Do you still believe the doctrine after leaving?

[Esther]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

[ChTatum]

I stand firm, still on the solid rock.

[Barb]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

I have heard that as long as I can remember, that when one drops 'standards', they lose doctrine as well.

I don't believe it.

Just because somebody knows somebody who doesn't believe the doctrine any longer, it's because the wife cuts her hair or the dude wears shorts when he cuts the grass.

That's generalizing, and it's not fair to the zillions of folks who still believe in Oneness and Jesus Name baptism.

[Pragmatist]

Quit following standards 20 yrs ago.

Still believe Acts 2:38, oneness, baptism in Jesus Name.

[GraceAmazing]

I still stand for truth and I still believe the doctrine despite my dropping of the outward standards...I've also found it's a whole lot harder living for the Lord because now I don't have my "guidebook of rules" to go by :D!! No seriously, I mean no disrespect..but for me, now I actually have to "know" the voice of God when it is speaking to me and I have to have the courage to stand for what I feel is right and/or wrong. I still hold to some of the outward standards such as no pierced ears and that's a conviction! I believe the doctrine with all of my being...that for me had nothing to do with my outward standards, so I had no desire to drop the doctrine!

[stmatthew]

It might be good to define what you mean by doctrine. If by it you mean that one believe the ONLY proper response to the gospel, and the ONLY way to be saved, is by obeying in completion Acts 2:38, then I think you will find only a few that continue to hold for any length of time. But then again some had standards before and never believed this way prior (PCI).

[jaxfam6]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

I know many, some family members, that believe that if you let up on one thing then, before you know it, fat meat will no longer be greasy. I still believe that Acts 2:38 is essential just like all the rest of the Bible. I just do not believe that all the 'outward holiness' that I was taught is essential to salvation.

[HopePreacher]

First, a few sentences on my background: I was raised until about age 7 in a UPC church (until about 1953). Our pastor left UPC around that time. In 1959 I received the Holy Ghost in a Pentecostal Church of God at age 12. At age 16 I returned to a UPC church then went to a UPC college graduating in 1969. I pastored and evangelized in the UPC until I left the UPC in 1981. This basic outline may help you see where I am coming from.

When I quit requiring others, and myself, to live by the standards that I never did really believe, and fellowship with other believers that I never really did believe had not been saved because they didn't get it the way I did, a whole new world opened up to me.

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

Here are some observations:
- Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods and they all believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.
- They do not hate oneness folks because of their doctrine, they are offended at their attitude toward other believers.
- Trinitarian believers teach that we are baptized into Christ, not the godhead and Christian baptism represtents that.
- Is Acts 2:38 essential? Yes it is; but the way many apply it is not.
- Many in the "apostolic" churches live in compromise because they are afraid to express what they really believe for fear of being put down or being thought of as "a compromiser." Isn't it ironic that people will compromise their true feelings to keep from being called a compromiser
- Fear is a great tool in keeping people from going forward in their understanding of God and the body of Christ.

[mizpeh]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?no, yes, yes, I believe in baptism in Jesus' name.

[Justin]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

Unfortunately, that's typical. People think just because you reevaluate a certain aspect of religion, you're going to forsake the critical doctrine as well (Acts 2:38, Oneness).

My Pastor believes the same thing, that if you leave one aspect of your beliefs, you're going to eventually abandon them all.

[Esther]

Thank you for responding.

I am glad to hear many of you have not left the doctrine for salvation.

Although I do adhear to the standards, I do NOT believe they are essential to salvation. But as long as God has me going to a UPC I will adhear to their teachings, unless it gets way out there no longer following God.

I do not have a problem with any organization having standards they want to establish boundaries for their organization.

For me personally, I can not teach these standards as salvation. For I have found no proof of them being so.

I would teach prinicipals. You must be modest. Although that opens another can of worms, I do believe must would agree that a woman exposing her breast would not be modest, nor do I believe anyone could say wearing Daisy Duke shorts would be modest.

So I do believe everyone has a line that they can draw saying this is not modest.

Although wearing one pair of earings is not in my book excessive, I do believe wearing multiple ones would be.

Wearing all black, nail polish, lipstick, etc. to me can not even be described as looking anything but occultish. (if that is a word). But wearing colored nail polish and colored lipstick to ME in no way looks like a prostitute. But when you add the red lipstick, red nail polish, Daisy Duke's, and exposing most of the flesh does make you look like a prostitute, to me.

This is wear I think you need to shun the very appearance of looking evil, which is how the movies dress those they want to look evil, in all black. Many of the young people are doing that today and I do believe many want to achive that look.

I have found NO scripture to say you can not color your hair or your nails. Not sure what scripture anyone has ever used to support that teaching????

Maybe someone here knows what scripture they use for this and can share.

But for me the main thing is to keep the main thing, and that is the doctrine. AND you must have a LOVE for the TRUTH. Truth of what the Word says, not man's.

[HopePreacher]

I appreciate your attitude sister.

Standards became an issue to me when I began to see new believers come into our congregation and saw the effect of being pressured by the old saints to conform to their standards.

When I began to compare the spirit and attitude of the "old line saints" with the spirit and attitude of the "new saints" I decided that I didn't want the believers to adopt the same attitude as the old folks, so I didn't require them to change except where there was actual instruction from scripture.

This openness finally led to me being invited to leave the organization. I did and I haven't looked back.

[LUKE2447]

[QUOTE=HopePreacher;760636]First, a few sentences on my background: I was raised until about age 7 in a UPC church (until about 1953). Our pastor left UPC around that time. In 1959 I received the Holy Ghost in a Pentecostal Church of God at age 12. At age 16 I returned to a UPC church then went to a UPC college graduating in 1969. I pastored and evangelized in the UPC until I left the UPC in 1981. This basic outline may help you see where I am coming from.

When I quit requiring others, and myself, to live by the standards that I never did really believe, and fellowship with other believers that I never really did believe had not been saved because they didn't get it the way I did, a whole new world opened up to me.

Doesn't matter whether you believe them or not but are they based on principle teaching. I know many people that believe this and that and think you are free to do whatever you want but are in error. Worlds do open up, right or wrong when you go looking. A whole new world opened up to Adam and Eve too, in error.

- To answer the questions:
Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Wow, don't jump off the unity bridge statement.

- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

Obviously you don't! Basically you have no conviction on what the whole of the Bible says and have compromised truth for error. I bet a whole world opened up to you. Next just believe all spokes lead to hub and it will get even bigger. Then you might go on Oprah! Also IMO Matt 28:19 is a fraud and the Catholic church even admits it's not even original but that is for another discussion but way to play both sides. Your statements negate by who's power and authority by mumbo jumbo to where it looks like you say in Jesus name but you don't as you said "into" the Lord Jesus Christ and not the Name but in the "name" of F,S,HS. Will it matter? THat's up to God but you don't know and I don't either but it's not correct and error.

Here are some observations:
- Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods and they all believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

Who? People with little theological background who believe in one God and call it a Trinity or educated seasoned teachers. When it comes to the educated your wrong! Claiming one thing and the theological facts are another. Trinitarians are good at switching ships in thought to say one thing but the logical conclusion is another.

- They do not hate oneness folks because of their doctrine, they are offended at their attitude toward other believers.

Seriously that is pathetic. Sure not everyone hates but have you ever heard the venom spewed by them. Way to put everything on "us" as if we are the ones who murdered left and right to defend the Trinity throughout history. False doctrine always hates truth. Truth cuts and nobody likes to be cut. Either you lack experience in this area in witnessing to both sides of the distinction of regular Joe and theologian or simply limited to who you have talked and studied.

- Trinitarian believers teach that we are baptized into Christ, not the godhead and Christian baptism represtents that.

Way to get general for acceptance and attempt to confuse the issue. Most teach that happens before baptism at repentance in evangelical churches.

- Is Acts 2:38 essential? Yes it is; but the way many apply it is not.

Again general.

- Many in the "apostolic" churches live in compromise because they are afraid to express what they really believe for fear of being put down or being thought of as "a compromiser." Isn't it ironic that people will compromise their true feelings to keep from being called a compromiser

Isn't this true of any "group"? How about the churches that teach if you teach anything your a legalist that are popping up left and right....

- Fear is a great tool in keeping people from going forward in their understanding of God and the body of Christ.

Define and be more specific. I know baptist churches that are just as bad as some so called "legalist" churches. People trying to define what is right and and what is not is NORMAL! It's called principle teaching and application! GUESS WHAT WE ALL DO IT! We do it to our children and anybody else that listens to us complain about XYZ. Some to different levels than others. Sure some go over board to you but to others not so much. Depends on your view.

[HopePreacher]

I'm not sure of your point in this post except that it appears that you are making an attempt to tear apart my position based upon your particular logical bent. I accept that and I will let others decide on the spirit of your post.

[ChTatum]

HopePreacher, thank you for your thoughtful posts and humble spirit.

LUKE2447, when I stand before the throne, you won't be sitting on it. Thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[ILG]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

Well, for me, yes, I left the doctrine of needing to be baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over you and needing to speak with tongues for salvation. But, people need to remember that this was not even believed by all in the beginning of the movement. Also, some leave and still retain the 3-step doctrine.

[LUKE2447]

HopePreacher, thank you for your thoughtful posts and humble spirit.

LUKE2447, when I stand before the throne, you won't be sitting on it. Thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

When did I say that I would judge you on the throne or anyone else. Seems people choose to cry the judgment card around here when they do choose. I called out what I see a post that lacks perspective of who does what and HIS pointing of the finger. You probably are in teh same boat with him so you are more inclined to his position. Which is the result of your post and his the result of mine.

[LUKE2447]

I'm not sure of your point in this post except that it appears that you are making an attempt to tear apart my position based upon your particular logical bent.


Wow, imagine that. Someone disagreed with your reasoning and questioned it according to another position you don't hold. Never seen that on a discussion board.

I accept that and I will let others decide on the spirit of your post.

Really don't care what others decide as my posting is not based popularity and whether I get a good rating or not. The Spirit of my post is questioning your thought process. Seems we all do that as error is error no matter who spews it.

[Baron1710]

When did I say that I would judge you on the throne or anyone else. Seems people choose to cry the judgment card around here when they do choose. I called out what I see a post that lacks perspective of who does what and HIS pointing of the finger. You probably are in teh same boat with him so you are more inclined to his position. Which is the result of your post and his the result of mine.


Logical, readable, and non judgmental.

[LUKE2447]

Logical, readable, and non judgmental.

Baron since when is calling error not judgmental? LOL!

[deltaguitar]

I left the doctrine prior to leaving the standards. But that was because I didn't want to offend anyone around me who might still be holding to the standards. However, I stopped believing in the standards long long ago. Even back at the UPC it was acceptable to debate standards as long as we didn't touch the three-step doctrine.

For a long time I believed that we were saved at repentance and that we should strongly encourage new converts to seek after the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues. I felt that "faith" wasn't enough and there had to be an outward sign that people had experienced God. I was still so caught up in the Pentecostal culture that I had a hard time letting it go. I didn't leave the UPC because I hated it I just couldn't teach people something I didn't believe anymore.

After leaving the UPC I started to admit that I wasn't really into the tongues stuff that much and not sure if I had ever really spoken in tongues. Some on this forum might remember my struggles early on because I couldn't have the pentecostal experience that I was taught was so important. However, only after finally admitting that I had never spoken in tongues and allowing myself to rest in the grace of Christ did I finally come to the understanding that I don't need tongues in order to follow Christ and if he wants me to speak in tongues he will give me that gift. I still seek after his presence and in prayer I feel the power of the Holy Ghost but I don't feel this need to speak in tongues anymore. I am not against speaking in tongues I just feel like I have the freedom to pray without trying to speak in tongues.

I guess I was so used to a church service where it wasn't church unless folks were speaking in tongues and falling out and all that. So, even though I didn't believe it anymore it was hard to leave what I had always loved and known.

Though I have left standards I am still a pretty conservative person. I love God and his word. I love following after his commands and allowing God to use my life for his glory. I feel like I have finally been born again and I know the hand of God is on me as I see the radical change in my life since leaving the "apostolic" doctrine.

Additionally, I feel like the "acts 2:38/three-step/Apostolic" doctrine was a great hindrance in my life and actually kept me from fully understanding God and possibly from even being born again. I don't think I was lost but I know that my true born again experience happened sometime after leaving the UPC church.

So, yes, I have left the standards and doctrine.

[rgcraig]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

Yes
Yes

Seems we go through cycles of these questions, huh?

[Jermyn Davidson]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?



In my own mind I can see where I have indeed departed from the strict interpretation of "Acts 2:38 or hell". That departure did not take place until I questioned "the standards" I was being taught and complying with while stationed in NC.

I will point out a few things.


I was raised in a strict Apostolic home, but my folks were NOT strict on outward standards as much as they were on behavioral conduct.

Leaving the strict interpretation of Acts 2:38 never was a thought until I was in what I will call a very legalistic UPC environment-- not all UPCI churches are like what I experienced. Nevertheless I experienced it, I'm getting over it.


I am actually in a place recently where I thinking about voluntarilly taking up some previous standards that I once felt compelled to follow.

But I am very hesitant to start back down this road (again) because I know how it ended last time.




If people did not lump the strict Acts 2:38 doctrine with standards, then folks would not equate the 2.

There are plenty of Apostolics (non-UPCI) who are very strict on the Acts 2:38 doctrine but "loose" on standards.

Sadly, many folks here, many UPCI folks that I know, would not and do not even consider them saved.


Go figure....

[Steve Epley]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

I would say 99% do leave the necessity of the doctrine. Just look on here.

[deltaguitar]

I would say 99% do leave the necessity of the doctrine. Just look on here.

We agree. :thumbsup

[HopePreacher]

Do you think it is "leaving the doctrine" as much as it is finally being able to become honest with themselves as well as others about how they truly feel and what they truly believe? (I am one of the "they" i'm referring to)

[Esther]

I would say 99% do leave the necessity of the doctrine. Just look on here.

Actually, according to the post here most have not left the doctrine of Acts 2:28, but the standards of outward appearance.

A few have left both it seems.

[LUKE2447]

Actually, according to the post here most have not left the doctrine of Acts 2:28, but the standards of outward appearance.

A few have left both it seems.

it's a mixed bag. Just like any other group or sect in Christianity as flesh is flesh no matter the belief system. In the end I hope everyone makes it and could careless if I am right or wrong. Though I don't agree with it, I wish Universalism was true and in the end we all make it for his glory. Then again I wish a lot of things!

[ChTatum]

You make my heart hurt and my head ache.....almost make me wish I believed in cussing!

[Pressing-On]

You make my heart hurt and my head ache.....almost make me wish I believed in cussing!
:ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

[tssp]

I still believe in Jesus name baptism and being filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues but haven't followed the outward appearance standards in years. I also don't drink, smoke, chew or have tattoos thank the lord. I don't believe in low necklines or short shorts. In fact, I very rarely wear shorts. I was brought up to do all things in moderation. I was brought up in the UPC but my parents allowed me to wear slacks if I wanted to. I've never been one to wear much makeup though, it just never looks right when I do it. I agree with the statement made earlier that black lipstick and nail polish looks like something out of the occult and I don't know why anyone that calls themself a child of God would want to look like that! But that's my opinion.

[RandyWayne]

I must be in the %1 that doesn't believe in ACT 2:38 AS IT IS USUALLY INTERPRETED. Basically I'm a 1-stepper and ditching the standards as heaven/or/hell issues was instrumental in seeing how the 3-step process for salvation is essentially the same thing.

[Jason B]

- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ."

I read, and largely agree with your post-at least the spirit of your post (not all of your opinions). However, I certainly do think using such baptismal formula is a compromise catch all. Why not throw in the name "YHWH" to make the sacred name people happy also?

After reading that, I wasn't suprised to read the next part:

(Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

[GrowingPains]

First, a few sentences on my background: I was raised until about age 7 in a UPC church (until about 1953). Our pastor left UPC around that time. In 1959 I received the Holy Ghost in a Pentecostal Church of God at age 12. At age 16 I returned to a UPC church then went to a UPC college graduating in 1969. I pastored and evangelized in the UPC until I left the UPC in 1981. This basic outline may help you see where I am coming from.

When I quit requiring others, and myself, to live by the standards that I never did really believe, and fellowship with other believers that I never really did believe had not been saved because they didn't get it the way I did, a whole new world opened up to me.

To answer the questions:
- Yes I still believe in the oneness. My statement on this issue is that There is but one God and He is Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
- I still baptize in Jesus name, but with a twist that most apostolics do not understand. Because it is recorded that Jesus commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I baptize using these words: "Upon the confession of your faith in Jesus the Christ as your savior and upon the command of Christ, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I now baptize you into the Lord Jesus Christ." (Incidently, I am on staff of a Charismatic church and when the senior pastor found out how I baptize he decided that everyone will be baptized that way and now I do most of the baptizing in our church).

Here are some observations:
- Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods and they all believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.
- They do not hate oneness folks because of their doctrine, they are offended at their attitude toward other believers.
- Trinitarian believers teach that we are baptized into Christ, not the godhead and Christian baptism represtents that.
- Is Acts 2:38 essential? Yes it is; but the way many apply it is not.
- Many in the "apostolic" churches live in compromise because they are afraid to express what they really believe for fear of being put down or being thought of as "a compromiser." Isn't it ironic that people will compromise their true feelings to keep from being called a compromiser
- Fear is a great tool in keeping people from going forward in their understanding of God and the body of Christ.

That's not true -- Trinitarians believer our doctrine of the godhead to be heretical plain and simple. I've interacted with some pretty well-known Trinitarian scholars on this, and all agree its heretical. Some are given a little credence because we still believe in Christ's deity, but most by and far think Oneness theology is a joke in light of Orthodox teachings.

[Baron1710]

That's not true -- Trinitarians believer our doctrine of the godhead to be heretical plain and simple. I've interacted with some pretty well-known Trinitarian scholars on this, and all agree its heretical. Some are given a little credence because we still believe in Christ's deity, but most by and far think Oneness theology is a joke in light of Orthodox teachings.

Thanks for your anecdotal evidence, I have some too and mine is the exact opposite. I have had interaction with a lot of Trinitarians scholars while taking classes in Theology at Regent, and not one of them expressed the idea it was heretical. I have also worked with Trinitarians within their ministry some for several years and even held teaching position within their churches and NEVER had that response. Certainly there are those out there that are ALWAYS right and anything they disagree with is heretical.

[ManOfWord]

I'm as oneness as the day is long! Even Epley agrees with that.....and that's saying something. I will ALWAYS baptize in Jesus' name and I preach that sin is sin! Hardly ever talk about the outward. I've found that if I focus on the inward, the rest takes care of itself. I've also found that no matter where you draw the line, people will cross it. In other words, you can't make anyone live holy or righteous. So.....I just try to stick with the Bible, be a servant and let God deal with His children. :D

[ManOfWord]

That's not true -- Trinitarians believer our doctrine of the godhead to be heretical plain and simple. I've interacted with some pretty well-known Trinitarian scholars on this, and all agree its heretical. Some are given a little credence because we still believe in Christ's deity, but most by and far think Oneness theology is a joke in light of Orthodox teachings.


I've also found the opposite when the oneness is presented in the right way. Too often oneness folks start out with why Trinitarianism is wrong, blasphemy and every one who believes it is hell bound. I have taught entire groups of trinitarians (even doctoral candidates) and not had any of them have a problem with oneness teaching. It's all in the presentation and attitude. The vast majority of oneness preachers should be ashamed of themselves for their exclusive, arrogant attitude toward those who are following all they have ever known. WE are the ones who are supposed to be the bridge builders if we have the truth not them. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! :D

[freeatlast]

I'm as oneness as the day is long! Even Epley agrees with that.....and that's saying something. I will ALWAYS baptize in Jesus' name and I preach that sin is sin! Hardly ever talk about the outward. I've found that if I focus on the inward, the rest takes care of itself. I've also found that no matter where you draw the line, people will cross it. In other words, you can't make anyone live holy or righteous. So.....I just try to stick with the Bible, be a servant and let God deal with His children. :D

I agree with you MOW, but the question is have you left the doctrine>

I think that menas the 3 step or hell doctrine of the UPC and other orgs'

Yes is my answer. i have left the doctrine that teaches ALL but us OP will burn in hell.

A doctruine that declares that if you have not spoke in tongues you are lost.

a doctrine that declares that even if you speak in tongues and are not baptised in the method and mode we proclaim to be the only mode recognized by God that will burn in hell....Yes, Thank God I have been delivered from that doctrine.

Do I believe in one God? Yes Do I baptize in Jesus name? Yes

Do I think someone has to jiggle your jaw and twirl you round and round till you speak in tongues to be saved???? Nope !!

[ILG]

I must be in the %1 that doesn't believe in ACT 2:38 AS IT IS USUALLY INTERPRETED. Basically I'm a 1-stepper and ditching the standards as heaven/or/hell issues was instrumental in seeing how the 3-step process for salvation is essentially the same thing.

I'm with you.

[GrowingPains]

Thanks for your anecdotal evidence, I have some too and mine is the exact opposite. I have had interaction with a lot of Trinitarians scholars while taking classes in Theology at Regent, and not one of them expressed the idea it was heretical. I have also worked with Trinitarians within their ministry some for several years and even held teaching position within their churches and NEVER had that response. Certainly there are those out there that are ALWAYS right and anything they disagree with is heretical.

I didn't know I needed footnotes and AP citations to make a claim that is quite obvious. There are some charismatic churches that use people if they aren't even saved, so it wouldn't surprise me that that are some that use people, even if they are a Modalist. But, by and far, fundamentalists, scholars, teachers and prominent leaders within Trinitarian circles see Modalism as a great heresy. It sounds like you've encountered for tolerant people in your studies and ministry. My experience has been opposite, and any Trinitarian's position papers would support that.

[GrowingPains]

I've also found the opposite when the oneness is presented in the right way. Too often oneness folks start out with why Trinitarianism is wrong, blasphemy and every one who believes it is hell bound. I have taught entire groups of trinitarians (even doctoral candidates) and not had any of them have a problem with oneness teaching. It's all in the presentation and attitude. The vast majority of oneness preachers should be ashamed of themselves for their exclusive, arrogant attitude toward those who are following all they have ever known. WE are the ones who are supposed to be the bridge builders if we have the truth not them. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! :D

That's interesting. I could private message you some prominent names that I've discussed godhead with. And no... the approach wasn't "you're a polytheist moron!" The approach was explaining the godhead without incendiary words like Trinity and Oneness. The Trinity is a huge traditional wall that has prevented people from freely examining the godhead openly and candidly. The response was gracious, but yes, there were the words "this is heretical doctrine, similar to Modalism." I've had that response more than a few times as well. To their credit, they are gracious, but they dismiss it has "heretical." If by "the right way" you mean it's so watered down that there is no true distinction, then you may be right. I always like to add the originator of the Trinitarian language, Tertullian, later recanted his belief and became what many consider Oneness. Ironic isn't it!

[RandyWayne]

I've also found the opposite when the oneness is presented in the right way. Too often oneness folks start out with why Trinitarianism is wrong, blasphemy and every one who believes it is hell bound. I have taught entire groups of trinitarians (even doctoral candidates) and not had any of them have a problem with oneness teaching. It's all in the presentation and attitude. The vast majority of oneness preachers should be ashamed of themselves for their exclusive, arrogant attitude toward those who are following all they have ever known. WE are the ones who are supposed to be the bridge builders if we have the truth not them. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! :D

I find it hilarious when I hear some who believe that THEIR understanding of "oneness" must be believed and understood to be heaven qualified (in addition to the other steps).
I've always understood their to be ONE God (who manifested Himself in several ways), yet to hear hyper-intellectual "oneness" folks talk and debate, I walk away wondering why the moon is not purple considering that it is made of cheese (even though there is no purple cheese -another mystery), which is slowly being eaten away by a giant statue of Donny Most and Anson Williams.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Many Oneness people think Modalism is wrong.

[mfblume]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:28?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

Yes, I believe these things still. And several years have passed now.

[GrowingPains]

I find it hilarious when I hear some who believe that THEIR understanding of "oneness" must be believed and understood to be heaven qualified (in addition to the other steps).
I've always understood their to be ONE God (who manifested Himself in several ways), yet to hear hyper-intellectual "oneness" folks talk and debate, I walk away wondering why the moon is not purple considering that it is made of cheese (even though there is no purple cheese -another mystery), which is slowly being eaten away by a giant statue of Donny Most and Anson Williams.

I agree. However, to denigrate Christ as one member of a familial godhead (Jehovah Jr) is not correct. The bottom line is that we recognize that God became flesh (like you and I) and died for our sins, and that flesh was Christ -- and in Him is the fullness of the godhead bodily. We confess He is divine and LORD. How you want to answer the Garden prayer, talking about what roles the Father, Son, HG played, etc... have fun. But He was revealed, and He was given a name that's above all names.... Jesus! I think there's much more liberty here to understanding the godhead. But the minimum is calling Him LORD. The Trinitarian creed describing the godhead is most definitely suspect and lacking harmony with the OT.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne View Post
I find it hilarious when I hear some who believe that THEIR understanding of "oneness" must be believed and understood to be heaven qualified (in addition to the other steps).
I've always understood their to be ONE God (who manifested Himself in several ways), yet to hear hyper-intellectual "oneness" folks talk and debate, I walk away wondering why the moon is not purple considering that it is made of cheese (even though there is no purple cheese -another mystery), which is slowly being eaten away by a giant statue of Donny Most and Anson Williams.


I agree. However, to denigrate Christ as one member of a familial godhead (Jehovah Jr) is not correct. The bottom line is that we recognize that God became flesh (like you and I) and died for our sins, and that flesh was Christ -- and in Him is the fullness of the godhead bodily. We confess He is divine and LORD. How you want to answer the Garden prayer, talking about what roles the Father, Son, HG played, etc... have fun. But He was revealed, and He was given a name that's above all names.... Jesus! I think there's much more liberty here to understanding the godhead. But the minimum is calling Him LORD. The Trinitarian creed describing the godhead is most definitely suspect and lacking harmony with the OT.

This is part of what I am talking about. Where did I say anything different?

[ManOfWord]

When I teach the oneness from the OT beginning with the Jewish view of God, historically, biblically etc, I find very little resistance. In fact, I've even told groups that I would give them the most biblically accurate definition and understanding of the Trinity. They simply accept it, for the most part. Do I care whether they call themselves Trinitarian or not? Of course not. The label means nothing. Oneness means nothing and trinity means nothing. "Splain" to me what you believe and we can have a great conversation. Give me a label and you've prejudiced me. Happens all the time. :D

[Baron1710]

I didn't know I needed footnotes and AP citations to make a claim that is quite obvious. There are some charismatic churches that use people if they aren't even saved, so it wouldn't surprise me that that are some that use people, even if they are a Modalist. But, by and far, fundamentalists, scholars, teachers and prominent leaders within Trinitarian circles see Modalism as a great heresy. It sounds like you've encountered for tolerant people in your studies and ministry. My experience has been opposite, and any Trinitarian's position papers would support that.

Perhaps, as MOW pointed, out it is the attitude with which you come into contact with them that creates such an attitude. I never claimed to work in charismatic churches. Besides I thought, from your position, everyone in a Charismatic church was unsaved?

Again you make an unsubstantiated claim based only on your experience. Take for instance the fact that Western Theological had serious concerns about letting five Oneness professors attend classes. One prof in particular opposed them strongly. When their time there was over another group of students followed from CLC, one a close friend of mine. When he was juggling classes and work the same professor who had so opposed Oneness people in his school, offered his home to help another Oneness student complete his studies. Why? Someone built a bridge.

When I went to Regent, I encountered nothing but kindness and respect from all the professors I came in contact with. One Prof. asked me to explain a Oneness view of the Godhead to him after class we have had a great relationship and he has invited me to sit in on classes he thought I would be interested in even after I had switched over to the school of law. Vinson Synan was the dean of the school of theology he spoke highly of many of prominent men in our movement that he had known for years. One prof. looked me up every time he had contact with other oneness people.

When someone claims to be Oneness and then acts like a jerk to everyone who doesn't believe the way they do that creates a bad name for all of us. I recall reading an account of a young man in Bible College going with his friends and basically taking over an Assembly of God meeting and preaching at them. When Pastor Haney found out he had to go and rebuild relationships and apologize for these students.

Obviously if I am writing a position paper and arguing for my position I am going to try and tear down another view, that is true if I am Oneness writing about other heretical Oneness view as well. But that doesn't mean that we cannot work together, as long as both are willing.

[LUKE2447]

Perhaps, as MOW pointed, out it is the attitude with which you come into contact with them that creates such an attitude. I never claimed to work in charismatic churches. Besides I thought, from your position, everyone in a Charismatic church was unsaved?

Again you make an unsubstantiated claim based only on your experience. Take for instance the fact that Western Theological had serious concerns about letting five Oneness professors attend classes. One prof in particular opposed them strongly. When their time there was over another group of students followed from CLC, one a close friend of mine. When he was juggling classes and work the same professor who had so opposed Oneness people in his school, offered his home to help another Oneness student complete his studies. Why? Someone built a bridge.

When I went to Regent, I encountered nothing but kindness and respect from all the professors I came in contact with. One Prof. asked me to explain a Oneness view of the Godhead to him after class we have had a great relationship and he has invited me to sit in on classes he thought I would be interested in even after I had switched over to the school of law. Vinson Synan was the dean of the school of theology he spoke highly of many of prominent men in our movement that he had known for years. One prof. looked me up every time he had contact with other oneness people.

When someone claims to be Oneness and then acts like a jerk to everyone who doesn't believe the way they do that creates a bad name for all of us. I recall reading an account of a young man in Bible College going with his friends and basically taking over an Assembly of God meeting and preaching at them. When Pastor Haney found out he had to go and rebuild relationships and apologize for these students.

Obviously if I am writing a position paper and arguing for my position I am going to try and tear down another view, that is true if I am Oneness writing about other heretical Oneness view as well. But that doesn't mean that we cannot work together, as long as both are willing.

Usually the average person in church doesn't care about the difference and sees no big deal because you believe JEsus is God. If you where a JW..... it could get ugly. Usually it's seminary students or associate pastors etc... that will give people fits cast them down. It's not just OP preachers etc... Protecting the flock you know. LOL!

[SOUNWORTHY]

I believe those of you who have dropped the standards are more concerned about we who have not dropped the standards than we who have not dropped the standards are concerned about you who have. I feel it's between you and God and that should concern you.

I also feel that the reason you are so concerned is because yoiu feel a little guilt deep down deep in your heart.

I also notice many of you who have dropped the standards have a great dislike for UPC or anyone who has not dropped the standards.

[Baron1710]

Usually the average person in church doesn't care about the difference and sees no big deal because you believe JEsus is God. If you where a JW..... it could get ugly. Usually it's seminary students or associate pastors etc... that will give people fits cast them down. It's not just OP preachers etc... Protecting the flock you know. LOL!

While what you say is true about most lay people, last year I preached the pastor appreciation service for a Foursquare pastor, I have taught Sunday School for an Assembly of God pastor, and I have taught the college age classes for a Christian Evangelistic Assembly pastor. Never had an issue and was ALWAYS upfront about where I was coming from never deceived anyone.

[Baron1710]

I believe those of you who have dropped the standards are more concerned about we who have not dropped the standards than we who have not dropped the standards are concerned about you who have. I feel it's between you and God and that should concern you.

I also feel that the reason you are so concerned is because yoiu feel a little guilt deep down deep in your heart.

I also notice many of you who have dropped the standards have a great dislike for UPC or anyone who has not dropped the standards.

I believe (insert your favorite blue collar comedy joke here)...

I also believe you are wrong. That may be true of some, however, I feel no guilt at all for the UPCI dress standards that I rejected.

I also have many very close friends on staff at UPCI churches around the country. None of them have "dropped the standards" yet it is rare that a week goes by that I don't get a call from one of them. I don't dislike the UPCI or the people in it.

[Sister Alvear]

never belonged to UPC but they have a good missions program...

[*AQuietPlace*]

I believe those of you who have dropped the standards are more concerned about we who have not dropped the standards than we who have not dropped the standards are concerned about you who have. I feel it's between you and God and that should concern you.

I also feel that the reason you are so concerned is because yoiu feel a little guilt deep down deep in your heart.

I also notice many of you who have dropped the standards have a great dislike for UPC or anyone who has not dropped the standards.
You are very, very wrong. :)

Many people who have not dropped the standards, believe that those who have are not even saved.

(from my own personal experience, I would have to use the word 'most' in that sentence instead of 'many'.)

I don't know anyone who cares that people haven't dropped standards, they just get tired of being judged themselves.

[Michlow]

When you left the standards did you also leave the doctrine of Acts 2:38?

Do you still believe in oneness?

Do you still baptize in Jesus name?

Why do I ask?

Because a good friend of mine believes and has been taught and often seems the case that once the door is open to leave the standards the next is the doctrine.

Where do you stand?

I was going to say no, but then I thought maybe I should say yes. The confusion isn't in your question, it's in what I thought you were asking! LOL

Many people stop attending an apostolic church because they disagree with standards, not having anywhere else to go, they attend a church that teaches different doctrine. Some still believe in the 3 steps themselves and will forever, others eventually cross over.

In my case, I continued to attend an apostolic church long after I stopped believing in standards, because I still agreed with the doctrine. Those changed over the years, I eventually stopped attending, when I realized I disagreed with more than I agreed with.

But I can't deny that in many cases there is a correlation. But I don't think it's because of a slippery slope, or deception or anything like that.

In my case, I was taught that somethings were true (standards and doctrine), and for a time I believed they were true. When I realized that parts of it weren't true, it did cause me to go back and re-examine everything else I had been taught as well.

I think the part that frustrates me is that some mockingly say "first standards then doctrine...just you watch!", which makes it sound like it was completely a casual and nonchalant transition.

Like I woke up one day and said "Hmm, I don't think God cares if I wear pants. Oh, I guess that means people can be baptized however they want"

[ForeverBlessed]

I was going to say no, but then I thought maybe I should say yes. The confusion isn't in your question, it's in what I thought you were asking! LOL

Many people stop attending an apostolic church because they disagree with standards, not having anywhere else to go, they attend a church that teaches different doctrine. Some still believe in the 3 steps themselves and will forever, others eventually cross over.

In my case, I continued to attend an apostolic church long after I stopped believing in standards, because I still agreed with the doctrine. Those changed over the years, I eventually stopped attending, when I realized I disagreed with more than I agreed with.

But I can't deny that in many cases there is a correlation. But I don't think it's because of a slippery slope, or deception or anything like that.

In my case, I was taught that somethings were true (standards and doctrine), and for a time I believed they were true. When I realized that parts of it weren't true, it did cause me to go back and re-examine everything else I had been taught as well.

I think the part that frustrates me is that some mockingly say "first standards then doctrine...just you watch!", which makes it sound like it was completely a casual and nonchalant transition.

Like I woke up one day and said "Hmm, I don't think God cares if I wear pants. Oh, I guess that means people can be baptized however they want"

I understand what you are saying. You step outside the little world you live in, and you do examine everything....and make sure in your heart it all lines up with the Word.

While I do attend a church that baptizes in Jesus name and is Spirit filled... they accept others without the H.G baptism as brother/sisters. I personally believe that people better have the Spirit filling, tough road ahead living without it...

What i think happens is outside the upc box, you realize there many people serving the Lord who have never heard of the upc... even people baptized in the name and even bigger number who speak with tongues and operate in the gifts. We never see past our own, so we just have no clue.

Get to know people who have committed lives, living for God... and often better than you saw growing up... Many start to question because you see good Godly people... I just realize now that I am in their lives to sow more... and also learn from them.

I like to look at it as we are all on a journey... I can learn and be taught by anyone on this journey... even if they don't have what I have because I need more of what they have in some instances. Hopefully we learn from each other.

I've gotten to where I just love to say "have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" cause there sure is a whole lot of believers out there... many just as Cornelius.. who the bible says was a devout man who feared God.

[ManOfWord]

I believe those of you who have dropped the standards are more concerned about we who have not dropped the standards than we who have not dropped the standards are concerned about you who have. I feel it's between you and God and that should concern you.

I also feel that the reason you are so concerned is because yoiu feel a little guilt deep down deep in your heart.

I also notice many of you who have dropped the standards have a great dislike for UPC or anyone who has not dropped the standards.

The only guilt I feel is from berating people over standards and telling them it was salvational. For that, I have great remorse.

I don't have a great dislike for the UPCI or anyone who has not dropped standards. I have great respect for anyone who holds to their convictions. However, when someone imposes their convictions upon me or even tells me I'm not even saved if I don't hold their convictions, I have a great dislike for that! :D

[Esther]

I believe those of you who have dropped the standards are more concerned about we who have not dropped the standards than we who have not dropped the standards are concerned about you who have. I feel it's between you and God and that should concern you.

I also feel that the reason you are so concerned is because yoiu feel a little guilt deep down deep in your heart.

I also notice many of you who have dropped the standards have a great dislike for UPC or anyone who has not dropped the standards.

Does it not concern you that there are standards being taught that are not even scriptural?

[GrowingPains]

The only guilt I feel is from berating people over standards and telling them it was salvational. For that, I have great remorse.

I don't have a great dislike for the UPCI or anyone who has not dropped standards. I have great respect for anyone who holds to their convictions. However, when someone imposes their convictions upon me or even tells me I'm not even saved if I don't hold their convictions, I have a great dislike for that! :D

What of the ministers that don't think you're unsaved, but do think you are unwise (on whatever the given issues were). Just as you believe their position is unwise, right? Playing the DA on this one.

Church definitely needs balance. Some act like the teenager raised in a strict home, that at 18 years old they wig out into the far extreme of their newfound liberties. This has been my concern and pain for those who have left -- not that they aren't saved, but how far will that pendulum swing? This also causes me to re-examine these fences in the first place, and make sure they aren't the result of this.

[GrowingPains]

Does it not concern you that there are standards being taught that are not even scriptural?

If a church community decides not to wear jewelry, because they think we ought to not be flashy, and have a good explanation... all power to you (just don't think I'm unsaved for disagreeing) -- and don't use a scripture out of its context to back that up.

[Pressing-On]

If a church community decides not to wear jewelry, because they think we ought to not be flashy, and have a good explanation... all power to you (just don't think I'm unsaved for disagreeing) -- and don't use a scripture out of its context to back that up.

Totally agree!!! :thumbsup

[ManOfWord]

What of the ministers that don't think you're unsaved, but do think you are unwise (on whatever the given issues were). Just as you believe their position is unwise, right? Playing the DA on this one.

Church definitely needs balance. Some act like the teenager raised in a strict home, that at 18 years old they wig out into the far extreme of their newfound liberties. This has been my concern and pain for those who have left -- not that they aren't saved, but how far will that pendulum swing? This also causes me to re-examine these fences in the first place, and make sure they aren't the result of this.

As I said, I have great respect for anyone who holds to THEIR convictions. I would not try to dissuade them or force my view on them. To do so, I believe, is un-Christlike. :D