So you signed the AS ....

[SDG]

One of the common arguments from the right in the Television debate is that any minister who as much utters support for word TELEVISION ... has put their integrity on the line ... while some are called hypocrites.... because they signed the AS [the infernal document] stating an anti-tv stance.

Now if this legalistic argument is to be a tautology ... should it not apply in all cases?

For example some ministers believe that forgiveness of sins happens at repentance while others believe both happen after both repentance and baptism ... but let's examine the document that they have affirmed ... to see if they indeed believe, teach and preach what the AS and AOF states.



The Fundamental Doctrine of the AOF ... which ministers are to affirm states specifically:

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:

Dr. Seagraves writes: The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but are instead separated by a comma.

Although don't feel to bad ... the same articles contradict each other under the Article of Repentance and Conversion:

"Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins:1

Seagraves also writes: The context concerns conversion, not the obtaining of forgiveness by a born-again believer, says nothing about water baptism, and would lead one to believe that repentance alone is sufficient to produce forgiveness of sins.

A study of the Greek text would indicate that "forgiveness" and "remission" are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.

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

Now the question is.....

How many of those who signed the AS ... affirming that remission of sins happens only because of water baptism are aware that they don't really believe, teach or preach this ....?

If this argument is to remain consistent shouldn't the language of the Articles change to reflect what the majority believe about forgiveness and remission of sins?

[freeatlast]

UPCI = United Pentecostal Church of Inconsistencies

[OGIA]

The real question?

See last comment. (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=75150&postcount=673)

[Steve Epley]

Dan I have never been UPC nor have I desired to be. However I think your post is unfair Elder Seagraves is a scholar so his analysis would NOT be the same as the average preacher reading it to me it is saying the same as Acts 2:38 baptism without repentance would never remit sins.

[SDG]

Dan I have never been UPC nor have I desired to be. However I think your post is unfair Elder Seagraves is a scholar so his analysis would NOT be the same as the average preacher reading it to me it is saying the same as Acts 2:38 baptism without repentance would never remit sins.

I agree the average preacher might read it in a different manner ... however ... this is a legal document ... requiring signature .. and can be used for or against a preacher in question ..... in addition the act of signing is used to mis-characterize the intents and hearts of other ministers ....

if this document were to be brought into a legal court case ... and some one brought up the inconsistencies in the document ... they would have a valid case ... IMHO

[Steve Epley]

I agree the average preacher might read in a different manner ... however ... this is a legal document ... requiring signature .. and can be used for or against a preacher in question ..... in addition the act of signing is used to mis-characterize the intents and hearts of other ministers ....

if this document were to be brought into a legal court case ... and some one brought up the inconsistencies in the document ... they would have a valid case ... IMHO

I can see your point but I doubt if very many would give the scrutinty given here.

[SDG]

I can see your point but I doubt if very many would give the scrutinty given here.

Yet .. this scrutiny will be on the floor in September ... and the argument of "hypocrisy" will be used ....

[CC1]

One of the interesting things is that one can construe the AS to mean that you will never contend to change it or anything to do with the articles of faith, etc.

With the television issue we have seen the old bogey man used against saints with the position that any questioning is rebellion and rebelion as the same as witchcraft employed again in some cases where those advocating a change in the UPC position are labeled as rebellious, having wrong motives, etc because they dare question a UPC sacred cow.

[SDG]

One of the interesting things is that one can construe the AS to mean that you will never contend to change it or anything to do with the articles of faith, etc.

With the television issue we have seen the old bogey man used against saints with the position that any questioning is rebellion and rebelion as the same as witchcraft employed again in some cases where those advocating a change in the UPC position are labeled as rebellious, having wrong motives, etc because they dare question a UPC sacred cow.

The forget that they together are a legislative body ... not curators of a museum.

[Sam]

When the UPC was organized in 1945 the fundamental doctrine did not include the words "for the remission of sins." This was added 28 years later at the General Conference in Salt Lake City in 1973. According to a statement attributed to W.M. Greer those words were deliberately left out of the statement in 1945. He is quoted as saying, "Had those words been insisted upon there would have been no merger."

[SDG]

When the UPC was organized in 1945 the fundamental doctrine did not include the words "for the remission of sins." This was added 28 years later at the General Conference in Salt Lake City in 1973. According to a statement attributed to W.M. Greer those words were deliberately left out of the statement in 1945. He is quoted as saying, "Had those words been insisted upon there would have been no merger."

So the things can be changed ....

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Yet another PCI thread.

[Barb]

When the UPC was organized in 1945 the fundamental doctrine did not include the words "for the remission of sins." This was added 28 years later at the General Conference in Salt Lake City in 1973. According to a statement attributed to W.M. Greer those words were deliberately left out of the statement in 1945. He is quoted as saying, "Had those words been insisted upon there would have been no merger."

I have read this before, and just this moment it jumped out at me....interesting indeed...

[ManOfWord]

The "consistency" is that inconsistencies cannot be questioned or openly debated or discussed. It seems to be the law of the Medes and Persians. (that is probably an exaggeration)

[Sam]

January 18, 1993

To All of our Ministers of the United Pentecostal Church International

Greetings in the only saving name, Jesus!

The General Board met in their annual Mid-Winter Meeting at the Wold Evangelism Center on Tuesday, January 12, through Thursday, January 14, 1993. One of the most important questions of discussion involved the resolution passed at the General Conference held in Salt Lake City. This resolution called our ministerial constituency to affirm their conviction on "The matter of our doctrinal position on full salvation and our stand on holiness."

The Executive Board had asked for a delay until the General Board could meet to discuss the time of implementation of the resolution. In the meantime, the resolution was printed in the "new Manual" and in the Forward. There was no intention of the Executive Board to delay it until the next General conference in Louisville.

The disinformation that went out from the last conference had confused many of the ministry who were not privileged to be in attendance to hear the discussion on the floor of the conference. Unfortunately, some of the information was erroneous and considerably exaggerated. The result was a confused fear developed in ministers who were not present at the conference.

In a spirit of brotherly kindness and Christian graciousness, every member of the General Board was urged to speak their heart on this matter and many did speak. The result of this lengthy discussion ended with the following motion made by the General Board and clearly approved, with a vote of 47 to 11.

"Inasmuch as this resolution has been passed out at the conference and published in the Forward and there has been adequate time for it to be discussed and understood in our fellowship, and inasmuch as there is a sixty-day period given after receiving the resolution and in view of the fact that further delay will only bring more confusion, Be it resolved that this General Board instruct the General Secretary to implement this resolution immediately and that the sixty-day period for return of these declarations of faith begin on February 1, 1993; Amended that the statement of affirmation cannot be used as a basis of any kind of complaint or charge or Judicial Procedure action; Amended that a cover letter be sent with the statement of affirmation. This letter to contain the fact that the resolution does not give any added powers to officials."

Following this motion, Brother Becton and I were authorized to write this cover letter. The consummate interpretation and explanation is hereby rendered:

The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a signed statement.

The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and aplications.

Some have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rinks, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saints. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.

This letter is being sent to comply with the sixty-day period beginning February 1. Your fellowship card will be sent from Headquarters when you answer within a sixty-day period.

Again, the intent of this resolution is to stem the tide of the worldly pressure on the ministry. The United Pentecostal Church has become a beacon of hope for a drowning church world which has disintegrated into "situation ethics and other strange behavior." This is not inquisitory or cultic in any sense. I trust this letter will give you the encouragement to open a willing door to your heart and life for the continuity of doctrines given to us by God-fearing pioneers of our Apostolic movement.

May the Lord bless and keep you strong in the faith, true to the Lord Jesus and doctrinally sound.

Sincerely in Christ,

Nathaniel A. Urshan
General Superintendent
United Pentecostal Church International

NAU:db
Enclosures

[Barb]

January 18, 1993

To All of our Ministers of the United Pentecostal Church International

Greetings in the only saving name, Jesus!

The General Board met in their annual Mid-Winter Meeting at the Wold Evangelism Center on Tuesday, January 12, through Thursday, January 14, 1993. One of the most important questions of discussion involved the resolution passed at the General Conference held in Salt Lake City. This resolution called our ministerial constituency to affirm their conviction on "The matter of our doctrinal position on full salvation and our stand on holiness."

The Executive Board had asked for a delay until the General Board could meet to discuss the time of implementation of the resolution. In the meantime, the resolution was printed in the "new Manual" and in the Forward. There was no intention of the Executive Board to delay it until the next General conference in Louisville.

The disinformation that went out from the last conference had confused many of the ministry who were not privileged to be in attendance to hear the discussion on the floor of the conference. Unfortunately, some of the information was erroneous and considerably exaggerated. The result was a confused fear developed in ministers who were not present at the conference.

In a spirit of brotherly kindness and Christian graciousness, every member of the General Board was urged to speak their heart on this matter and many did speak. The result of this lengthy discussion ended with the following motion made by the General Board and clearly approved, with a vote of 47 to 11.

"Inasmuch as this resolution has been passed out at the conference and published in the Forward and there has been adequate time for it to be discussed and understood in our fellowship, and inasmuch as there is a sixty-day period given after receiving the resolution and in view of the fact that further delay will only bring more confusion, Be it resolved that this General Board instruct the General Secretary to implement this resolution immediately and that the sixty-day period for return of these declarations of faith begin on February 1, 1993; Amended that the statement of affirmation cannot be used as a basis of any kind of complaint or charge or Judicial Procedure action; Amended that a cover letter be sent with the statement of affirmation. This letter to contain the fact that the resolution does not give any added powers to officials."

Following this motion, Brother Becton and I were authorized to write this cover letter. The consummate interpretation and explanation is hereby rendered:

The resolution does not give any added powers to officials. If a minister believes our message, all he must do is sign the annual statement. If he does, no official can take any action against him, except under the provisions of our Constitution and Judicial Procedure that already exist. There is no provision for contesting a signed statement.

The resolution does not allow officials to impose private interpretations of holiness standards. The only person who interprets the statement is the minister himself. If he honestly embraces the principles described in the two sections of the Articles of Faith, then he can and should sign the statement. No one can challenge his signature on the basis of personal interpretations and aplications.

Some have argued that the resolution will impose controversial views on subjects such as long sleeves, wedding rings, hair arrangement, church softball games, facial hair, skating rinks, and so on. Neither the resolution nor the statement, nor the Articles of Faith mention these subjects. The Articles of Faith mention matters such as immodest dress, worldly sports, and unwholesome music, but the specific definition and application of these principles have always been left to the individual pastor and saints. Moreover, the methods by which a pastor seeks to convert and disciple people who attend his church is in his discretion. Nothing in the resolution changes these prerogatives.

This letter is being sent to comply with the sixty-day period beginning February 1. Your fellowship card will be sent from Headquarters when you answer within a sixty-day period.

Again, the intent of this resolution is to stem the tide of the worldly pressure on the ministry. The United Pentecostal Church has become a beacon of hope for a drowning church world which has disintegrated into "situation ethics and other strange behavior." This is not inquisitory or cultic in any sense. I trust this letter will give you the encouragement to open a willing door to your heart and life for the continuity of doctrines given to us by God-fearing pioneers of our Apostolic movement.

May the Lord bless and keep you strong in the faith, true to the Lord Jesus and doctrinally sound.

Sincerely in Christ,

Nathaniel A. Urshan
General Superintendent
United Pentecostal Church International

NAU:db
Enclosures

Hmmm...

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

So this is another bash the UPC, because we left thread now.

[Hoovie]

It appears there is much more tolerance in the AOF language than is often attributed, both through the interpretation of the actual wording and the intent of the writers.

[SDG]

Sam ... NAU fed the propaganda machine when he wrote this letter ... everyone who has any knowledge ... about the AS ... knows that holiness was secondary in it's intent ... this was about the New Birth issue ...

[SDG]

The "consistency" is that inconsistencies cannot be questioned or openly debated or discussed. It seems to be the law of the Medes and Persians. (that is probably an exaggeration)

If you question ... it's bashing ... ???

We need to really define bashing ...

[ManOfWord]

If you question ... it's bashing ... ???

We need to really define bashing ...

Not all UPCI officials consider questioning an abominable act. (bashing) :D There are many who are willing to discuss things without repercussion. The problem is in knowing who these trustworthy men are. All it takes is 1 or 2 to make the life of a minister miserable for asking too many sincere and honest questions. To balance it out, there also those who ask incessant questions and who are always trying to tear down instead of sincerely seeking answers.

However, since I have been out of the UPC, I cannot tell you how many contacts I have had with folks in the UPC who are fearful of dialogue for fear of being ostracized. Some have even been at HQ. Too many are labelled compromisers for simply asking about an observation, inconsistency etc.

The AS didn't need to make things inquisitorial...it was already that way.

[Felicity]

Not all UPCI officials consider questioning an abominable act. (bashing) :D There are many who are willing to discuss things without repercussion. The problem is in knowing who these trustworthy men are. All it takes is 1 or 2 to make the life of a minister miserable for asking too many sincere and honest questions. To balance it out, there also those who ask incessant questions and who are always trying to tear down instead of sincerely seeking answers.

However, since I have been out of the UPC, I cannot tell you how many contacts I have had with folks in the UPC who are fearful of dialogue for fear of being ostracized. Some have even been at HQ. Too many are labelled compromisers for simply asking about an observation, inconsistency etc.

The AS didn't need to make things inquisitorial...it was already that way.Not in the district where I come from. :happydance Of course that was on account of good secure solid balanced leadership!

[Old Paths]

.




For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.








.

[rrford]

.




For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.








.

Me either.

[Felicity]

Me neither.

[ManOfWord]

.




For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.








.


I believe that. However, I do personally know more than one UPCI minister who has been directly told by "high" office holders that they should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings they had or differences of opinion. This is first hand knowledge and not 3rd or 4th etc.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

.




For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.








.

I know one Pastor, who stated he was sending in a signature stamp, so they can sign it for him and save the postage.

[PaPaDon]

Not all UPCI officials consider questioning an abominable act. (bashing) :D There are many who are willing to discuss things without repercussion. The problem is in knowing who these trustworthy men are. All it takes is 1 or 2 to make the life of a minister miserable for asking too many sincere and honest questions. To balance it out, there also those who ask incessant questions and who are always trying to tear down instead of sincerely seeking answers.

However, since I have been out of the UPC, I cannot tell you how many contacts I have had with folks in the UPC who are fearful of dialogue for fear of being ostracized. Some have even been at HQ. Too many are labelled compromisers for simply asking about an observation, inconsistency etc.

The AS didn't need to make things inquisitorial...it was already that way.

"For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." - Malachi 2:7

"...ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth." - I John 2:20-21

"Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." - I Corinthians 4:1

Sounds as if God considers those exercising the office as "under-shepherds of the flock" to be well versed in their knowledge of biblical precepts, and fully capable of responding properly to the most demanding and persistent of inquirers, wouldn't you agree?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I believe that. However, I do personally know more than one UPCI minister who has been directly told by "high" office holders that they should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings they had or differences of opinion. This is first hand knowledge and not 3rd or 4th etc.

Well Resolution #6 DID start in Ohio also.......

[Old Paths]

.




For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.






.

[ManOfWord]

Well Resolution #6 DID start in Ohio also.......

Ha! That's right. However, the folks I'm referencing are outside of the Ohio District and have well recognized names. :D

[rrford]

.




For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.






.

Me either.

[ManOfWord]

Me either.

LOL!!!! :happydance

[Hoovie]

I believe that. However, I do personally know more than one UPCI minister who has been directly told by "high" office holders that they should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings they had or differences of opinion. This is first hand knowledge and not 3rd or 4th etc.

**















**
...of course there is the addendum option.:winkgrin

[Steve Epley]

.




For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.






.

Me either.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

.




For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.






.

OP, I think you WOULD sign it, for you would believe the AOF that TV is not needed, Sports are evil, and no woman need to look like a man.

:preach

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Ha! That's right. However, the folks I'm referencing are outside of the Ohio District and have well recognized names. :D

Some of them should go ahead and resign the card then. :tiphat

[HeavenlyOne]

Me either.

[Old Paths]

OP, I think you WOULD sign it, for you would believe the AOF that TV is not needed, Sports are evil, and no woman need to look like a man.

:preach



I have stated from the very beginning that I would have ZERO problem signing and that I did not fellowship anyone that would have a problem signing.

[Felicity]

I believe that. However, I do personally know more than one UPCI minister who has been directly told by "high" office holders that they should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings they had or differences of opinion. This is first hand knowledge and not 3rd or 4th etc. Absolutely!! I know this for sure. :grampa

[rrford]

Some of them should go ahead and resign the card then. :tiphat

Clarification might be in order for this word. :slaphappy

[Felicity]

Me either.Me neither. :D

[Hoovie]

Clarification might be in order for this word. :slaphappy

:toofunny

[ManOfWord]

Some of them should go ahead and resign the card then. :tiphat

They do re-sign the card.....every year! :D

[rrford]

They do re-sign the card.....every year! :D


Then they are really messed up. Cause the rest of us only sign it every 2 years.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Then they are really messed up. Cause the rest of us only sign it every 2 years.

Old Paths is due to sign one this year too! :friend

[ManOfWord]

Then they are really messed up. Cause the rest of us only sign it every 2 years.

HA! I guess I missed that 2yr resolution. :D See, I should have hung around!

[rrford]

HA! I guess I missed that 2yr resolution. :D See, I should have hung around!

It was actually that way when the Resolution passed. Man, no wonder you have so many misunderstandings about it. :slaphappy

[Old Paths]

Old Paths is due to sign one this year too! :friend



:D

Stranger things have happened.

[ManOfWord]

It was actually that way when the Resolution passed. Man, no wonder you have so many misunderstandings about it. :slaphappy

That's what happens when you pass the big 50!!! :D

[Sam]

.




For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.








.

No one has ever forced me to sign the AS either.

[Sam]

.




For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.






.

Nor has any "high" office holder ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about it.

[SDG]

I have not been force either .

[Trouvere]

Now if this legalistic argument is to be a tautology ....what the study of aunts from Louisiana.....???? Taunteology.hahahaha.....get a life Daniel.Who cares about what the ministers in the UPC do or don't do.Its not about organization its about One God Jesus Name believers who make up the body of Jesus Christ.The church isn't an organization or a building its people.I don't think it pleases the Lord when we keep hashing out contentions and our differences.
That is satans way of hindering the gospel work.You have to love your neighbor and love your brother.I am sure there are some brethren who are UPC licensed on here as well as other orgs and all over the internet.Jesus may rebuke you for stirring up division.One of the greatest scripture in the bible is this:

Psa 133:1 ¶ [[A Song of degrees of David.]] Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!


Psa 133:2 [It is] like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;


Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.

[LadyRev]

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to.

[Felicity]

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to. And doing this takes away the "if you don't abide by everything you sign your name to then you are a liar" accusation as well.

[freeatlast]

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to.

Just don't forget to sign the check and you'll be OK.

[ILG]

One of the common arguments from the right in the Television debate is that any minister who as much utters support for word TELEVISION ... has put their integrity on the line ... while some are called hypocrites.... because they signed the AS [the infernal document] stating an anti-tv stance.

Now if this legalistic argument is to be a tautology ... should it not apply in all cases?

For example some ministers believe that forgiveness of sins happens at repentance while others believe both happen after both repentance and baptism ... but let's examine the document that they have affirmed ... to see if they indeed believe, teach and preach what the AS and AOF states.



The Fundamental Doctrine of the AOF ... which ministers are to affirm states specifically:

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:

Dr. Seagraves writes: The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but are instead separated by a comma.

Although don't feel to bad ... the same articles contradict each other under the Article of Repentance and Conversion:

"Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins:1

Seagraves also writes: The context concerns conversion, not the obtaining of forgiveness by a born-again believer, says nothing about water baptism, and would lead one to believe that repentance alone is sufficient to produce forgiveness of sins.

A study of the Greek text would indicate that "forgiveness" and "remission" are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.

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

Now the question is.....

How many of those who signed the AS ... affirming that remission of sins happens only because of water baptism are aware that they don't really believe, teach or preach this ....?

If this argument is to remain consistent shouldn't the language of the Articles change to reflect what the majority believe about forgiveness and remission of sins?


You can sign the AS and believe the remission of sins happens at repentance but you cannot believe it is okay for a woman to cut her hair. You can also believe women can wear pants. That's nowhere in the articles.

[ILG]

Yes, disclaimers are accepted. Makes you wonder what's the point.