Just don't make a theological statement out of it:)

"Hold the fort" is an idiom, and means: to be left in charge of a situation or place while someone is away.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you--just pointing out that it's an idiom, and thus doesn't have to reflect the literal meaning of "hold the fort." :coffee2 (whatever that may be)

[Steve Epley]

Isn't "HOLD THE FORT" a defeatist song that indicated we're barely holding on, under attack to close annihilation, waiting for Jesus to come?

A little like "shall the Son of Man find faith on the earth when He returns."

[Digging4Truth]

A little like "shall the Son of Man find faith on the earth when He returns."

Holding the fort is a defensive position.

I don't think that holding a fort is a position of faith. Going forth would be a position of faith.

[Steve Epley]

They are showing up to see what the attendence is, how many short dresses they see, who's on the platform with facial hair, blah, blah, blah.......

They need more fodder to preach about. Plus, they want to go away and say, "It's nothing like the old days."

We have a prophet who can read the hearts on these folks and he isn't even there. What could he do if he was there?

[Steve Epley]

I think we were commanded less to hold some fort and more to simply carry the Gospel.

Sometimes the Gospel may find itself encumbered with all this fort holding.

Then Paul should not have used the term maintain or Jude contend if you had only been alive to instruct them.:whistle

[Steve Epley]

Holding the fort is a defensive position.

I don't think that holding a fort is a position of faith. Going forth would be a position of faith.

The shield of faith is not for INCOMING darts? Forget the Fort and do your own thing I am staying with the Fort.

[Digging4Truth]

The shield of faith is not for INCOMING darts? Forget the Fort and do your own thing I am staying with the Fort.

The shield of faith is mobile and doesn't confine you to one position.

The shield of faith is for pushing forward in spite of the oncoming attack.

A fort is for hunkering down in one spot fighting for your life while the enemy enjoys full mobility.

But... as has been said... there isn't anything doctrinal that we can base this discussion on... in the end it is a battle of better ideas.

So... I will drop my end of the volley... your end will be up to you.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

Bro. Alex, I know that you would like to have every organization done away with. I'm just curious as to whether the structure of the UPCI is so far oput of the norm...I even read the word "cult" like in the thread. I am genuinely curious about whether this is an anomoly.

The norm is NEVER the standard for the apostolic church.

If we wanted to be "normal" we'd be trinitarians, and we'd have popes or patriarchs or archbishops and "reverends".

-Bro. Alex

[Sarah]

Uh, really?

So, the Oneness church "emerging" from the trinitarians wasn't a good thing? The evangelical church "emerging" from the Roman Catholic church wasn't a good thing?

No offense, but this "hold the fort" mentality is the damnable doctrine, here.


Brother Mike, the "book of Acts" church didn't emerge from the trinity church. It's the original.

I'm just not familiar with the term "emerging church". But the book of Revelation does say to "come out of her my people.......". Maybe we're still in the process of coming out.....

[Tim Rutledge]

They voted in a resolution that allows all ministers to vote at the national and district level.

huge mistake. imho.

[George]

Here you are. Sorry for the poor lighting and resolution. These were taken pretty much on the fly.

Hey, I was just kiddin' with you about the pictures, but thanks for playing along. :dance

[George]

huge mistake. imho.

Glad you said "IMHO." I disagree. I think all ministers who are paying dues should be allowed to vote on the national and district level. I do think, however, that only pastors should vote on the sectional level.

[Tim Rutledge]

Brother Mike, the "book of Acts" church didn't emerge from the trinity church. It's the original.

I'm just not familiar with the term "emerging church". But the book of Revelation does say to "come out of her my people.......". Maybe we're still in the process of coming out.....

Right Sis. Sarah. Apostolics are not protestants.

[Charnock]

Right Sis. Sarah. Apostolics are not protestants.

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy

[Sept5SavedTeen]

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy

But we weren't supposed to be a split off or the child of the Methodist church, you see, we went back and experienced the restoration of the apostolic Christian church.

-Bro. Alex

[Jermyn Davidson]

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy


Is this yet another, "Inconvenient Truth?"


Or another question is could it be possible that God saved souls who were Catholic, living what they knew?

In the Dark Ages, the avg Serf couldn't read you know.

However for some, the answer is a resounding, "No, they were all lost and all are burning in hell and have been there since 1492!"

No scripture for it, but somehow that just never sat right with me.

[tstew]

Glad you said "IMHO." I disagree. I think all ministers who are paying dues should be allowed to vote on the national and district level. I do think, however, that only pastors should vote on the sectional level.

George, I tend to agree with you on this.

[Tim Rutledge]

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy

I understand you not understanding. The Acts 2:38, Jesus name Church has existed since the day of pentecost. I understand where your coming from.. as far as trinity guys in N. America getting a revelation.. and so forth.. but the true Church, the Bride of Christ, did not rise from false doctrine. It started in Acts chapter 2. God bless.

[El Apostolico]

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy

If it wouldn't have been for the ONE GOD we would not be here. It is by the ONE GOD we are here, and not by anything else. It is HIS WORD, HIS SPIRIT, HIS WILL, HIS POWER, HIS CHURCH, HIS PLAN, AND HIS GRACE.

[PraiseHymn]

Uh can we get to the juicy details / updates about the conference. And please, explain things in laymens terms. Everyone here DOES NOT know UPCI jargon. I have no clue what these resolutions 1-6 or what have you is all about.

[Michael Phelps]

Brother Mike, the "book of Acts" church didn't emerge from the trinity church. It's the original.

I'm just not familiar with the term "emerging church". But the book of Revelation does say to "come out of her my people.......". Maybe we're still in the process of coming out.....

Good points, Sarah.

However, the church of 2008 is so far removed from the Book of Acts church, in my opinion, that we need to "emerge" from the secular view of what church should be, back "into" the book of Acts model.

The early church reached the entire continent of Asia with the gospel in the space of 2 1/2 years, without the aid of telephones, cars, internet, DVDs, etc.

How are we coming along with that in 2008? Not so good, I think.

We've become more enamored with buildings, and programs that feed the ego of our own members than we are with reaching souls.

As Vesta Mangun says, we continue to preach to the same few people week after week, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to even keep THEM happy.

Our songs are tailored to keep our members happy, the temprerature in the sanctuary is set to keep people happy, and the list goes on.

Show me anywhere in the Book of Acts where people came to the same building week after week and waited for the sinners to come to them? I'm not against church, but I AM against the same people just coming back to the same building three times a week, and waiting for the sinner to stroll in, when the Bible clearly says they "WENT INTO ALL THE WORLD".

I love the UPC, but I daresay our commitment to going into the world and reaching the lost has become somewhat overshadowed by "being separate" from the world. We may be separate in our dress, but not necessarily in the way we have church.


That's my two cents!

[Ron]

Good points, Sarah.

However, the church of 2008 is so far removed from the Book of Acts church, in my opinion, that we need to "emerge" from the secular view of what church should be, back "into" the book of Acts model.

The early church reached the entire continent of Asia with the gospel in the space of 2 1/2 years, without the aid of telephones, cars, internet, DVDs, etc.

How are we coming along with that in 2008? Not so good, I think.

We've become more enamored with buildings, and programs that feed the ego of our own members than we are with reaching souls.

As Vesta Mangun says, we continue to preach to the same few people week after week, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to even keep THEM happy.

Our songs are tailored to keep our members happy, the temprerature in the sanctuary is set to keep people happy, and the list goes on.

Show me anywhere in the Book of Acts where people came to the same building week after week and waited for the sinners to come to them? I'm not against church, but I AM against the same people just coming back to the same building three times a week, and waiting for the sinner to stroll in, when the Bible clearly says they "WENT INTO ALL THE WORLD".

I love the UPC, but I daresay our commitment to going into the world and reaching the lost has become somewhat overshadowed by "being separate" from the world. We may be separate in our dress, but not necessarily in the way we have church.


That's my two cents!

I agree 100% with what you are saying, & only part with the part in bold.

I don't think it is a total separation issue as it is a love of comfort.

I read a book recently where the author compares the North American Church with Laodicea, it is rich & increased with goods & yet it is naked & poor.

Jesus commended two Churches in the book of Revelation, Smyrna the persecuted Church, and Philadelphia the faithful Church.
Both were not Mega Churches, not wealthy at all.

Compare that to Laodicia a rich and seemingly prosperous Church, that God called to repentance.

We need to be a soul wining Church for sure, myself included!

[Cindy]

Good points, Sarah.

However, the church of 2008 is so far removed from the Book of Acts church, in my opinion, that we need to "emerge" from the secular view of what church should be, back "into" the book of Acts model.

The early church reached the entire continent of Asia with the gospel in the space of 2 1/2 years, without the aid of telephones, cars, internet, DVDs, etc.

How are we coming along with that in 2008? Not so good, I think.

We've become more enamored with buildings, and programs that feed the ego of our own members than we are with reaching souls.

As Vesta Mangun says, we continue to preach to the same few people week after week, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to even keep THEM happy.

Our songs are tailored to keep our members happy, the temprerature in the sanctuary is set to keep people happy, and the list goes on.

Show me anywhere in the Book of Acts where people came to the same building week after week and waited for the sinners to come to them? I'm not against church, but I AM against the same people just coming back to the same building three times a week, and waiting for the sinner to stroll in, when the Bible clearly says they "WENT INTO ALL THE WORLD".

I love the UPC, but I daresay our commitment to going into the world and reaching the lost has become somewhat overshadowed by "being separate" from the world. We may be separate in our dress, but not necessarily in the way we have church.


That's my two cents!

Have you been talking to my pastor Michael? Preach it my brother.

[Blubayou]

Michael and Ron - all I can say is "preach it Brother!"

[Cindy]

Michael and Ron - all I can say is "preach it Brother!"

Amen!

[Michael Phelps]

I agree 100% with what you are saying, & only part with the part in bold.

I don't think it is a total separation issue as it is a love of comfort.

I read a book recently where the author compares the North American Church with Laodicea, it is rich & increased with goods & yet it is naked & poor.

Jesus commended two Churches in the book of Revelation, Smyrna the persecuted Church, and Philadelphia the faithful Church.
Both were not Mega Churches, not wealthy at all.

Compare that to Laodicia a rich and seemingly prosperous Church, that God called to repentance.

We need to be a soul wining Church for sure, myself included!

Good points, Ron, and I would agree. I definitely think the "comfort level" is a HUGE part of our inactivity in 2008.

But, also comfort is tied to separation in some cases. Only speaking from personal experience here, but people who are living by a certain code get very comfortable with that code, and they become content with the fact that they have fulfilled their obligation and "paid their dues" for the Lord by being separate - not realizing that reaching the lost is our main mission.

[Cindy]

It is not just up to the pastors, preachers, and evangelists to go out and win souls, but the laymen as well.

[Ron]

Good points, Ron, and I would agree. I definitely think the "comfort level" is a HUGE part of our inactivity in 2008.

But, also comfort is tied to separation in some cases. Only speaking from personal experience here, but people who are living by a certain code get very comfortable with that code, and they become content with the fact that they have fulfilled their obligation and "paid their dues" for the Lord by being separate - not realizing that reaching the lost is our main mission.

Good Point!

[Ron]

It is not just up to the pastors, preachers, and evangelists to go out and win souls, but the laymen as well.

Everyone Sis!

[Cindy]

I was just thinking about all the drug addicts in our little town. And what would happen if someone tried to reach all of them. And tell them how God could deliver them. Would they be welcome in our churches? And all sinners that need to be saved. What if your church welcomed drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other sinners? Would you still attend that church or would you leave? Why aren't we travailing over these lost souls. Sister Alvear, Sherri, and Keith and Jeanne make me ashamed. They go out and do it!

[Light]

How utterly ignorant.

"Apostolics" would not exist if not for some holiness-minded Methodists that got a hold of God over in Topeka around the turn of the twentieth century.

Talk about revisionist history?!

:crazy
There has always been a oneness Jesus name preacher in every age from Pentecost to today, somewhere in the world.

[Jermyn Davidson]

There has always been a oneness Jesus name preacher in every age from Pentecost to today, somewhere in the world.

Really?

Pretty bold statement. Care to document it? Or if you'd like to just go off your memory, that's cool.

[TRFrance]

There has always been a oneness Jesus name preacher in every age from Pentecost to today, somewhere in the world.
Really?

Pretty bold statement. Care to document it? Or if you'd like to just go off your memory, that's cool.
Yes. Grab your bible. That's all the documentation we need.

Obviously, the Oneness of God and Jesus name message were preached by the Apostles from the very beginning. [There should be little or no dispute about that fact around here.]And Jesus said... "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". (Matt 16:18)
The meaning of that verse doesn't need much further clarification. It's telling us the church would be engaged in war against the Devil's kingdom, but the Devils kingdom would never prevail. If you're assuming that there was a time where the original gospel disappeared off the face of the earth, then you are contradicting the clear word of scripture.

[Charnock]

Yes. Grab your bible. That's all the documentation we need.

Obviously, the Oneness of God and Jesus name message were preached by the Apostles from the very beginning. [There should be little or no dispute about that fact around here.]And Jesus said... "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". (Matt 16:18)
The meaning of that verse doesn't need much further clarification. It's telling us the church would be engaged in war against the Devil's kingdom, but the Devils kingdom would never prevail. If you're assuming that there was a time where the original gospel disappeared off the face of the earth, then you are contradicting the clear word of scripture.

Bologna.

There were many times in history when there was not a hint of what we teach now as "the gospel." I think you are intimating that "the gospel" is Acts 2:38, which is a classic Oneness misnomer. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. It is true that this "original gospel" has never disappeared.

However, what we consider Apostolic truth is less than a century old.

[Sam]

Bologna.

There were many times in history when there was not a hint of what we teach now as "the gospel." I think you are intimating that "the gospel" is Acts 2:38, which is a classic Oneness misnomer. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. It is true that this "original gospel" has never disappeared.

However, what we consider Apostolic truth is less than a century old.


This has been a "controversy" among Oneness folks for some time now.

We used to be taught that there was an early and latter rain i.e. an outpouring of the Spirit in the first century and another in the "last days" that we are in now. It was also taught that the "truth" was lost or buried or stolen in 325 AD and was gradually rediscovered by Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc until it was "fully restored" in 1914.

Later, some have taught that there were "always" some who taught "oneness, baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, and the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) with the "initial physical evidence" of speaking with other tongues." This was based on some obscure and vague references throughout history of variations in doctrine on the nature of God; references to those who taught "believers' baptism" and/or baptism by immersion; and references to spiritual gifts being manifested at different times and places.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Obviously, the Oneness of God and Jesus name message were preached by the Apostles from the very beginning. [There should be little or no dispute about that fact around here.][INDENT]And Jesus said... "Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". (Matt 16:18)


TRFRANCE,

I have thought for a long time that the verse you ref'd speaks of the "rock" being Jesus' identity as the "Son of God".

The whole Gospel is built upon the fact that our Jesus is THE CHRIST the Son of the Living God.

[TRFrance]

Bologna.

There were many times in history when there was not a hint of what we teach now as "the gospel." I think you are intimating that "the gospel" is Acts 2:38, which is a classic Oneness misnomer. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. It is true that this "original gospel" has never disappeared.

However, what we consider Apostolic truth is less than a century old.
Well, since you want to nitpick, we can do that. Yes, we know that the gospel, or literally "good news" is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Everyone here already understands that. From the context of the original question discussed here, it should be pretty clear that we are referring to the "plan of salvation".

But since you want to split hairs, fine...

The plan of salvation is embodied in Acts 2:38. That was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and that has never changed.

The Acts 2:38 plan of salvation as taught in Apostolic churches today is not something that's less than a century old.
-------



There were many times in history when there was not a hint of what we teach now as "the gospel."
1... Well, your wording almost implies that you think the Acts 2:38 salvation plan is a modern-day invention. "What we teach now as the gospel" (as you refer to it) is not something different from what he Apostles taught. If so, please prove it to be so, since you made the assertion.

2... You're implying that "there was not a hint of" the Acts 2:38 gospel at certain times in our history. That's called an argument from silence, and in this case such an argument is simply not valid.

An absence of man-made historical documentation of Acts 2:38 being preached IS NOT PROOF that it did not exist during the particular period of time you may be referring to.

To put it simply: Absence of evidence of something is not proof of its absence.

Your argument to the contrary is actually built on speculation and "absence of evidence", rather than on actual evidence.

Perhaps we shouldn't even continue this discussion if you cant provide us evidence to back up your assertions. Take care.

[ManOfWord]

I think what Charnock was referring to was the 3 step gospel which was birthed in 1914. That being "tongues or hell." That viewpoint WAS new and I have historical references in the "One Stepper" thread.

If I have misspoke, Charnock, feel free to correct me! :D

[tv1a]

It took 50 years, but finally the spiritual abortionists are gone at our church. We can now minister to the hurt, the afflicted, the addicted with out a spiritual nazi shoving them into the gas chamber. We had 50 kids show up last night to Friday Night Fear Factor. That would not have happened if the deadbeat saints were still there. Thank God and Greyhound they are gone.

I was just thinking about all the drug addicts in our little town. And what would happen if someone tried to reach all of them. And tell them how God could deliver them. Would they be welcome in our churches? And all sinners that need to be saved. What if your church welcomed drunks, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other sinners? Would you still attend that church or would you leave? Why aren't we travailing over these lost souls. Sister Alvear, Sherri, and Keith and Jeanne make me ashamed. They go out and do it!

[StMark]

It took 50 years, but finally the spiritual abortionists are gone at our church. We can now minister to the hurt, the afflicted, the addicted with out a spiritual nazi shoving them into the gas chamber. We had 50 kids show up last night to Friday Night Fear Factor. That would not have happened if the deadbeat saints were still there. Thank God and Greyhound they are gone.



What's friday fear factor?

[Charnock]

Well, since you want to nitpick, we can do that. Yes, we know that the gospel, or literally "good news" is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Everyone here already understands that. From the context of the original question discussed here, it should be pretty clear that we are referring to the "plan of salvation".

But since you want to split hairs, fine...

The plan of salvation is embodied in Acts 2:38. That was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and that has never changed.

The Acts 2:38 plan of salvation as taught in Apostolic churches today is not something that's less than a century old.
-------



1... Well, your wording almost implies that you think the Acts 2:38 salvation plan is a modern-day invention. "What we teach now as the gospel" (as you refer to it) is not something different from what he Apostles taught. If so, please prove it to be so, since you made the assertion.

2... You're implying that "there was not a hint of" the Acts 2:38 gospel at certain times in our history. That's called an argument from silence, and in this case such an argument is simply not valid.

An absence of man-made historical documentation of Acts 2:38 being preached IS NOT PROOF that it did not exist during the particular period of time you may be referring to.

To put it simply: Absence of evidence of something is not proof of its absence.

Your argument to the contrary is actually built on speculation and "absence of evidence", rather than on actual evidence.

Perhaps we shouldn't even continue this discussion if you cant provide us evidence to back up your assertions. Take care.


You cannot say with absolute certainty that anyone, ever, preached the same message that we preach today. We can say that some groups have preached one element or another, but none of them have preached the same message, with the same emphasis, that we do.

Your attempt to marginalize through philosophical entreaty is infantile and rude.

Are Apostolics Protestants? That was the original question. The answer is an unequivicol yes.

[Ron]

I think what Charnock was referring to was the 3 step gospel which was birthed in 1914. That being "tongues or hell." That viewpoint WAS new and I have historical references in the "One Stepper" thread.

If I have misspoke, Charnock, feel free to correct me! :D

I believe in a 3 step Gospel that has three separate important parts!

Reference I use is the Bible!:whistle

[TRFrance]

You cannot say with absolute certainty that anyone, ever, preached the same message that we preach today. We can say that some groups have preached one element or another, but none of them have preached the same message, with the same emphasis, that we do.

Your attempt to marginalize through philosophical entreaty is infantile and rude.

Are Apostolics Protestants? That was the original question. The answer is an unequivicol yes.
Wow. :snapout
First of all, take that chip off your shoulder. It's not necessary. And frankly, I find your tone a bit repugnant. Really, who cares if you're right if your spirit reeks?

I frankly don't wish to even get into a debate with you on this, and never intended to. You may notice my first post was originally responding to Mike's question (here (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=611523&postcount=120)). I didnt expect it to become a back and forth thing with him -- ( and it didnt). It was just supposed to be a simple response to his question. Unfortunately you have chosen to jump in, with what I consider to be an unnecessarily contentious attitude.

But anyway, to address some of the points you've made there....

No-one was being rude to you, if anything, you're the one who took it to that level and made it personal with your name-calling. I never called you any names, so if anyone is being "infantile" and/or rude, perhaps that would be you. Before you call me any names, you need to check your own self, and your overly aggressive attitude and responses you've displayed (and not only toward me on this thread.).

Furthermore, no-one is attempting to "marginalize" anyone, so I'm not sure where you're even getting that from. I attacked what I saw as the weakness of your argument. I did not attack you -- big difference. Unfortunately, you chose not to return the same courtesy.

My point was that you tried to make a point using an argument from silence", generally recognized as being an unreliable basis by which to establish a point. That is not "philosophical entreaty" as you call it. That is a basic tenet of debate and discussion. You can't state factually that something didn't happen [as a response to their assertion that it did], by stating a negative and not providing evidence (especially if the historical "evidence" one might use is debatable anyway.).Without going into the specific details of your specific argument you used, trying to "prove a negative" in this case , simply does not work in a case where you cant provide tangible evidence to prove your point. That's a simple fact I pointed out to you. That I saw as a fatal flaw underlying your argument, and I pointed that out. (Whether you agree, or accept it, is another matter). But you are the one who made it personal, with your unseemly response. Also, the maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not "philosophical entreaty". It's simply a widely accepted fact which is also straightforward and logical.

Sorry if anything I said came across to you being rude. I cant even honestly apologize for being rude toward you, because I know I was not. But frankly, if you think someone telling you they think your argument is fundamentally unsound is being rude, then maybe message boards are just not for you. One can disagree, even strongly disagree, without becoming disagreeable. And one can "attack the argument, but not the person", which I have no problem with anyone doing with me.

I'm of the idea that if you can't refute someone's point, or if you're upset about someone pointing out what they see as weaknesses in your argument, then deal with it politely, or walk away, or whatever. But dont respond with personal invective.

Are Apostolics Protestants? That was the original question. The answer is an unequivicol yes.
Again, you are incorrect . If you're going to jump into a conversation, at least get the facts straight. The original question was not "are Apostolics protestants?". If you look at the comment I made, you'll see the "original question" I was responding to. The question (HERE (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=611523&postcount=120)) from Mike was can anyone document that there was a oneness Jesus name preacher in every age from pentecost till now somewhere in the world?. My answer to him was yes, and my "documentation" was the scripture which indicated that the devil would never prevail against the church [and by extention, the gospel message]. THAT was the original question I responded to, and that's where you jumped in to respond to my message. The question of "are Apostolics protestant" is not what I was even talking about, so unfortunately, once again you're off the mark.

--------

But as to your actual point that... You cannot say with absolute certainty that anyone, ever, preached the same message that we preach today. We can say that some groups have preached one element or another, but none of them have preached the same message, with the same emphasis, that we do.

Well, you've added certain nuances to the discussion that werent even part of my original post. Still, it's moot at this point, since I'm not trying to get into any debate with you or anyone on those points.

Much of that could be debated, if I felt like debating it, which I dont. And I believe I could make a strong argument in the affirmative, but I dont really feel like getting into it . Much of it comes down to what one considers "the gospel" or "the salvation plan". It could become a long and drawn out back and forth thing, which I dont feel like getting into, and many of the points I would make, I've already made them in previous posts that deal with 1st -century doctrine vs. 2008 Pentecostal doctrine, 1step/3step, etc. Often those discussions become arguments, and I've developed less and less of a stomach for useless arguing with strangers on the internet.

The primary point of my post was that man-made documents couldn't prove anything one way or another regarding that question. Thus, in the end, what we have is the word of God, which to me clearly promises the continuity of the church and it's message. Thus based on that, that's enough to prove in my mind, that God always has someone preaching the message the Apostles preached. If you disagree, fine. But I wasnt asking you to agree with me anyway. I was simply responding to someone else's question.

But again I find it unfortunate and ironic that you come out here with both guns blasting, and calling me names... while not looking at yourself in the spiritual mirror and seeing how toxic and obnoxious the tone of your own posts is. Physician, please, heal thyself.

[TRFrance]

I believe in a 3 step Gospel that has three separate important parts!

Reference I use is the Bible!:whistle
Well said Ron.

And also, I've always contended that the idea that the so-called "3-stepper gospel" did not exist before the early 20th century, as some assert, is scriptural and historically unprovable.

[Ron]

My Pastor just got back from GC & while he didn't hear any rumours of Sarah Palin speaking at GC, he did see her bus in the city.

[ManOfWord]

Well said Ron.

And also, I've always contended that the idea that the so-called "3-stepper gospel" did not exist before the early 20th century, as some assert, is scriptural and historically unprovable.

I'm not going to hijack this thread, however, I think historically, there is probably a good case that the oneness view of the godhead has existed in some form throughout the ages. There also have been those who have baptized in Jesus' name and we all know that the HGB has been received throughout the ages as well in different pockets. However, the doctrine that a person is not saved until after they have spoken in tongues IS a product of the 20th century and does not have historical roots or precedents.

I've never discounted the death, burial & resurrection gospel, but the idea that one is not rapture ready unless they speak in tongues, I think, is preposterous. I won't comment any more on this thread because I know that is not its topic, but I'm only making these comments based on earlier ones regarding the gospel. :D

[Pressing-On]

Well said Ron.

And also, I've always contended that the idea that the so-called "3-stepper gospel" did not exist before the early 20th century, as some assert, is scriptural and historically unprovable.

Exactly! In Acts 10:43-48:

(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.

Acts 2:38 says to Repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins and you SHALL receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We can clearly see that the Gentiles fulfilled all points of Acts 2:38 and this was said of them:

Acts 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received (accepted) the word of God.

They knew by those things - repentance, baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues - they had received (accepted) the word of God.

Galatians 1:8-9:

(8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

(9) As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[Brad Murphy]

I accept that the Jesus name baptism may have been around in pockets, but I sure don't see anyone producing either a family genealogical legacy or any organization producing any historical documentation that they have existed in some form since Christ's time. I'm talking about historical documentation that dates back more than a hundred years or so... The only "Christian" religion that can make any claims at all is the Catholic church and those churches who were created in the various break-offs from it... and yes, I have the Word document that someone threw together which "proves" an unbroken line of Apostolics all the way back to Christ's time.

I can't start a company in 2007 and say that people have been doing what I do for 50 years, therefore my company is 50 years old.... just because some pocket of people that no one has ever had any contact with may have done something does not mean you can claim it as part of your personal legacy.

Black swan theory again... since no one has ever seen a black swan, that doesn't mean they do not exist, so you can't prove that they didn't.... kind of a catch-22.

[Rose]

Priscilla McGruder received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Pentecostal Music Association on Wed Eve at the Conference. Though she looked weak, her testimony was and is still strong... believing for another miracle that God is healing her of bone cancer just as He healed her of breast cancer!!!!!
Praise the Lord!

[Digging4Truth]

Priscilla McGruder received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Pentecostal Music Association on Wed Eve at the Conference. Though she looked weak, her testimony was and is still strong... believing for another miracle that God is healing her of bone cancer just as He healed her of breast cancer!!!!!
Praise the Lord!

Never heard of such a thing. I wasn't aware that there were lifetime achievement awards given out.

You learn something new every day.

[meBNme]

TRFRANCE,

I have thought for a long time that the verse you ref'd speaks of the "rock" being Jesus' identity as the "Son of God".

The whole Gospel is built upon the fact that our Jesus is THE CHRIST the Son of the Living God.

Matthew 16
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

It seems apparent to me that the Rock is Peter himself and the message he would preach, containing the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That message that Peter preached when he revealed the keys in Acts 2:38, and the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.... That is the rock that Jesus built his Church on. The church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

[Jason B]

This has been a "controversy" among Oneness folks for some time now.

We used to be taught that there was an early and latter rain i.e. an outpouring of the Spirit in the first century and another in the "last days" that we are in now. It was also taught that the "truth" was lost or buried or stolen in 325 AD and was gradually rediscovered by Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc until it was "fully restored" in 1914.

Later, some have taught that there were "always" some who taught "oneness, baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, and the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) with the "initial physical evidence" of speaking with other tongues." This was based on some obscure and vague references throughout history of variations in doctrine on the nature of God; references to those who taught "believers' baptism" and/or baptism by immersion; and references to spiritual gifts being manifested at different times and places.

From studying it out my opinion is, both are true. I do believe that as the roman church grew along with the drifting away of the original church (such as we see mentioned even in revelation-leaving your first love,etc.) That the church doctrinally that Jesus founded was more or less scatted underground groups that were persecuted by the recognized church throughout history. In the mean time, our od who loves all souls also began to restore the mainline church one truth at a time, growing from Luther, Wesley, Campbell, etc. Until the modern pentecostal revival.

I am not claiming to be an expert,and I am not saying it is a slam dunk, but I certainly do think this is not terribly far fetched, especially when considering the evedence.

[SoCaliUPC]

Never heard of such a thing. I wasn't aware that there were lifetime achievement awards given out.

You learn something new every day.

The PMA has been doing this for the past 3 years now. They have honored men and woman such as the Urshans, J,Hugh Rose, Steve Richardson, C.M. Becton, Bobbie Shoemake, The McGruders. It is the Music Ministry of the UPC giving honor to those who have made a difference, musically, in the Apostolic world.

[Ron]

The PMA has been doing this for the past 3 years now. They have honored men and woman such as the Urshans, J,Hugh Rose, Steve Richardson, C.M. Becton, Bobbie Shoemake, The McGruders. It is the Music Ministry of the UPC giving honor to those who have made a difference, musically, in the Apostolic world.

Don't tell me Lanny Wolf has one????:shifty

[mizpeh]

Good points, Sarah.

However, the church of 2008 is so far removed from the Book of Acts church, in my opinion, that we need to "emerge" from the secular view of what church should be, back "into" the book of Acts model.

The early church reached the entire continent of Asia with the gospel in the space of 2 1/2 years, without the aid of telephones, cars, internet, DVDs, etc.

How are we coming along with that in 2008? Not so good, I think.

We've become more enamored with buildings, and programs that feed the ego of our own members than we are with reaching souls.

As Vesta Mangun says, we continue to preach to the same few people week after week, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to even keep THEM happy.

Our songs are tailored to keep our members happy, the temprerature in the sanctuary is set to keep people happy, and the list goes on.

Show me anywhere in the Book of Acts where people came to the same building week after week and waited for the sinners to come to them? I'm not against church, but I AM against the same people just coming back to the same building three times a week, and waiting for the sinner to stroll in, when the Bible clearly says they "WENT INTO ALL THE WORLD".

I love the UPC, but I daresay our commitment to going into the world and reaching the lost has become somewhat overshadowed by "being separate" from the world. We may be separate in our dress, but not necessarily in the way we have church.


That's my two cents!

You said quite a bit more than 2 cents worth! :bliss

[mizpeh]

Well, since you want to nitpick, we can do that. Yes, we know that the gospel, or literally "good news" is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Everyone here already understands that. From the context of the original question discussed here, it should be pretty clear that we are referring to the "plan of salvation".

But since you want to split hairs, fine...

The plan of salvation is embodied in Acts 2:38. That was the plan of salvation on the day of Pentecost, and that has never changed.

The Acts 2:38 plan of salvation as taught in Apostolic churches today is not something that's less than a century old.
-------




1... Well, your wording almost implies that you think the Acts 2:38 salvation plan is a modern-day invention. "What we teach now as the gospel" (as you refer to it) is not something different from what he Apostles taught. If so, please prove it to be so, since you made the assertion.

2... You're implying that "there was not a hint of" the Acts 2:38 gospel at certain times in our history. That's called an argument from silence, and in this case such an argument is simply not valid.

An absence of man-made historical documentation of Acts 2:38 being preached IS NOT PROOF that it did not exist during the particular period of time you may be referring to.

To put it simply: Absence of evidence of something is not proof of its absence.

Your argument to the contrary is actually built on speculation and "absence of evidence", rather than on actual evidence.

Perhaps we shouldn't even continue this discussion if you cant provide us evidence to back up your assertions. Take care.Thanks, TR!

Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.