***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[SDG]

Posted on NewChurchOrder.com (http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/69/45/)

http://www.newchurchorder.com/images/stories/anthonylangston_edited-2.jpg

Anthony Langston [NJ], UPCI minister and NCO member will be launching a new book entitled "Holier than God". I can't imagine he will be w/ the fellowship much longer.
--------------------------------------

HOLIER THAN GOD
Below are some snapshots of the upcoming doctrinal thesis on Biblical holiness (of life and outward appearance) by Anthony Langston.

A favorite text of the proponents of traditional positions in any denomination is,"Remove not the ancient landmarks of our fathers." �(Prov. 22:28)

The question begs asking, "Who are our the fathers?" Who are the fathers of the 20th -21st century Pentecostalism? Is it pastors from the 50's & 60's or district and national leaders?

Or is it men of the 20's and 30's who were flaming evangels, strafing the country with tent revivals and leaving in each of their wakes scores of churches and hundreds of Gospel preachers? Read the writings of these men and you'll be hard pressed to find much on the subject of what we call "standards." Rule-based "standards" became the focus of many from a later generation that lacked the power and effectiveness of their predecessors but compensated by "perfecting" the churches they inherited!


However, with that said, Howard Goss is not my doctrinal father. A.D. Urshan (who received the Holy Spirit while my wife's great aunt played the organ and her great grandmother prayed with him in the altar) or C.G. Weeks (who was a close personal friend and mentor of my wife's grandfather) or any other 20th or 19th century preacher does not qualify as a doctrinal father! If you allow this practice, then you can't argue it with other denominations who hold to their iconic elders and their teachings. No! Our doctrinal fathers can be none other than the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone.

If you cite or hold to any teaching other than the Holy Scriptures as fundamental you are a traditionalist! I prefer to be a primitivist!
For all who say "our forefathers sorted these things out years ago" I would like to ask, have you shown the same courage and earnestness? Have you sorted them out? Or will you settle for the footnotes of someone else's study , prayer and struggle. Someone who was called to a different generation. These men and women were called to another time with very different challenges and with a truckload of their own traditional baggage already deep-seated in them from their 19th century Baptist, Pilgrim Holiness, Wesleyan or Puritan origins!

Do you really want to trace your positional interpretations back to people who burned witches and made transgressors wear scarlet letters for a year after letting them out of public stocks? I'm sorry if I sound extreme, but I'm weary with others attempting to root me in an "old fashioned, traditional, Americana Holiness." Would the Corinthian church have survived the puritan occupation? Or for that matter, could it belong to a mainstream apostolic organization? If you want to understand the Scriptures on subjects such as hair, jewelry, and clothing; you must look at it from the context of this world, not the Apostolic church. Come to my city where men dress like women and women like men, where young people wear enough metal piercings to build a compact car and tattoos are an essential accessory and then you will understand the point and need for these moral, moderate, and modesty principles based in Scripture. But what has happened, is that introverted churches and ministries have turned these Scriptures in on the already separated and righteous and have increasingly raised the bar (perhaps competitively) thus tweaking the issues so far out of perspective and beyond their original intent that many churches and believers are completely isolated and ineffective to their families and larger community. Some have progressed from a holy separateness to a cultish community of exclusion, and the devil is overjoyed!

The problem is not that I don't love holiness, the problem is that some love their standard and their tradition and the affirmation of goose bump clubs more than they love honesty, study, and simple Scriptural verity!

It is amazing to me how differently some scholars write about this subject as opposed to others such as, Baptism, Godhead, etc.. On other subjects they allow no traditionalists views to stand against the barrage of solid scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics. With the sword of Scripture as their only authority, they dismantle falsehoods and establish clear doctrine with multiple contextual witnesses. But when they write on the subject of "outward appearance," they adopt the habits and practices they abhor in others and with conjecture and opinion they stretch a verse beyond its simple truth and then move to another, thus establishing a philosophical buttress of circular reasoning! I've heard everything from, "even witches know this about hair" to "makeup is made from human embryos." Do yourself a favor, take every book you have on the subject, mark out with a thick black marker every sentence and paragraph that is not scripture or clear contextual and honest deciphering of Scripture and you will not be left with much to read!

I'm certainly not angry with these men and writers. I have myself spent too many years doing the same. I'm angry at falsehoods. Religious phariseeisms. I've put up with it for so long, too long. Its time to speak out, to tell the truth no matter the cost! Who am I to think my ministry should be without reproach or slander. I have a cross to bear, perhaps this is part of it. I write this broken; broken in conviction and broken by the thought of friends I love not being able to receive these words. I concur with the hymnologist who said, "Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free, there is a cross for everyone and there is a cross for me."

I've had the privilege of watching and learning from new converts who fell in love with holiness through our teaching and seeing them persecuted by family and friends without ever experiencing the extreme version of (standards) that you and I have been subjected to. Don't believe the lie that there is no difference and that the redefiners are all worldly and not standing for anything. You just have to hear the testimonies in our discipleship community groups by these babies. My wife and I try not to laugh because we are thinking to ourselves, "Girl, you have no idea" but their separation is real! Their wardrobe is changing. Its costing them money to throw away clothes and buy different ones. They have been taught principles from the Scripture without traditional definitions and they really do love God enough and are honest enough to embrace the changes that Spirit-led principled living dictates! They really can be trusted to grow!
But that is the real problem isn't it. Trust ! If I don't believe in people then I can't trust them to grow. Therefore I must mandate change through standardized criteria's. The problem with this is that I have bypassed an essential process for them and replaced that process with product! Now I feel accomplished. I have product. I'm affirmed when my appraisers approve of the product. As a leader I am celebrated. But the people haven't transformed! No my friend, they have merely conformed! They did not come to it gradually and personally through the relational process with God. Their chance to "work out their own salvation" was stolen from them by the impatient hands of leadership, leaders more interested in bottom lines than spiritual growth.


The Apostles understood this in Acts 15, when they said, "we will put no greater burden on them than this." (Acts 15:28) But 35 years later in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is dealing with issues that were not in focus at the birth of these precious saints. Holiness is progressive.

[SDG]

Continued

It would astound some of you to know that you can still preach the consecration messages God has given you and still see a congregation swept under the power of conviction, examining themselves under the gaze of flaming eyes, evaluating their consecration and making adjustments and decisions and changes, all of this without (exact clothesline definitions) and without spinning sister Patty on the stage as an example of how every woman (no matter their spiritual maturity) should look and dress. Truth is, it is far more powerful and convincing an atmosphere because it is void of the baggage of condemnation and critiquing pressure that religion adds.

Preach truth without traditionalisms, preach righteousness without religiosity. Legalism is the opponent of holiness. Legalism is a product. Holiness is a process. "As many as are led of the Spirit, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14) In the same atmospheres of Shekinah judgment, one person is being dealt with by the spirit of judgment about their common law marriage while another is being convicted of excessive jewelry. Is God dealing with the sexually impure about tithing? Probably not. All different people on all different levels and only God can deal with them all at once.

Legalism has a list. But holiness has an individual progressive agenda with a distant view towards spiritual maturity, PROCESS!!! Legalism is limited to the outward or obvious, but holiness looks deeper.

Admit it, most saints in our churches who measure up to standardized criteria's aren't spiritually mature. Most aren't fruitful, happy, faith-filled, and peaceful. Try this list on them, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Gal.5:22-23 NIV)

Tradition is no more than an emblem of what was. A caption under a painting of yesterdays victories. Legalism is an attorneys approach . Lawyer, hum, a pharisaical term in the New Testament I believe. Religion is a rulers paradise where many are lording over God's heritage.

[Neck]

Posted on NewChurchOrder.com (http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/69/45/)

http://www.newchurchorder.com/images/stories/anthonylangston_edited-2.jpg

Anthony Langston [NJ], UPCI minister and NCO member will be launching a new book entitled "Holier than God". I can't imagine he will be w/ the fellowship much longer.
--------------------------------------

HOLIER THAN GOD
Below are some snapshots of the upcoming doctrinal thesis on Biblical holiness (of life and outward appearance) by Anthony Langston.

A favorite text of the proponents of traditional positions in any denomination is,"Remove not the ancient landmarks of our fathers." �(Prov. 22:28)

The question begs asking, "Who are our the fathers?" Who are the fathers of the 20th -21st century Pentecostalism? Is it pastors from the 50's & 60's or district and national leaders?

Or is it men of the 20's and 30's who were flaming evangels, strafing the country with tent revivals and leaving in each of their wakes scores of churches and hundreds of Gospel preachers? Read the writings of these men and you'll be hard pressed to find much on the subject of what we call "standards." Rule-based "standards" became the focus of many from a later generation that lacked the power and effectiveness of their predecessors but compensated by "perfecting" the churches they inherited!


However, with that said, Howard Goss is not my doctrinal father. A.D. Urshan (who received the Holy Spirit while my wife's great aunt played the organ and her great grandmother prayed with him in the altar) or C.G. Weeks (who was a close personal friend and mentor of my wife's grandfather) or any other 20th or 19th century preacher does not qualify as a doctrinal father! If you allow this practice, then you can't argue it with other denominations who hold to their iconic elders and their teachings. No! Our doctrinal fathers can be none other than the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone.

If you cite or hold to any teaching other than the Holy Scriptures as fundamental you are a traditionalist! I prefer to be a primitivist!
For all who say "our forefathers sorted these things out years ago" I would like to ask, have you shown the same courage and earnestness? Have you sorted them out? Or will you settle for the footnotes of someone else's study , prayer and struggle. Someone who was called to a different generation. These men and women were called to another time with very different challenges and with a truckload of their own traditional baggage already deep-seated in them from their 19th century Baptist, Pilgrim Holiness, Wesleyan or Puritan origins!

Do you really want to trace your positional interpretations back to people who burned witches and made transgressors wear scarlet letters for a year after letting them out of public stocks? I'm sorry if I sound extreme, but I'm weary with others attempting to root me in an "old fashioned, traditional, Americana Holiness." Would the Corinthian church have survived the puritan occupation? Or for that matter, could it belong to a mainstream apostolic organization? If you want to understand the Scriptures on subjects such as hair, jewelry, and clothing; you must look at it from the context of this world, not the Apostolic church. Come to my city where men dress like women and women like men, where young people wear enough metal piercings to build a compact car and tattoos are an essential accessory and then you will understand the point and need for these moral, moderate, and modesty principles based in Scripture. But what has happened, is that introverted churches and ministries have turned these Scriptures in on the already separated and righteous and have increasingly raised the bar (perhaps competitively) thus tweaking the issues so far out of perspective and beyond their original intent that many churches and believers are completely isolated and ineffective to their families and larger community. Some have progressed from a holy separateness to a cultish community of exclusion, and the devil is overjoyed!

The problem is not that I don't love holiness, the problem is that some love their standard and their tradition and the affirmation of goose bump clubs more than they love honesty, study, and simple Scriptural verity!

It is amazing to me how differently some scholars write about this subject as opposed to others such as, Baptism, Godhead, etc.. On other subjects they allow no traditionalists views to stand against the barrage of solid scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics. With the sword of Scripture as their only authority, they dismantle falsehoods and establish clear doctrine with multiple contextual witnesses. But when they write on the subject of "outward appearance," they adopt the habits and practices they abhor in others and with conjecture and opinion they stretch a verse beyond its simple truth and then move to another, thus establishing a philosophical buttress of circular reasoning! I've heard everything from, "even witches know this about hair" to "makeup is made from human embryos." Do yourself a favor, take every book you have on the subject, mark out with a thick black marker every sentence and paragraph that is not scripture or clear contextual and honest deciphering of Scripture and you will not be left with much to read!

I'm certainly not angry with these men and writers. I have myself spent too many years doing the same. I'm angry at falsehoods. Religious phariseeisms. I've put up with it for so long, too long. Its time to speak out, to tell the truth no matter the cost! Who am I to think my ministry should be without reproach or slander. I have a cross to bear, perhaps this is part of it. I write this broken; broken in conviction and broken by the thought of friends I love not being able to receive these words. I concur with the hymnologist who said, "Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free, there is a cross for everyone and there is a cross for me."

I've had the privilege of watching and learning from new converts who fell in love with holiness through our teaching and seeing them persecuted by family and friends without ever experiencing the extreme version of (standards) that you and I have been subjected to. Don't believe the lie that there is no difference and that the redefiners are all worldly and not standing for anything. You just have to hear the testimonies in our discipleship community groups by these babies. My wife and I try not to laugh because we are thinking to ourselves, "Girl, you have no idea" but their separation is real! Their wardrobe is changing. Its costing them money to throw away clothes and buy different ones. They have been taught principles from the Scripture without traditional definitions and they really do love God enough and are honest enough to embrace the changes that Spirit-led principled living dictates! They really can be trusted to grow!
But that is the real problem isn't it. Trust ! If I don't believe in people then I can't trust them to grow. Therefore I must mandate change through standardized criteria's. The problem with this is that I have bypassed an essential process for them and replaced that process with product! Now I feel accomplished. I have product. I'm affirmed when my appraisers approve of the product. As a leader I am celebrated. But the people haven't transformed! No my friend, they have merely conformed! They did not come to it gradually and personally through the relational process with God. Their chance to "work out their own salvation" was stolen from them by the impatient hands of leadership, leaders more interested in bottom lines than spiritual growth.


The Apostles understood this in Acts 15, when they said, "we will put no greater burden on them than this." (Acts 15:28) But 35 years later in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is dealing with issues that were not in focus at the birth of these precious saints. Holiness is progressive.

Dan,
Where or how can I get this book. I am not looking for those who might believe like myself.

Just trying to see a point of view from someone who has lived through it.

Nate Eckstadt

[SDG]

Dan,
Where or how can I get this book. I am not looking for those who might believe like myself.

Just trying to see a point of view from someone who has lived through it.

Nate Eckstadt

I will investigate how you can get a copy of the book, Neck.

[LaGirl]

is he from New York??

[DividedThigh]

i hope he conquers the sacred cow of people thinking they can be holy, holiness is from god, righteousness is of god, not us, it is imputed into our lives by christs work, we need to be modest and moral by gods grace but to think we can attain that by looking or dressing a certain way is ridiculous. The sad part is that people who think they are holy judge others, that is sad, god bless him for writing, i hope the book is good, i will def want to read it, dt:hypercoffee

[SDG]

is he from New York??

He is in the greater metropolitan tri-state area ... he is working in Jersey City, New Jersey. They have just moved into a building that belonged to the Catholic church ... it fits over 800.

Here is their church website http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

[philjones]

i hope he conquers the sacred cow of people thinking they can be holy, holiness is from god, righteousness is of god, not us, it is imputed into our lives by christs work, we need to be modest and moral by gods grace but to think we can attain that by looking or dressing a certain way is ridiculous. The sad part is that people who think they are holy judge others, that is sad, god bless him for writing, i hope the book is good, i will def want to read it, dt:hypercoffee

DT,

Your positions oppose themselves. I know you don't believe they do but they do. You should extrapolate your assertions to their converse conclusions and see if they hold water!

[SDG]

This is from an NCO email I received:

Pastor Hutchins and his family just returned from inspecting the New York and New Jersey Burundi Refugeeworks. Pastors Anthony and Tanya Langston are doing an extraordinary job. In just a short period time, they have established over 70 believers and are expanding their teaching and preaching points in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The present facilty (see below left) cannot accommodate the crowds and there are no overflow rooms available.

As a result, the International Church is poised to move into a new worship facility which will seat about 800. In the next few weeks, the Church of Champions, along with other churches who are participating, will be sending a team of people to help Pastor Anthony and Tanya clean, decorate, and prepare for their "grand opening" service in the new facilities provided by St. John the Baptist Catholic Church.

......

I got to briefly speak to Pastor Hutchins about 3 weeks ago after this trip ... He told us someone tried to snatch his wife's purse in Manhattan ... but was unsuccessful ... Pastor Hutchins gave the perp a good stare down.

[tv1a]

I didn't see a contradiction. Morality and modesty are Biblical princples.


DT,

Your positions oppose themselves. I know you don't believe they do but they do. You should extrapolate your assertions to their converse conclusions and see if they hold water!

[mfblume]

Is this guy presently UPCI?

[philjones]

I didn't see a contradiction. Morality and modesty are Biblical princples.

I agree... but to imply they in no way connote or have an effect on outward appearance is in contradiction because DT's assertion would conversely say that you can dress or appear any way you want and still be modest or moral.:hypercoffee You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other!

[SDG]

Is this guy presently UPCI?

Yes.

Can be verified two ways ...

http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20(Newark) (http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20%28Newark%29)

https://wec.upci.org/ministers

[philjones]

Is this guy presently UPCI?

According to the UPCI.org website, yes.

http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

[tv1a]

Did the author capture the spirit of legalism or what?

The article is too lengthy, but Fausset's Bible Dictionary give a wonderful synopsis of the Pharisees. Substitue the word upci, and you would think you are reading current events.

I hope the author stays around to finish the job. Even if he has to use legal means to do it.

[SDG]

According to the UPCI.org website, yes.

http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

I can't imagine he will be in the near future ... after his district superiors read this thesis and resolution 3 passes ... he will be in hot water.

[mfblume]

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

[philjones]

I can't imagine he will be in the near future ... after his district superiors read this thesis and resolution 3 passes ... he will be in hot water.

I agree. They are probably already steeping the pot!:nah

[SDG]

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

I concur ... the heritage argument is flawed unless they want to associate themselves w/ the groups the author mentioned.

[tv1a]

Maybe I'm not looking under the right pebble. I don't see how you made that assumption. I got out of DT's post the dress code has taken the place of Biblical holiness and righteousness.

DT can jump in and defend the comments in question.

I agree... but to imply they in no way connote or have an effect on outward appearance is in contradiction because DT's assertion would conversely say that you can dress or appear any way you want and still be modest or moral.:hypercoffee You can't have it both ways. It is either one or the other!

[Hoovie]

I can't imagine he will be in the near future ... after his district superiors read this thesis and resolution 3 passes ... he will be in hot water.

Can you post the wording of res 3?

[SDG]

Can you post the wording of res 3?

Resolution 3 seeks to clearly define an existing bylaw ... it reads:

Whereas there has not been a clear definition of the terms "under question" and "conduct unbecoming a minister," and

Whereas there seems to be a difference in these terms,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that article VII, Section 7, Paragraph 21 is changed to read as follows:

21. No minister who withdraws or is dropped from our fellowship, whose conduct is under question, shall be allowed to preach for any of our ministers, nor pastor any of our churches. Neither shall any minister of the United Pentecostal Church International fellowship be allowed to preach or participate in any form in any services (except funerals and weddings) sponsored or conducted by any minister who has withdrawn or been dropped, whose conduct is under question. This does not apply to anyone being used in any capacity in his or her local assembly, with the exception of the position of associate pastor or assistant pastor.


(a) The term "under question" shall be taken to mean a formal decision by a District Board reflecting a concern that conduct in flagrant violation of the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International has occurred.

(b) The term "conduct unbecoming a minister" shall be taken to mean any conduct of a moral, financial, or ethical nature that would cause a reproach upon the ministry.

[deacon blues]

If you no longer want to be in the UPC---leave. I don't understand the "parting shots" mentality. No one left the UPC with more integrity IMO than L.H. Hardwick back in the 60s or 70s. There just seems to be so much poison in Langston's words. His picture doesn't help reinforce the idea that he has the joy of the Lord. How hard is it to smile when you have the Holy Ghost? And I say the same thing when I see flyers for UC meetings and most of the preachers have this same kind of expression on their faces.

Leave with your dignity---just leave and do what you feel you've got to do. He will have to live with these words for the rest of his life. I doubt that he will convince people either way. He will offend those he wants to part ways with and he will feed the bitterness that some ex-UPCers can't seem to let go of.

Just go and do what you gotta do!

[DividedThigh]

DT,

Your positions oppose themselves. I know you don't believe they do but they do. You should extrapolate your assertions to their converse conclusions and see if they hold water!

phil, no they dont, my point, which you missed is that dressing modestly and morally dont make us holy, they just illustrate our obedience, to god there is a big diff, our effort to be odedient are simply that our best efforts , that does not equal holiness, that is what i believe, dt:hypercoffee

[SDG]

If you no longer want to be in the UPC---leave. I don't understand the "parting shots" mentality. No one left the UPC with more integrity IMO than L.H. Hardwick back in the 60s or 70s. There just seems to be so much poison in Langston's words. His picture doesn't help reinforce the idea that he has the joy of the Lord. How hard is it to smile when you have the Holy Ghost? And I say the same thing when I see flyers for UC meetings and most of the preachers have this same kind of expression on their faces.

Leave with your dignity---just leave and do what you feel you've got to do. He will have to live with these words for the rest of his life. I doubt that he will convince people either way. He will offend those he wants to part ways with and he will feed the bitterness that some ex-UPCers can't seem to let go of.

Just go and do what you gotta do!

Will you take Hardwick's approach when you leave, Pastor?

[SDG]

DB doesn't like Langston's photo. Anyone else w/ him?

[philjones]

phil, no they dont, my point, which you missed is that dressing modestly and morally dont make us holy, they just illustrate our obedience, to god there is a big diff, our effort to be odedient are simply that our best efforts , that does not equal holiness, that is what i believe, dt:hypercoffee

No, you missed my point... you should say what you mean and in your first post you did not. You established a premise that, if carried to its equal and opposite conclusion would say exactly what I said it would.

[DividedThigh]

No, you missed my point... you should say what you mean and in your first post you did not. You established a premise that, if carried to its equal and opposite conclusion would say exactly what I said it would.

ok phil my point was that we should obey, but that doesnt make us holy, god makes us holy by his work, you believe what you want and i will continue, i have no intention to argue, we dont believe it the same way, sorry bro, dt:hypercoffee

[Hoovie]

Resolution 3 seeks to clearly define an existing bylaw ... it reads:

Whereas there has not been a clear definition of the terms "under question" and "conduct unbecoming a minister," and

Whereas there seems to be a difference in these terms,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that article VII, Section 7, Paragraph 21 is changed to read as follows:

21. No minister who withdraws or is dropped from our fellowship, whose conduct is under question, shall be allowed to preach for any of our ministers, nor pastor any of our churches. Neither shall any minister of the United Pentecostal Church International fellowship be allowed to preach or participate in any form in any services (except funerals and weddings) sponsored or conducted by any minister who has withdrawn or been dropped, whose conduct is under question. This does not apply to anyone being used in any capacity in his or her local assembly, with the exception of the position of associate pastor or assistant pastor.


(a) The term "under question" shall be taken to mean a formal decision by a District Board reflecting a concern that conduct in flagrant violation of the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International has occurred.

(b) The term "conduct unbecoming a minister" shall be taken to mean any conduct of a moral, financial, or ethical nature that would cause a reproach upon the ministry.

Thanks. It may raise even more questions though.

[SDG]

Thanks. It may raise even more questions though.

Elaborate please.

[Hoovie]

DB doesn't like Langston's photo. Anyone else w/ him?

I thought it was interesting... not exactly worthy of judgement though.


On second thought - let's burn it.

[CC1]

If you no longer want to be in the UPC---leave. I don't understand the "parting shots" mentality. No one left the UPC with more integrity IMO than L.H. Hardwick back in the 60s or 70s. There just seems to be so much poison in Langston's words. His picture doesn't help reinforce the idea that he has the joy of the Lord. How hard is it to smile when you have the Holy Ghost? And I say the same thing when I see flyers for UC meetings and most of the preachers have this same kind of expression on their faces.

Leave with your dignity---just leave and do what you feel you've got to do. He will have to live with these words for the rest of his life. I doubt that he will convince people either way. He will offend those he wants to part ways with and he will feed the bitterness that some ex-UPCers can't seem to let go of.

Just go and do what you gotta do!

If I am not mistaken I don't think L.H. Hardwick actually left the UPC until around 1986. I know I was very surprised to find that out. I had assumed he had left around the time of KP and MH although he is not a TV preacher.

In a recent church meeting Pastor Hardwick recounted Buck Rambo telling him he wanted to take him to a meeting in New Orleans at Pastor Charles Green's church. Pastor Hardwick went and someone there prophesysed over him that he would be a bridge for people from his religious background. He did not give a timeframe for this meeting but I would assume it would be not long before he left the UPC.

[CC1]

I have read the first part of Langston's article and am enjoying it. However he has the same problem I do! He uses way too many exclamation points!

I read an early Jim Yohe book and he did the same thing! Every sentance had one at the end instead of a period!

[tv1a]

DB,

If everyone left there would be no one left to fight. The ways things are going the upci may not even be a major player of the apostolic mesage in the United States in ten years. Legalists aren't the only ones with a stake in the success of the organization. Somebody has to fight fire with firel.

It's hard to have the joy of the Lord when you so-called brothers are destroying souls twice as fast as they are coming in. It seems unfair those guys with blood on their hands will make it to heaven while countless #'s of people will be lost because of undue pressure. Even the apostoles didn't have the guts to do that to their saints. Somebody has to fight for the lost.


If you no longer want to be in the UPC---leave. I don't understand the "parting shots" mentality. No one left the UPC with more integrity IMO than L.H. Hardwick back in the 60s or 70s. There just seems to be so much poison in Langston's words. His picture doesn't help reinforce the idea that he has the joy of the Lord. How hard is it to smile when you have the Holy Ghost? And I say the same thing when I see flyers for UC meetings and most of the preachers have this same kind of expression on their faces.

Leave with your dignity---just leave and do what you feel you've got to do. He will have to live with these words for the rest of his life. I doubt that he will convince people either way. He will offend those he wants to part ways with and he will feed the bitterness that some ex-UPCers can't seem to let go of.

Just go and do what you gotta do!

[Hoovie]

Elaborate please.


If a minister leaves "under question" (let's say preaching on TV) he cannot minister for UPC churches.... But if he leaves first, then developes a huge TV ministery, he can then preach for any and all UPC??

[Hoovie]

I have read the first part of Langston's article and am enjoying it. However he has the same problem I do! He uses way too many exclamation points!

I read an early Jim Yohe book and he did the same thing! Every sentance had one at the end instead of a period!

This my friends! Comes from sitting under "annointed preaching" for way too long!!!!

[SDG]

If a minister leaves "under question" (let's say preaching on TV) he cannot minister for UPC churches.... But if he leaves first, then developes a huge TV ministery, he can then preach for any and all UPC??

Could ministers be blacklisted as "under question" post dropping or being stripped from their license?

[tv1a]

What would have happened to the NT church if Paul decided to move on and not confront they hyporcisy of Peter?

[Hoovie]

DB,

If everyone left there would be no one left to fight. The ways things are going the upci may not even be a major player of the apostolic mesage in the United States in ten years. Legalists aren't the only ones with a stake in the success of the organization. Somebody has to fight fire with firel.

It's hard to have the joy of the Lord when you so-called brothers are destroying souls twice as fast as they are coming in. It seems unfair those guys with blood on their hands will make it to heaven while countless #'s of people will be lost because of undue pressure. Even the apostoles didn't have the guts to do that to their saints. Somebody has to fight for the lost.

Seems there are many who don't like the either/or choices.

Either we are legalists or we have a hands off approach on Christian apparel and adornment? I think not.

It is nice that the Holy Spirt leads and guides, but that does not tie the hands of church leadership when addressing the string bikini wear'in chior member.

[Hoovie]

Could ministers be blacklisted as "under question" post dropping or being stripped from their license?

Possibly. Or they may also be exonerated post exodus.

[deacon blues]

Will you take Hardwick's approach when you leave, Pastor?

2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

[SDG]

2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Is that a yes? :poloroid

[deacon blues]

DB,

If everyone left there would be no one left to fight. The ways things are going the upci may not even be a major player of the apostolic mesage in the United States in ten years. Legalists aren't the only ones with a stake in the success of the organization. Somebody has to fight fire with firel.

It's hard to have the joy of the Lord when you so-called brothers are destroying souls twice as fast as they are coming in. It seems unfair those guys with blood on their hands will make it to heaven while countless #'s of people will be lost because of undue pressure. Even the apostoles didn't have the guts to do that to their saints. Somebody has to fight for the lost.

Well fight for the lost then and don't get lost fighting a cause that isn't worth fighting. You become the very thing that you detest. I've seen it happen all too many times. People leave the organization because of all the hypocrisy and the holier than thous and the spiritual superiority and judgmentalism. Then they proceed to be hypocritical and look down own UPCers and become smug that they are spiritually superior and they pre-judge those that don't look like them.

Go fight for the lost and leave the church people alone!

[deacon blues]

What would have happened to the NT church if Paul decided to move on and not confront they hyporcisy of Peter?

He confronted Peter. He didn't write a book about it and disfellowship him or disfellowship himself from him. Apples and oranges.

[SDG]

He confronted Peter. He didn't write a book about it and disfellowship him or disfellowship himself from him. Apples and oranges.

He did publish the episode and his thoughts for the entire Church world to read ....

[LaGirl]

He is in the greater metropolitan tri-state area ... he is working in Jersey City, New Jersey. They have just moved into a building that belonged to the Catholic church ... it fits over 800.

Here is their church website http://www.internationalchurchinfo.org/

okay.....i know who he is now.......

[deacon blues]

Is that a yes? :poloroid

Get over your bitterness, Dan. Not everyone is rooting for the UPC to go down in flames to validate ugly attitudes towards former brethren.

[SDG]

Get over your bitterness, Dan. Not everyone is rooting for the UPC to go down in flames to validate ugly attitudes towards former brethren.

Couldn't resist? No bitterness here, Pastor.

[philjones]

ok phil my point was that we should obey, but that doesnt make us holy, god makes us holy by his work, you believe what you want and i will continue, i have no intention to argue, we dont believe it the same way, sorry bro, dt:hypercoffee

Wrong again! I believe it like you do.. I am righteous because of the impartation of His righteousness into my life. I just wanted you to say it the right way and not imply that morality and holiness made no demands upon our conduct or our appearance.:hypercoffee

[tv1a]

Are you suggesting that we allow the spiritual holocaust to continue?


Well fight for the lost then and don't get lost fighting a cause that isn't worth fighting. You become the very thing that you detest. I've seen it happen all too many times. People leave the organization because of all the hypocrisy and the holier than thous and the spiritual superiority and judgmentalism. Then they proceed to be hypocritical and look down own UPCers and become smug that they are spiritually superior and they pre-judge those that don't look like them.

Go fight for the lost and leave the church people alone!

[SDG]

Duly noted.

[philjones]

DB,

If everyone left there would be no one left to fight. The ways things are going the upci may not even be a major player of the apostolic mesage in the United States in ten years. Legalists aren't the only ones with a stake in the success of the organization. Somebody has to fight fire with firel.

It's hard to have the joy of the Lord when you so-called brothers are destroying souls twice as fast as they are coming in. It seems unfair those guys with blood on their hands will make it to heaven while countless #'s of people will be lost because of undue pressure. Even the apostoles didn't have the guts to do that to their saints. Somebody has to fight for the lost.

Your paint gun just coughed up a major hair ball, TV1A... you are way beyond broad brush to the mega paint gun with a 50hp compressor attached to it!

Your efforts at emphasis & effect seem to render your posts ineffective. You have no idea how many are being destroyed and you are just making inflammatory statements! You really should speak what you KNOW and not what you want to use to stoke the fire!

[tv1a]

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

He confronted Peter. He didn't write a book about it and disfellowship him or disfellowship himself from him. Apples and oranges.

[DividedThigh]

Wrong again! I believe it like you do.. I am righteous because of the impartation of His righteousness into my life. I just wanted you to say it the right way and not imply that morality and holiness made no demands upon our conduct or our appearance.:hypercoffee

ok phil when i meet you, you are gonna be in trouble, love ya bro, dt:hypercoffee

[SDG]

Your paint gun just coughed up a major hair ball, TV1A... you are way beyond broad brush to the mega paint gun with a 50hp compressor attached to it!

Your efforts at emphasis & effect seem to render your posts ineffective. You have no idea how many are being destroyed and you are just making inflammatory statements! You really should speak what you KNOW and not what you want to use to stoke the fire!

Meet my paint gun ....

http://respiracreative.com/danpaint.jpg

[RevDWW]

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

venom???? Can we say hyperbole? It can be effective, but not when you use it in every single sentence you write........:killinme

[tv1a]

If I wanted to read how dumb my post was I would ask for WP/BP to be reinstated. There wasn't much substances in his replies either. lol

If I could get all the people I know who fell through the cracks because of the lies of legalism, I would have 500 people in my church on the first Sunday. My only prayer the the legalists who inflict this damaged are judged by God for their deeds. If the Bible is correct, those who judge will be judged.

I"m getting everything I have from scripture. Which was written long before the merger. Legalism brings death. Legalism crucified Jesus. Legalism persecuted the apostles. Legalism is what Paul preched vehomentally against.

Legalism is a tool of oppression. Those who follow legalism are dancing around the poppy fields with talking scarecrows and cowardly lions. The yellow brick road of legalism leads people to a short little bald man behind a curtain instead of the King of Kings.

This is not an attack against any indiviudal who is or defends legalism. Legalism is damaging the kingdom of God. It wsa nipped in the bud in the book of Acts. Unfortunately it has reared its head again in the last days. The opressive spirit of legalism must be dealt with or else the hemooraghing of lost souls will continue.

Your paint gun just coughed up a major hair ball, TV1A... you are way beyond broad brush to the mega paint gun with a 50hp compressor attached to it!

Your efforts at emphasis & effect seem to render your posts ineffective. You have no idea how many are being destroyed and you are just making inflammatory statements! You really should speak what you KNOW and not what you want to use to stoke the fire!

[Hoovie]

If I wanted to read how dumb my post was I would ask for WP/BP to be reinstated. There wasn't much substances in his replies either. lol

If I could get all the people I know who fell through the cracks because of the lies of legalism, I would have 500 people in my church on the first Sunday. My only prayer the the legalists who inflict this damaged are judged by God for their deeds. If the Bible is correct, those who judge will be judged.

I"m getting everything I have from scripture. Which was written long before the merger. Legalism brings death. Legalism crucified Jesus. Legalism persecuted the apostles. Legalism is what Paul preched vehomentally against.

Legalism is a tool of oppression. Those who follow legalism are dancing around the poppy fields with talking scarecrows and cowardly lions. The yellow brick road of legalism leads people to a short little bald man behind a curtain instead of the King of Kings.

This is not an attack against any indiviudal who is or defends legalism. Legalism is damaging the kingdom of God. It wsa nipped in the bud in the book of Acts. Unfortunately it has reared its head again in the last days. The opressive spirit of legalism must be dealt with or else the hemooraghing of lost souls will continue.

Wow! Now that you have recanted legalism, your church should be exploding...

[tv1a]

Correction every other sentence... ( I think)lol
Read my post before this one. See if the word venom appears one time... lol



venom???? Can we say hyperbole? It can be effective, but not when you use it in every single sentence you write........:killinme

[tv1a]

1. I don't have a church.

2. One of major traits of a legalist is one cannot be saved outside of their paradigm.

Wow! Now that you have recanted legalism, your church should be exploding...

[commonsense]

It might be an interesting book. It seems to support my premise that todays' regulations were not part of the "beginning" of the Oneness movement.
My parents were both saved many years before the formation of the UPC .

Most of the standards I hear and see enforced in todays' church were not taught in the 40's or 50's.....so the yesterday, today and forever doesn't apply.

Not against teaching guidelines, but it has been made the 4th step in salvation.

[RevDWW]

If I could get all the people I know who fell through the cracks because of the lies of legalism, I would have 500 people in my church on the first Sunday. My only prayer the the legalists who inflict this damaged are judged by God for their deeds. If the Bible is correct, those who judge will be judged.


Quit talking and start doing. What's holding you back?

[Hoovie]

1. I don't have a church.

2. One of major traits of a legalist is one cannot be saved outside of their paradigm.


Oh well then you are irrelevant. :hypercoffee j/k Have a great day!

[Neck]

Meet my paint gun ....

http://respiracreative.com/danpaint.jpg

That picture reminds me of Michael Dukakis.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t201/Neckstadt/180px-Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg

[Neck]

I will investigate how you can get a copy of the book, Neck.


Thanks

[tv1a]

I'm busy working the vision my pastor has for our community. When the time comes to move on, I'll move. Right now I am in the perfect will of God.

Quit talking and start doing. What's holding you back?

[SDG]

It might be an interesting book. It seems to support my premise that todays' regulations were not part of the "beginning" of the Oneness movement.
My parents were both saved many years before the formation of the UPC .

Most of the standards I hear and see enforced in todays' church were not taught in the 40's or 50's.....so the yesterday, today and forever doesn't apply.

Not against teaching guidelines, but it has been made the 4th step in salvation.

There is but one step.

[tv1a]

I will take that as a compliment. lol

I consider it an honor to be irrelevent in a movement that lives in a time warp. lol



Oh well then you are irrelevant. :hypercoffee j/k Have a great day!

[stmatthew]

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

I am truly rolling on the floor laughing at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stmatthew]

If you no longer want to be in the UPC---leave. I don't understand the "parting shots" mentality. No one left the UPC with more integrity IMO than L.H. Hardwick back in the 60s or 70s. There just seems to be so much poison in Langston's words. His picture doesn't help reinforce the idea that he has the joy of the Lord. How hard is it to smile when you have the Holy Ghost? And I say the same thing when I see flyers for UC meetings and most of the preachers have this same kind of expression on their faces.

Leave with your dignity---just leave and do what you feel you've got to do. He will have to live with these words for the rest of his life. I doubt that he will convince people either way. He will offend those he wants to part ways with and he will feed the bitterness that some ex-UPCers can't seem to let go of.

Just go and do what you gotta do!


Deacon,

I want to commend you for a post that shows both integrity and ethics. We may have our differences at times, but I truly appreciate this post. It says a lot about your character.

[stmatthew]

Posted on NewChurchOrder.com (http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/69/45/)

http://www.newchurchorder.com/images/stories/anthonylangston_edited-2.jpg

Anthony Langston [NJ], UPCI minister and NCO member will be launching a new book entitled "Holier than God". I can't imagine he will be w/ the fellowship much longer.
--------------------------------------





This man will not be able to reach those he wants to "save" from the big bad wolf simply because he has just blown the bridge up.

[SDG]

This man will not be able to reach those he wants to "save" from the big bad wolf simply because he has just blown the bridge up.

I don't think he made such a claim ... hmm.

[tv1a]

Are Galatians 2 and Acts 15 missing in your Bible?

Gal 2:11-14
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
KJV
Acts 15:5-12
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
KJV

I am truly rolling on the floor laughing at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stmatthew]

I don't think he made such a claim ... hmm.

Why else would he write what he wrote, except to expose what he saw as error. And you do not expose error just for the sake of exposing it. You expose it in an attempt to show others so they can be free.

[stmatthew]

Are Galatians 2 and Acts 15 missing in your Bible?

Sorry,

but you have posted with such venom and hatred for so long that I take nothing you post seriously. You have castrated your effectiveness to minister anything into my life. I just hope that your attitude doesn't bleed over into the lives of the church around you.

[tv1a]

Maybe the idea is to blow up the bridge with the wolf on it.

This man will not be able to reach those he wants to "save" from the big bad wolf simply because he has just blown the bridge up.

[SDG]

Sorry,

but you have posted with such venom and hatred for so long that I take nothing you post seriously. You have castrated your effectiveness to minister anything into my life. I just hope that your attitude doesn't bleed over into the lives of the church around you.

TV I didn't know you were a eunuch?

[stmatthew]

TV I didn't know you were a eunuch?

Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:killinme

[Hoovie]

Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:killinme

Just as a sidenote.... a corn fed steer makes much better steaks than a corn fed bull(y).

But either way - someone dies.

[mizpeh]

The problem with this is that I have bypassed an essential process for them and replaced that process with product! Now I feel accomplished. I have product. I'm affirmed when my appraisers approve of the product. As a leader I am celebrated. But the people haven't transformed! No my friend, they have merely conformed! They did not come to it gradually and personally through the relational process with God. Their chance to "work out their own salvation" was stolen from them by the impatient hands of leadership, leaders more interested in bottom lines than spiritual growth.This is the problem I have with across the board "holiness standards" as well. There is no allowance for Holy Ghost conviction nor for each believer in their walk with God to have personal convictions. The law of standards is made across the board for all when the Bible simply says MODESTY.

[mizpeh]

I will investigate how you can get a copy of the book, Neck.

I'd like to read it also. I agree with everything he wrote (except for his little rant on the puritans.) :hypercoffee

[tv1a]

Make up your mind. Is the forum's policy is to discuss issues and leave personalities out of it? I have not labeled or called out an individual with a legalistic spirit. That spirit has been identified based on scripture. That spirit was successfully squashed by the Apostle Paul. Every few hundred years it rears it ugly head. Now that spirit has rested with a group of people that has the potential to shake the nations.

The Bible establishes the spirit of legalism is not of God. The Bible says anything that is not of God is sin.

I have never made this personal or directed towards an individual. I've made comments based on observations AND scriptures. There are more scriptures that deal with legalism than deal with trinitarians going to hell.

My attitude works really well. It's not phoney or pretentious. I'm real person serving a real God. I'm not interested in ministering to people who think they are all that and a box of chocolates. I'm not interested in casting out devils from so-called saints just to have them pick them back up on the way out the door. The scripture is explicit in casting pearls before swine. I hope I never get to the place I tolerate oppressive spirits in the name of harmony and unity.



Sorry,

but you have posted with such venom and hatred for so long that I take nothing you post seriously. You have castrated your effectiveness to minister anything into my life. I just hope that your attitude doesn't bleed over into the lives of the church around you.

[tv1a]

It was a painful procedure...lol

Now THAT is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:killinme

[BobDylan]

His reasoning is spot-on. It has been hillarious to hear people say they must hold to the ancient landmarks and refer to 50 years ago, rather than 3,500.

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

[tv1a]

If your assessment is valid, than there should be no problem with a new set of landmarks. The landmarks established 50 years ago are not in the same place as the landmarks established in the Bible.

Landmarks are principles not rules. The guidelines established 50 years ago are rules.

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.

[BobDylan]

phil, no they dont, my point, which you missed is that dressing modestly and morally dont make us holy, they just illustrate our obedience, to god there is a big diff, our effort to be odedient are simply that our best efforts , that does not equal holiness, that is what i believe, dt:hypercoffee

Dressing modestly doesn't make you "holy", dressing modestly makes you "modest". You cannot be modest without dressing modestly. But your statement seems to indicate that it is possible to be modest without dressing modestly. I agree with you assessment that modestly does not make you holy, but that is not what you said originally.

[BobDylan]

If your assessment is valid, than there should be no problem with a new set of landmarks. The landmarks established 50 years ago are not in the same place as the landmarks established in the Bible.

Landmarks are principles not rules. The guidelines established 50 years ago are rules.


I agree to an extent. But consider that when defining landmarks for today, it is just as important to "consider" the landmarks of recent years, as well as the lanmarks of 3500 years ago. It is only prudent for us to consider and take into account the reasoning behind our immediate predecessor's conclusions and integrate them in a way that is relevant and biblical today! Simply casting off the "landmarks" of our immediate predecessors is, IMO, unwise.

[mizpeh]

I think that "holding the ancient landmarks" is a timeless principle. To suggest that this scripture speaks specifically of the 3500 year old landmarks, and not the recent "landmarks" is itself a form of "legalism". One is defining words in a litiguous manner to conclude whatever is appropiate for them. This principle appeals to the the "ancient landarks" of recent history in the same way it appeals to the "ancient landmarks" of antiquity.
I would agree with the writer of the article that the ancient landmarks are the ones laid down by the apostles.

[berkeley]

Sounds like an interesting read.

[BobDylan]

How did we find out about if he didn't write about it?

Paul didn't have to disfellowship because he realized legalism is a spirit and confronted the spirit. It just so happened the guy with the "keys" happend to be influenced by that spirit. Once Peter realized the direction he was heading, he made a change that even effected his writing. Peter's epistles were a far cry for the legalistic venom he espoused in the book of Acts.

I am truly rolling on the floor laughing at this!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are Galatians 2 and Acts 15 missing in your Bible?

It's funny, because in Acts it seems Peter was arguing for grace.... not legalism!

[tv1a]

It was James who was the spokesman.

It's funny, because in Acts it seems Peter was arguing for grace.... not legalism!

[BobDylan]

I would agree with the writer of the article that the ancient landmarks are the ones laid down by the apostles.


I can't buy that suggestion Mizpeh. The scripture is in Proverbs which was written long before the apostles were on the scene. This is a principle that transcends the OT and NT... Paul spoke to Timothy as his "Son in the Gospel", therefore Timothy's spiritual Father was Paul (one generation away). We could also apply the same precedence, in that our spiritual "fathers" are the ones who begat us in the gospel, one generation away. The principle "move not the landmarks of our fathers" can speak of our immediate predecessors in the SAME WAY it speaks of those landmarks from 3500 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 20 years ago....

[BobDylan]

It was James who was the spokesman.

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[tv1a]

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.


I agree to an extent. But consider that when defining landmarks for today, it is just as important to "consider" the landmarks of recent years, as well as the lanmarks of 3500 years ago. It is only prudent for us to consider and take into account the reasoning behind our immediate predecessor's conclusions and integrate them in a way that is relevant and biblical today! Simply casting off the "landmarks" of our immediate predecessors is, IMO, unwise.

[BobDylan]

This is the problem I have with across the board "holiness standards" as well. There is no allowance for Holy Ghost conviction nor for each believer in their walk with God to have personal convictions. The law of standards is made across the board for all when the Bible simply says MODESTY.

Do you not agree that someone has to interpret and communicate what "modesty" means in a general sense? If left up to individuals, they may come up with an infinite number of definitions of "modesty". We really should at least strive for a close to consensus definition of modesty...

[BobDylan]

There is no biblical precedence to suggests man made rules are infalliable, let alone establishing landmarks outside the Bible. The pharisees started out the same way. They interpreted principles a certain way.

Using your explaination of removing the ancient landmark, legalists are just as guilty of disobeying scripture by moving the landmarks to encompass a smaller space.
If the Bible says not to remove the ancient landmarks, it means not to move them in either direction.
It is difficult to see what the landmarks are with all the rules and regulations heaped on top of them.

I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

[tv1a]

According to some commentaries Paul was speaking about the events described in Acts 15 in his writings to the Galations. It is obvious Peter had a change of heart from legalism to grace. The timeline may be debated but the facts are Peter in favor of legalism.

Acts 15:13-29
13 When they had finished, James stood and said, "Brothers, listen to me.
14 Peter has told you about the time God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for himself.
15 And this conversion of Gentiles agrees with what the prophets predicted. For instance, it is written:
16'Afterward I will return, and I will restore the fallen kingdom of David. From the ruins I will rebuild it, and I will restore it,
17 so that the rest of humanity might find the Lord, including the Gentiles-- all those I have called to be mine. This is what the Lord says,
18 he who made these things known long ago.'
19 And so my judgment is that we should stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,
20 except that we should write to them and tell them to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols, from sexual immorality, and from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals.
21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations."
The Letter for Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders--Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas.
23 This is the letter they took along with them: "This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24 "We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us.
25 So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question.
28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements:
29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."
NLT


Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

These were PETER'S words. Peter was arguing for grace here. There was NO rampant "legalism" from Peter as you suggested. Also when Paul withstood Peter, it wasn't for his "legalism", it was for his hypocrisy-for acting one way when the Jews were not around, and then acting another way when the Jews showed up on the scene.

[DividedThigh]

Dressing modestly doesn't make you "holy", dressing modestly makes you "modest". You cannot be modest without dressing modestly. But your statement seems to indicate that it is possible to be modest without dressing modestly. I agree with you assessment that modestly does not make you holy, but that is not what you said originally.

i think the fact that i stated they illustrate our obedience covers that bob, i wrote what i believe from many years of being in the church and observing people trying to make holiness works, and it aint working, thanks bro, dt:hypercoffee

[tv1a]

This is so evident with the internet television debate. I believe those who went before us established rules based on principles. I believe with my whole heart those men would be against internet as strong as they were against television. Just like in Jesus' day, we have a group of people who are unable to get a conviction on their own and rely on a 50 year old cultural conviction.

There are many who spent hours in prayer and concescration who come up with a different conclusion and they are ostracized.

I wonder how many rules were passed because of prayer and concencration and how many were passed just to keep the ''unity''.

If unity was more important to the merger than interpretaion of Acts 2:38, could it be that unity was still on minds of many when a lot of these cultural rules were decided?

Dress codes in those days were based on their culture. There were not major differences in dress codes when the clothelins rule was instituted. A majority of the world dressed the part anyway. It became a problem when fashioned changed and although a general principle of modesty was still prevelent, the church did not change because they were following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.


I agree... no problem here. But my simple little contention is not to disregard as "rules" the convictions of those who went immediately before us. They arrived at their conclusions through a process of prayer and personal consecration. And we must do the same as well. And yes, we are facing a different age, generation, and issues that those who went before us didn't face. And we are going to have to set some landmarks down ourselves. But in doing that, it is only appropriate to be studious as to WHY and HOW our immediate predecessors came to their conclusions. To simply disregard their stance and conclusions as "antiquated" etc. is unwise, and really is fundamentally foolish.

Heb 13:7
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

[J-Roc]

Sorry,

but you have posted with such venom and hatred for so long that I take nothing you post seriously. You have castrated your effectiveness to minister anything into my life. I just hope that your attitude doesn't bleed over into the lives of the church around you.

Make up your mind. Is the forum's policy is to discuss issues and leave personalities out of it? I have not labeled or called out an individual with a legalistic spirit. That spirit has been identified based on scripture. That spirit was successfully squashed by the Apostle Paul. Every few hundred years it rears it ugly head. Now that spirit has rested with a group of people that has the potential to shake the nations.

The Bible establishes the spirit of legalism is not of God. The Bible says anything that is not of God is sin.

I have never made this personal or directed towards an individual. I've made comments based on observations AND scriptures. There are more scriptures that deal with legalism than deal with trinitarians going to hell.

My attitude works really well. It's not phoney or pretentious. I'm real person serving a real God. I'm not interested in ministering to people who think they are all that and a box of chocolates. I'm not interested in casting out devils from so-called saints just to have them pick them back up on the way out the door. The scripture is explicit in casting pearls before swine. I hope I never get to the place I tolerate oppressive spirits in the name of harmony and unity.



:bump for St. Matt

[stmatthew]

:bump for St. Matt

What answer do you want from me J-Roc? should I excuse a mans venomous attitude because he states it is simply his "personality"?

To be quite honest, our forum rules are very clear that debate is welcomed, but bad attitudes are not. So even though I was addressing him as a poster, our rules also back up what I have posted.

[BobDylan]

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.

[pelathais]

This man will not be able to reach those he wants to "save" from the big bad wolf simply because he has just blown the bridge up.
He goes by "Anthony" now?

I wish you well on your new book, Tony. If anyone can can take the beating that will follow, I trust that you can (LOL). Don't forget "the Devil Storm."

[pelathais]

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.It's been a long time, but I remember him to be rather "confrontational" in his manner and approach.

He's a good guy, and I think that the confrontational approach that you perceive here may be a result of him coming to the conclusion that "the proof is in the puddin'" (as you say). I think he's comparing the "puddin'" of the 1920's and etc. with the "puddin'" of the 1950-1960's and saying we need some of that "older stuff."

Basically, it sounds like a challenge for so-called "traditionalist" to rethink the timeline of their traditions. As I've always said, the "conservatives" of our movement are not really conservatives. They are not conserving the past, but rather introducing innovations that they have insisted "God told them." I hear Langston and his generation recommending that we move on now that those innovations have failed. By "moving on" he's really saying, "Let's go back..." Back to the first years of the Pentecostal revival in North America, and most importantly: back to the New Testament teachings and practices of the Apostles.

[pelathais]

Your paint gun just coughed up a major hair ball, TV1A... you are way beyond broad brush to the mega paint gun with a 50hp compressor attached to it!

Your efforts at emphasis & effect seem to render your posts ineffective. You have no idea how many are being destroyed and you are just making inflammatory statements! You really should speak what you KNOW and not what you want to use to stoke the fire!
You know, I've probably sounded like tv1a alot of times, and I agree with his sentiments. But PhilJones is right. Slamming the whole UP of C for "legalism" isn't fair. Consider that this particular thread is focused around an "anti-legalism" article written by a UPCI author.

[Newman]

Do you not agree that someone has to interpret and communicate what "modesty" means in a general sense? If left up to individuals, they may come up with an infinite number of definitions of "modesty". We really should at least strive for a close to consensus definition of modesty...

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO :cool:

[Steve Epley]

More of the same ole same ole. Guys depart from the faith and give their excuses. I have already read the other books by others who departed so here is another so what? Not impressed.

[freeatlast]

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO :cool:

Once again the voice of inteligent reasoning from Newman.

Good post!!

[Newman]

Legalism aside; I would love to see someone address the first part of the post. Why do we interpret Scripture in the mouth of two and three witnesses today when it comes to salvation and then use trinitarian scholars from the past to make a case for standards today based on questionable reading of isolated verses without witness?

[pelathais]

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO :cool:
Well put, Newman.

For all of us: Just spend some time in a hospital- while your wish for "modesty" is respected by the staff, the "standards" are pretty much chucked out in a bed pan. The "relevance of place" trumps what you may have heard from the pulpit.

And just wait until you're in the nursing home. All them nekkid wimin and all... but alas, for you! You're such a bag of wrinkles that what a blanket or a robe gives you is some scrap of "dignity," forget the "modesty."
:grumpy

[mizpeh]

Do you not agree that someone has to interpret and communicate what "modesty" means in a general sense? If left up to individuals, they may come up with an infinite number of definitions of "modesty". We really should at least strive for a close to consensus definition of modesty...


God gave the law not to work on the Sabbath, then the religious rulers of the Jews narrowed down the interpretation to how far a person could journey on the Sabbath day without it being considered work. They became so narrow in their thinking that they condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath day. I feel a similar thing is done with the interpretation of the word, modest. What is modest for some is immodest for other such as short sleeves.

That's why I feel the conviction of the Spirit is more important than the traditions of men. The Spirit may convict one person of a certain thing but not another person for the same thing for different reasons. I think we should be convinced in our hearts that we are pleasing God and doing his will and not lay our personal convictions on others.

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Rom 14:23

[pelathais]

More of the same ole same ole. Guys depart from the faith and give their excuses. I have already read the other books by others who departed so here is another so what? Not impressed.
How would you respond to his argument that he's not "departing" from the faith, but returning to it. His appeals are all to the things preached either earlier in the Apostolic movement of the 20th Century or to the NT itself.

What he appears to be "departing from" is a cultural practice adopted in the mid 20th Century. That's hardly an "old landmark."

[tv1a]

Not every Democrat is a baby killing anti-war tree hugger either. But when one thinks of a Democrat, at least one, if not all of those descriptions comes immediately to mind. Same with the upci. Not everyone in the upci is a legalist but legalism is the overwhelming predominant force in the organization. Unfortunately the albatross hangs around the necks of individuals trying to change the perceptions.



You know, I've probably sounded like tv1a alot of times, and I agree with his sentiments. But PhilJones is right. Slamming the whole UP of C for "legalism" isn't fair. Consider that this particular thread is focused around an "anti-legalism" article written by a UPCI author.

[Newman]

How would you respond to his argument that he's not "departing" from the faith, but returning to it. His appeals are all to the things preached either earlier in the Apostolic movement of the 20th Century or to the NT itself.

What he appears to be "departing from" is a cultural practice adopted in the mid 20th Century. That's hardly an "old landmark."

EXACTLY! :cool:

[tv1a]

He won't address it because it messes with his theology.

How would you respond to his argument that he's not "departing" from the faith, but returning to it. His appeals are all to the things preached either earlier in the Apostolic movement of the 20th Century or to the NT itself.

What he appears to be "departing from" is a cultural practice adopted in the mid 20th Century. That's hardly an "old landmark."

[Steve Epley]

How would you respond to his argument that he's not "departing" from the faith, but returning to it. His appeals are all to the things preached either earlier in the Apostolic movement of the 20th Century or to the NT itself.

What he appears to be "departing from" is a cultural practice adopted in the mid 20th Century. That's hardly an "old landmark."

I wonder if he is yet preaching the necessity of water & Spirit does anyone know?

[stmatthew]

I wonder if he is yet preaching the necessity of water & Spirit does anyone know?

Well, If he is joining the NCO, he is going to be embracing trinitarians in the Pulpit.

[ChicagoPastor]

I wonder if he is yet preaching the necessity of water & Spirit does anyone know?

yes, Bro. Langston believes in the necessity of water & spirit. That's not at all what he is questioning.

[ChicagoPastor]

Well, If he is joining the NCO, he is going to be embracing trinitarians in the Pulpit.

What trinitarians are part of NCO?

[Steve Epley]

yes, Bro. Langston believes in the necessity of water & spirit. That's not at all what he is questioning.

Just a question because the MAJORITY of folks who start this route also change on the necessity of the doctrine.

[pelathais]

Just a question because the MAJORITY of folks who start this route also change on the necessity of the doctrine.
But the majority of those in the generations preaching in the 1910's to 1920's and thereabouts, did not preach the "standards" that have been adopted in more recent years. Langston's article seems to be making that appeal.

And because he was published in the NCO thing doesn't mean he's been forced out of the UPCI, at least yet. I haven't heard the guy in years but I remember him to have been strong on Jesus Name doctrine when he was a younger man.

[Sacerdotal]

By the time they write stuff like this they are already gone.

[ChicagoPastor]

By the time they write stuff like this they are already gone.

I can't imagine him staying in much longer with what he has written.
If he stays in I have to believe his district board will be calling him in to question him.
If the NCO starts heavily promoting him and his book then I think Headquarters will step in.

[Steadfast]

Does anybody know if this man is still in the UPC?

[SDG]

I can't imagine him staying in much longer with what he has written.
If he stays in I have to believe his district board will be calling him in to question him.
If the NCO starts heavily promoting him and his book then I think Headquarters will step in.

Tony's days are numbered, :coffee2

:poloroid

[tv1a]

What constitue as "the doctrine"?


Just a question because the MAJORITY of folks who start this route also change on the necessity of the doctrine.

[ChicagoPastor]

Does anybody know if this man is still in the UPC?

he is still UPC

[SDG]

Does anybody know if this man is still in the UPC?

As far as the online church and ministerial directory ... he is .... maybe we should call the Trouts and ask?

[ChicagoPastor]

Tony's days are numbered, :coffee2

:poloroid

I'm going to assume that he will be one of those ministers we're not going to be allowed to fellowship with anymore under RESOLUTION #3
:winaa

[SDG]

I'm going to assume that he will be one of those ministers we're not going to be allowed to fellowship with anymore under RESOLUTION #3
:winaa

We? I don't speak French.

[tv1a]

Is looks like resolution 3 is another legalist political maneuver. A half decent lawyer would have a field day with that.

I'm going to assume that he will be one of those ministers we're not going to be allowed to fellowship with anymore under RESOLUTION #3
:winaa

[ChicagoPastor]

We? I don't speak French.

I should say those of us that are still paying for UPC membership:nah

[SDG]

Just a question because the MAJORITY of folks who start this route also change on the necessity of the doctrine.

TL, Suber, Phillips and Hutchins are still PAJCers to the bone ...

[SDG]

I should say those of us that are still paying for UPC membership:nah

Cable is a better investment, IMO.

[pelathais]

Tony's days are numbered, :coffee2

:poloroid
He's been in and out of the UPCI before. He's a dynamic speaker and really compelling, he's a very gifted preacher and story-teller. He's also smart enough (I think) to know what effect his article is going to have on his personal situation.

I wouldn't worry too much about him there. He's also resilient. He bounces back. That's one thing I remember most about him. The guy gets knocked down but he comes right back as if no one had laid a glove on him.

[tv1a]

You had to go and confuse things with facts.

TL, Suber, Phillips and Hutchins are still PAJCers to the bone ...

[RandyWayne]

ChicagoPoster, I like your avatar. Remember the early scene where he is stopped by the cop and proceeds to "read" him based on all the small clues he see's then actually help "save" his marriage while getting out of a speeding ticket at the same time?

THAT is a personal crusade of mine.

[SDG]

He's been in and out of the UPCI before. He's a dynamic speaker and really compelling, he's a very gifted preacher and story-teller. He's also smart enough (I think) to know what effect his article is going to have on his personal situation.

I would'nt worry too much about him there. He's also resilient. He bounces back. That's one thing I remember most about him. The guy gets knocked down but he comes right back as if no one had laid a glove on him.

He's preached some great messages at Champions ... at least that's what I've heard ... the one preaching CD I've heard was fantastic.

I'll link to his message in a few.

[Steve Epley]

TL, Suber, Phillips and Hutchins are still PAJCers to the bone ...

Good for them. If I started making a list my fingers would wear out on those who no longer believe water & Spirit or if they were of the PCI camp no longer emphasize it.

[pelathais]

He's preached some great messages at Champions ... at least that's what I've heard ... the one preaching CD I've heard was fantastic.

I'll link to his message in a few.
Do you see him around? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with "Champions" and the whole NCO thing. He might have fallen off the planet for all I knew until you posted his pic.

Of course, NJ? He did fall off the planet.

[ChicagoPastor]

ChicagoPoster, I like your avatar. Remember the early scene where he is stopped by the cop and proceeds to "read" him based on all the small clues he see's then actually help "save" his marriage while getting out of a speeding ticket at the same time?

THAT is a personal crusade of mine.

I remember thinking the movie was hilarious, including that scene.
I love it when the "ushers" offer to get the elderly a better seat and they put her in the wheelchair and wheel her up to the platform, LOL!!!

It was funny until it got close to the end. Then it got serious about how fake preachers mess with people's faith

[pelathais]

Good for them. If I started making a list my fingers would wear out on those who no longer believe water & Spirit or if they were of the PCI camp no longer emphasize it.
I was always of the belief that the condition you describe was so, because somehow "holiness" and "standards" kept a person doctrinally "right." But as time went by, I saw that the standards didn't even keep people holy.

Maybe the guys you describe fell off the doctrine simply because they had no support network outside of their older associations. In fact, could their "failure" really be our own? We're failing to get the Jesus Name message effectively planted throughout Christendom because we drop everyone who is no longer keeping the "standards."

What would happen if we held onto these people - if not officially, then at least as brethren? Supported them and gave them encouragement. They might represent a bridge between us and the rest of the world.

[SDG]

Do you see him around? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with "Champions" and the whole NCO thing. He might have fallen off the planet for all I knew until you posted his pic.

Of course, NJ? He did fall off the planet.

Champions is the Church of Champions (http://champ.org), pastored by Wendell Hutchins. I think Tony was there for awhile .. I congregated there for a few months ...

I never got to meet him in person ... but heard great things about him.

He is very tight w/ WH. It was there that I got to hear this preaching series.

His Blessability Factor message is great. You got to get thru the preliminary hellos and a long scripture reading but when he starts to get into the Word ... WoW!!!

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

Welcome to the Revolution

1. I Must Keep Painting - Dr. Wendell Hutchins II [www.champ.org] (http://champ.org/)
http://www.respiracreative.com/keeppainting.mp3

2. Watch Out for the Brick World - Dr. Wendell Hutchins
http://www.respiracreative.com/bricks.mp3

3. The Blessability Factor - Rev. Tony Langston
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Bless...ston_part1.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Blessability_Factor-Tony_Langston_part1.mp3)
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Bless...ston_part2.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Blessability_Factor-Tony_Langston_part2.mp3)

4. Whatsoever He Tells You to Do, Do It - Elder Patrick Usher
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Whats...rick Usher.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Whatsoever_He_Tells_You_to_Do_Do_It_Patrick%20Ushe r.mp3)

----------------------------------------------
http://www.champ.org/images/content/welcome-to-the-revolution-b.jpg

[tv1a]

If we call them brothers, we can't assassinate thier character. The principle is to tear down those who believe holiness and standards are inconsistent.

I was always of the belief that the condition you describe was so, because somehow "holiness" and "standards" kept a person doctrinally "right." But as time went by, I saw that the standards didn't even keep people holy.

Maybe the guys you describe fell off the doctrine simply because they had no support network outside of their older associations. In fact, could their "failure" really be our own? We're failing to get the Jesus Name message effectively planted throughout Christendom because we drop everyone who is no longer keeping the "standards."

What would happen if we held onto these people - if not officially, then at least as brethren? Supported them and gave them encouragement. They might represent a bridge between us and the rest of the world.

[SDG]

If we call them brothers, we can't assassinate thier character. The principle is to tear down those who believe holiness and standards are inconsistent.

As I call it .... categorize to marginalize.

[pelathais]

Champions is the Church of Champions (http://champ.org), pastored by Wendell Hutchins. I think Tony was there for awhile .. I congregated there for a few months ...

I never got to meet him in person ... but heard great things about him.

He is very tight w/ WH. It was there that I got to hear this preaching series.

His Blessability Factor message is great. You got to get thru the preliminary hellos and a long scripture reading but when he starts to get into the Word ... WoW!!!
He paid me a high honor once and I was never able to return the favor. We were skinny kids at about the same time- though he's several years younger than I am, he was also gifted well ahead of his age. I've been "out of the loop" for a little while. I'm glad to hear that he's doing well and preaching well.

[tv1a]

I'd like to call it Addicted to Mediocrity.
As I call it .... categorize to marginalize.

[crakjak]

I was always of the belief that the condition you describe was so, because somehow "holiness" and "standards" kept a person doctrinally "right." But as time went by, I saw that the standards didn't even keep people holy.

Maybe the guys you describe fell off the doctrine simply because they had no support network outside of their older associations. In fact, could their "failure" really be our own? We're failing to get the Jesus Name message effectively planted throughout Christendom because we drop everyone who is no longer keeping the "standards."

What would happen if we held onto these people - if not officially, then at least as brethren? Supported them and gave them encouragement. They might represent a bridge between us and the rest of the world.

Wow? That would require tolerance, love and patience with one another, would it not?:nah:nah:nah:nah

[BobDylan]

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO :cool:

I am not UPC, and the only manual I go by is the Bible. Now having said that, the reason we should seek a consensus on the subject is so that we all are on the same page with regards to what is being implied. The scripture itself instructs us to "speak the same thing". (1 Cor 1:10). Thats WHY...

[BobDylan]

God gave the law not to work on the Sabbath, then the religious rulers of the Jews narrowed down the interpretation to how far a person could journey on the Sabbath day without it being considered work. They became so narrow in their thinking that they condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath day. I feel a similar thing is done with the interpretation of the word, modest. What is modest for some is immodest for other such as short sleeves.

That's why I feel the conviction of the Spirit is more important than the traditions of men. The Spirit may convict one person of a certain thing but not another person for the same thing for different reasons. I think we should be convinced in our hearts that we are pleasing God and doing his will and not lay our personal convictions on others.

Whatever is not of faith is sin. Rom 14:23

Every time I get ready to post, i have to log back in. Doesn anyone else experience this problem?

Anyway, consider modesty. There may be variances among many what "sleeve length" is modest... long, short, mid, 3/4 etc. I am not even talking about that. consider that there is a specific point where something become immodest. Perhapst when the thigh is seen? (for men or women). Perhaps if cleavage is being revealed (from the arm holes or the top)... etc. etc. Isn't there a consensus of what we ALL can agree on as to the line of immodesty and modest? Then each individual can take it wherever they want and feel led from there, but shouldn't there be a broad consensus? Do some people feel that in some places it's perfectly ok for cleavage and thighs to be showing? Is modesty really that "relative"?

[BobDylan]

Just a question because the MAJORITY of folks who start this route also change on the necessity of the doctrine.

Eld. Epley, from what you have observed, what happens to the ones who DON'T change their message on the necessity of the doctrine, on oneness, Jesus name baptism (only :cool:), and the Holy Ghost and tongues? Are there some who have taken this route and have successfully implemented their new approach without forsaking the fundamental doctrines?

[BobDylan]

I was always of the belief that the condition you describe was so, because somehow "holiness" and "standards" kept a person doctrinally "right." But as time went by, I saw that the standards didn't even keep people holy.

Maybe the guys you describe fell off the doctrine simply because they had no support network outside of their older associations. In fact, could their "failure" really be our own? We're failing to get the Jesus Name message effectively planted throughout Christendom because we drop everyone who is no longer keeping the "standards."

What would happen if we held onto these people - if not officially, then at least as brethren? Supported them and gave them encouragement. They might represent a bridge between us and the rest of the world.

That's a noble and emotional appeal Pelathais. But where would you draw the line? Where has the "brother" gone too far that you can no longer be "accepting" of his divergences?

[pelathais]

That's a noble and emotional appeal Pelathais.
Thanks B.D. and my appeal isn't entirely "emotional." It is also motivated by the self interests of OP's everywhere.

Say I had as my goal the conversion of the AoG to Jesus name baptism. What is the most realistic way to go about that? First I would have to convince them or least large numbers of them that this doctrine doesn't represent a threat to them. I have to open a door into a lot of closed minds. I must show them that it's not the "cultic" or "heretical" teaching that they had heard. How do I persuade them of this?

I would be defeating my own purposes to convert the AoG if I lambasted every Jesus name preacher that approached them. Instead, if when talking or working with them (or any one 'in between') I showed generosity and humility, they would not feel threatened by me or by the things that I have to say.

We need to have a goal in mind for ourselves. Next we need to direct our actions to consistently get us closer to that goal. "A house divided against itself cannot stand..." Mark 3:25 (I like how since Lincoln used that to describe a "good house" so we can too).

We need to persevere when things get tough and overcome the obstacles. "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house..." Mark 3:27

And finally, and most importantly we need to be certain whose side we're on. The implications for working against what the Spirit of God is doing are dire. The religious people of Jesus' day accused Jesus of being in league with the devil. Jesus said that this is the one error he cannot forgive. Mark 3:28-29.

But where would you draw the line? Where has the "brother" gone too far that you can no longer be "accepting" of his divergences?He has "gone too far" if he no longer practices New Testament Christianity. His place in the Kingdom is not for me to judge. The Book, however, judges us all. Use the Book.

I will have gone too far if I fail to preserve New Testament Christianity by adding to the words that were written in the Book. I don't want to be the one who goes too far.

[Newman]

I am not UPC, and the only manual I go by is the Bible. Now having said that, the reason we should seek a consensus on the subject is so that we all are on the same page with regards to what is being implied. The scripture itself instructs us to "speak the same thing". (1 Cor 1:10). Thats WHY...

"The same thing" was acknowledging that they were all of Jesus Christ; not divided into the various camps following after individuals (organizations, etc). Hmm...

For further clarificaction read whole chapter, Romans 12:16, 1 Cor 11:18 and Phil 1:27. Contrast with Romans 14. :cool:

[mizpeh]

Every time I get ready to post, i have to log back in. Doesn anyone else experience this problem?

Anyway, consider modesty. There may be variances among many what "sleeve length" is modest... long, short, mid, 3/4 etc. I am not even talking about that. consider that there is a specific point where something become immodest. Perhapst when the thigh is seen? (for men or women). Perhaps if cleavage is being revealed (from the arm holes or the top)... etc. etc. Isn't there a consensus of what we ALL can agree on as to the line of immodesty and modest? Then each individual can take it wherever they want and feel led from there, but shouldn't there be a broad consensus? Do some people feel that in some places it's perfectly ok for cleavage and thighs to be showing? Is modesty really that "relative"?

I don't believe modesty is relative in general. Adam and Eve were clothed by God to cover their nakedness. God has a minimum but man adds to that minimum. Letting the Spirit convince is much more beneficial in the long run than laying down a set of rules.

[originalsecretplace]

Champions is the Church of Champions (http://champ.org), pastored by Wendell Hutchins. I think Tony was there for awhile .. I congregated there for a few months ...

I never got to meet him in person ... but heard great things about him.

He is very tight w/ WH. It was there that I got to hear this preaching series.

His Blessability Factor message is great. You got to get thru the preliminary hellos and a long scripture reading but when he starts to get into the Word ... WoW!!!

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

Welcome to the Revolution

1. I Must Keep Painting - Dr. Wendell Hutchins II [www.champ.org] (http://champ.org/)
http://www.respiracreative.com/keeppainting.mp3

2. Watch Out for the Brick World - Dr. Wendell Hutchins
http://www.respiracreative.com/bricks.mp3

3. The Blessability Factor - Rev. Tony Langston
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Bless...ston_part1.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Blessability_Factor-Tony_Langston_part1.mp3)
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Bless...ston_part2.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Blessability_Factor-Tony_Langston_part2.mp3)

4. Whatsoever He Tells You to Do, Do It - Elder Patrick Usher
http://www.champ.org/champcast/Whats...rick Usher.mp3 (http://www.champ.org/champcast/Whatsoever_He_Tells_You_to_Do_Do_It_Patrick%20Ushe r.mp3)

----------------------------------------------
http://www.champ.org/images/content/welcome-to-the-revolution-b.jpg



Powerful!

[BobDylan]

"The same thing" was acknowledging that they were all of Jesus Christ; not divided into the various camps following after individuals (organizations, etc). Hmm...

For further clarificaction read whole chapter, Romans 12:16, 1 Cor 11:18 and Phil 1:27. Contrast with Romans 14. :cool:

"Speaking the same thing" is not limited to your retort:

Eph 4:11-15
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Also:

Phil 2:2
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

The "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3), speaking the same thing, same mind, unity of the faith, etc. is not limited in your view of 1 Cor 1:10. There is an ongoing theme throughout the epistles of having the same doctrine, teaching etc.. For further clarification, read the whole bible...;)

[BobDylan]

I don't believe modesty is relative in general. Adam and Eve were clothed by God to cover their nakedness. God has a minimum but man adds to that minimum. Letting the Spirit convince is much more beneficial in the long run than laying down a set of rules.

Maybe laying down the minimum should be something we do when we teach modesty so that people know when they biblically have crossed the line. Short sleeves, 3/4 sleeves, long sleeves can be discussed as the Spirit convicts a person, but "modesty" and "immodesty" could be made clear IMO (again, not sleeve length, but modest/immodesty).

[mizpeh]

Maybe laying down the minimum should be something we do when we teach modesty so that people know when they biblically have crossed the line. Short sleeves, 3/4 sleeves, long sleeves can be discussed as the Spirit convicts a person, but "modesty" and "immodesty" could be made clear IMO (again, not sleeve length, but modest/immodesty).

I agree with your point. But maybe it would be better left to a local body to decide instead an organization.

I base my fellowship with other believers on the doctrine of Oneness and the new birth basically. Outward holiness is down the ladder a quite a few rungs.

[mizpeh]

"Speaking the same thing" is not limited to your retort:

Eph 4:11-15
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Also:

Phil 2:2
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

The "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3), speaking the same thing, same mind, unity of the faith, etc. is not limited in your view of 1 Cor 1:10. There is an ongoing theme throughout the epistles of having the same doctrine, teaching etc.. For further clarification, read the whole bible...;)

Yet, Paul gives leeway in Rom 14. He can eat all meat but a weaker brother believes otherwise. They aren't speaking the same thing. But there are other principles involved:toleration, love, and putting the other first.

[Newman]

Yet, Paul gives leeway in Rom 14. He can eat all meat but a weaker brother believes otherwise. They aren't speaking the same thing. But there are other principles involved:toleration, love, and putting the other first.

Indeed. :cool:

[SDG]

Posted on NewChurchOrder.com (http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/69/45/)

http://www.newchurchorder.com/images/stories/anthonylangston_edited-2.jpg

Anthony Langston [NJ], UPCI minister and NCO member will be launching a new book entitled "Holier than God". I can't imagine he will be w/ the fellowship much longer.
--------------------------------------

HOLIER THAN GOD
Below are some snapshots of the upcoming doctrinal thesis on Biblical holiness (of life and outward appearance) by Anthony Langston.

A favorite text of the proponents of traditional positions in any denomination is,"Remove not the ancient landmarks of our fathers." �(Prov. 22:28)

The question begs asking, "Who are our the fathers?" Who are the fathers of the 20th -21st century Pentecostalism? Is it pastors from the 50's & 60's or district and national leaders?

Or is it men of the 20's and 30's who were flaming evangels, strafing the country with tent revivals and leaving in each of their wakes scores of churches and hundreds of Gospel preachers? Read the writings of these men and you'll be hard pressed to find much on the subject of what we call "standards." Rule-based "standards" became the focus of many from a later generation that lacked the power and effectiveness of their predecessors but compensated by "perfecting" the churches they inherited!


However, with that said, Howard Goss is not my doctrinal father. A.D. Urshan (who received the Holy Spirit while my wife's great aunt played the organ and her great grandmother prayed with him in the altar) or C.G. Weeks (who was a close personal friend and mentor of my wife's grandfather) or any other 20th or 19th century preacher does not qualify as a doctrinal father! If you allow this practice, then you can't argue it with other denominations who hold to their iconic elders and their teachings. No! Our doctrinal fathers can be none other than the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone.

If you cite or hold to any teaching other than the Holy Scriptures as fundamental you are a traditionalist! I prefer to be a primitivist!
For all who say "our forefathers sorted these things out years ago" I would like to ask, have you shown the same courage and earnestness? Have you sorted them out? Or will you settle for the footnotes of someone else's study , prayer and struggle. Someone who was called to a different generation. These men and women were called to another time with very different challenges and with a truckload of their own traditional baggage already deep-seated in them from their 19th century Baptist, Pilgrim Holiness, Wesleyan or Puritan origins!

Do you really want to trace your positional interpretations back to people who burned witches and made transgressors wear scarlet letters for a year after letting them out of public stocks? I'm sorry if I sound extreme, but I'm weary with others attempting to root me in an "old fashioned, traditional, Americana Holiness." Would the Corinthian church have survived the puritan occupation? Or for that matter, could it belong to a mainstream apostolic organization? If you want to understand the Scriptures on subjects such as hair, jewelry, and clothing; you must look at it from the context of this world, not the Apostolic church. Come to my city where men dress like women and women like men, where young people wear enough metal piercings to build a compact car and tattoos are an essential accessory and then you will understand the point and need for these moral, moderate, and modesty principles based in Scripture. But what has happened, is that introverted churches and ministries have turned these Scriptures in on the already separated and righteous and have increasingly raised the bar (perhaps competitively) thus tweaking the issues so far out of perspective and beyond their original intent that many churches and believers are completely isolated and ineffective to their families and larger community. Some have progressed from a holy separateness to a cultish community of exclusion, and the devil is overjoyed!

The problem is not that I don't love holiness, the problem is that some love their standard and their tradition and the affirmation of goose bump clubs more than they love honesty, study, and simple Scriptural verity!

It is amazing to me how differently some scholars write about this subject as opposed to others such as, Baptism, Godhead, etc.. On other subjects they allow no traditionalists views to stand against the barrage of solid scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics. With the sword of Scripture as their only authority, they dismantle falsehoods and establish clear doctrine with multiple contextual witnesses. But when they write on the subject of "outward appearance," they adopt the habits and practices they abhor in others and with conjecture and opinion they stretch a verse beyond its simple truth and then move to another, thus establishing a philosophical buttress of circular reasoning! I've heard everything from, "even witches know this about hair" to "makeup is made from human embryos." Do yourself a favor, take every book you have on the subject, mark out with a thick black marker every sentence and paragraph that is not scripture or clear contextual and honest deciphering of Scripture and you will not be left with much to read!

I'm certainly not angry with these men and writers. I have myself spent too many years doing the same. I'm angry at falsehoods. Religious phariseeisms. I've put up with it for so long, too long. Its time to speak out, to tell the truth no matter the cost! Who am I to think my ministry should be without reproach or slander. I have a cross to bear, perhaps this is part of it. I write this broken; broken in conviction and broken by the thought of friends I love not being able to receive these words. I concur with the hymnologist who said, "Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free, there is a cross for everyone and there is a cross for me."

I've had the privilege of watching and learning from new converts who fell in love with holiness through our teaching and seeing them persecuted by family and friends without ever experiencing the extreme version of (standards) that you and I have been subjected to. Don't believe the lie that there is no difference and that the redefiners are all worldly and not standing for anything. You just have to hear the testimonies in our discipleship community groups by these babies. My wife and I try not to laugh because we are thinking to ourselves, "Girl, you have no idea" but their separation is real! Their wardrobe is changing. Its costing them money to throw away clothes and buy different ones. They have been taught principles from the Scripture without traditional definitions and they really do love God enough and are honest enough to embrace the changes that Spirit-led principled living dictates! They really can be trusted to grow!
But that is the real problem isn't it. Trust ! If I don't believe in people then I can't trust them to grow. Therefore I must mandate change through standardized criteria's. The problem with this is that I have bypassed an essential process for them and replaced that process with product! Now I feel accomplished. I have product. I'm affirmed when my appraisers approve of the product. As a leader I am celebrated. But the people haven't transformed! No my friend, they have merely conformed! They did not come to it gradually and personally through the relational process with God. Their chance to "work out their own salvation" was stolen from them by the impatient hands of leadership, leaders more interested in bottom lines than spiritual growth.


The Apostles understood this in Acts 15, when they said, "we will put no greater burden on them than this." (Acts 15:28) But 35 years later in 1 Cor. 11, Paul is dealing with issues that were not in focus at the birth of these precious saints. Holiness is progressive.

BUMP FOR THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

[Coonskinner]

Is this guy presently UPCI?

Yes he is.

I have known Tony Langston for around nine years, but haven't had contact with him for a while. He is one of the funniest guys to be around that you will ever meet, a lot of humor, and sharp.

It looks like he is about to achieve exit velocity though.

[RevDWW]

Yes he is.

I have known Tony Langston for around nine years, but haven't had contact with him for a while. He is one of the funniest guys to be around that you will ever meet, a lot of humor, and sharp.

It looks like he is about to achieve exit velocity though.

You think he's going to break strain, overcome the UPCI gravitational field, and exit orbit?

[Coonskinner]

You think he's going to break strain, overcome the UPCI gravitational field, and exit orbit?

He's showing all the signs--especially the book writing.:)

All the guys who leave us tend to want to write books or letters explaining their newfound liberty.:)

[pelathais]

He's showing all the signs--especially the book writing.:)

All the guys who leave us tend to want to write books or letters explaining their newfound liberty.:)
Tony's been in and out before, though. He may have a heat shield like the shuttle. But even that burns up sometimes.

[Coonskinner]

Tony's been in and out before, though. He may have a heat shield like the shuttle. But even that burns up sometimes.


Tony and I were sitting on the balcony at Chester Wright's in Annapolis about midnight one night, after a long, arduous day and night of fasting, praying, hearing Brother Wright teach, and being browbeaten by Johnny Garrison.:)

We were exhausted. We had probably logged 6-8 hours of prayer, and more than that of teaching.

We were on the third day of fasting...it was pretty brutal.

As we sat there and sipped coffee, Johnny Garrison was prancing around, still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. :)

Tony stared balefully at Brother Garrison over the rim of his coffee cup, and said to me, "I'm hungry for more of God, and I want God to use me. But if that man tells me to pray one more time tonight, I'm going to spit on his shoes."

I nearly fell out laughing.:killinme

[RevDWW]

Tony and I were sitting on the balcony at Chester Wright's in Annapolis about midnight one night, after a long, arduous day and night of fasting, praying, hearing Brother Wright teach, and being browbeaten by Johnny Garrison.:)

We were exhausted. We had probably logged 6-8 hours of prayer, and more than that of teaching.

We were on the third day of fasting...it was pretty brutal.

As we sat there and sipped coffee, Johnny Garrison was prancing around, still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. :)

Tony stared balefully at Brother Garrison over the rim of his coffee cup, and said to me, "I'm hungry for more of God, and I want God to use me. But if that man tells me to pray one more time tonight, I'm going to spit on his shoes."

I nearly fell out laughing.:killinme

That was funny. My only question is, what were you guys doing drinking coffe while fasting???? :killinme:killinme:killinme

[Coonskinner]

That was funny. My only question is, what were you guys doing drinking coffe while fasting???? :killinme:killinme:killinme

Brother,

We stayed in the church all week long, locked in.

We were up praying all hours of the night and through the day, in between sessions of Brother Wright teaching. We slept very little.

It was so physically grueling that we drank coffee some of the time to help us stay a little focused.

[RevDWW]

Brother,

We stayed in the church all week long, locked in.

We were up praying all hours of the night and through the day, in between sessions of Brother Wright teaching. We slept very little.

It was so physically grueling that we drank coffee some of the time to help us stay a little focused.

I wonder how much coffee Moses, Elijah and Jesus drank while fasting.............:hypercoffee






Just messing with yah..........:killinme

[Coonskinner]

I wonder how much coffee Moses, Elijah and Jesus drank while fasting.............:hypercoffee






Just messing with yah..........:killinme

Moses, Elijah, and Jesus didn't have C.M. Wright and Johnny Garrrison beating them to death 18-20 hours a day, either.:)

[RevDWW]

Moses, Elijah, and Jesus didn't have C.M. Wright and Johnny Garrrison beating them to death 18-20 hours a day, either.:)

:killinme:killinme:killinme


Was this in Bible School?

[Coonskinner]

:killinme:killinme:killinme


Was this in Bible School?


Good grief no.

The kids were too smart to volunteer for a deal like that.:)

[RevDWW]

Good grief no.

The kids were too smart to volunteer for a deal like that.:)

What were the circumstances?

[pelathais]

Tony and I were sitting on the balcony at Chester Wright's in Annapolis about midnight one night, after a long, arduous day and night of fasting, praying, hearing Brother Wright teach, and being browbeaten by Johnny Garrison.:)

We were exhausted. We had probably logged 6-8 hours of prayer, and more than that of teaching.

We were on the third day of fasting...it was pretty brutal.

As we sat there and sipped coffee, Johnny Garrison was prancing around, still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. :)

Tony stared balefully at Brother Garrison over the rim of his coffee cup, and said to me, "I'm hungry for more of God, and I want God to use me. But if that man tells me to pray one more time tonight, I'm going to spit on his shoes."

I nearly fell out laughing.:killinme
I was teaching at a church where some of my family ran things. There was a lot of resentment against me from some of them and I was having a hard time getting the congregation involved with my message.

Tony was scheduled to speak right after me. I don't know if I said something that blessed him, or if he just felt sorry for me; but about 3/4 of the way through he came dancing up the aisle and his example shook the whole place up. I've always appreciated that bit of praise and worship of his, though I could never really tell him how much it meant to me as a young preacher.

[Coonskinner]

What were the circumstances?


It was an early version of what later became Manna Fest.

It was kind of an invitation only deal at the time.

We locked in the church, fasted all week, prayed many, many hours a day, and in between Brother Wright taught. I have heard him go four hours solid without stopping.

Theywould send us to bed around midnight, get us up at 2:00AM for a two hour prayer meeting, and the back up around 6:00 for some more.

It was as physically exhausting as anything I have ever participated in, but we had some amazing deep moves of God. It was a defining experience for me as a young man.

[mfblume]

Has anyone posted info on how to buy the book yet?

[mfblume]

Has anyone posted info on how to buy the book yet?

Bump

[Carpenter]

While this guy has preached some tremendous sermons, and God is a forgiving God, Anthony Langston is not a UPC licensed preacher...if he is, someone made a mistake.

I have known him personally for almost 15 years. Anthony? no, its really just Tony.

[SDG]

While this guy has preached some tremendous sermons, and God is a forgiving God, Anthony Langston is not a UPC licensed preacher...if he is, someone made a mistake.

I have known him personally for almost 15 years. Anthony? no, its really just Tony.

Well maybe he forgot to tell you ... LOL ....

The minute you don't pay your dues you are taken off the database ... well almost immediately.

Search for Anthony Langston:

https://wec.upci.org/ministers/default.asp

Also on the UPCI church locator:
http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20(Newark (http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20(Newark))

WELCOME BACK CARP ... WE'VE MISSED YOU.

[mfblume]

Has anyone posted info on how to buy the book yet?

(ahem) bump!

[SDG]

(ahem) bump!

Nothing yet ... Elder ... I've asked on the NCO website and there has been no reply ... I'll try to contact him personally.

[mfblume]

Nothing yet ... Elder ... I've asked on the NCO website and there has been no reply ... I'll try to contact him personally.

Thanks. I was wondering if it was posted and I missed it.

[Carpenter]

Well maybe he forgot to tell you ... LOL ....

The minute you don't pay your dues you are taken off the database ... well almost immediately.

Search for Anthony Langston:



Also on the UPCI church locator:
http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20(Newark (http://wec.upci.org/churches/locator/search_church_details.asp?searchnum=147842&city=Jersey%20City%20(Newark))

WELCOME BACK CARP ... WE'VE MISSED YOU.

Thanks, I am back for a limited time only. Here are the results of my search...thanks for the link by the way.

https://wec.upci.org/ministers/default.asp

I am shocked to actually see him surface. I am all for restoration, because I have been restored, we all have to an extent, however, I am feeling a little conflicted seeing him in a ministerial spotlight.

What did we say about the restoration of Pastor Haggard again?

[Steve Epley]

Thanks, I am back for a limited time only. Here are the results of my search...thanks for the link by the way.

https://wec.upci.org/ministers/default.asp

I am shocked to actually see him surface. I am all for restoration, because I have been restored, we all have to an extent, however, I am feeling a little conflicted seeing him in a ministerial spotlight.

What did we say about the restoration of Pastor Haggard again?

Carp Old Paths is preaching revival at Colorado Springs.

[Carpenter]

Carp Old Paths is preaching revival at Colorado Springs.

WHAT??? WHEN, WHERE? WHY DINT HE SAY ANYTHING!!

[Coonskinner]

Carp, email me.

i can't PM you.

[RevDWW]

Thanks, I am back for a limited time only. Here are the results of my search...thanks for the link by the way.

https://wec.upci.org/ministers/default.asp

I am shocked to actually see him surface. I am all for restoration, because I have been restored, we all have to an extent, however, I am feeling a little conflicted seeing him in a ministerial spotlight.

What did we say about the restoration of Pastor Haggard again?

Carp,
I'm not so certain this was a good thing. Now you have tainted the man without giving us a real cause. And you mention him with a reference to Haggard, which might lead some to believe he had a homosexual problem. I don't know the man, nor anything other then what I've read hear so don't take this as a defense of him.

[Hoovie]

Carp,
I'm not so certain this was a good thing. Now you have tainted the man without giving us a real cause. And you mention him with a reference to Haggard, which might lead some to believe he had a homosexual problem. I don't know the man, nor anything other then what I've read hear so don't take this as a defense of him.

Exactly. I searched this thread in vain....

[Steve Epley]

WHAT??? WHEN, WHERE? WHY DINT HE SAY ANYTHING!!

Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He started Wednesday!!!! Thay have had 4 or 5 to recieve the Holy Ghost already. He will probably be there awhile. The revival runs Wed-Fri-then both services on Sunday where Elder John Burgess is pastor the church Elder Tom Johnson used to pastor. He said wear a RED coat so he would know you.:killinme

[mfblume]

Still no word on how to obtain the book?

[yogi]

Thanks, I am back for a limited time only. Here are the results of my search...thanks for the link by the way.

https://wec.upci.org/ministers/default.asp

I am shocked to actually see him surface. I am all for restoration, because I have been restored, we all have to an extent, however, I am feeling a little conflicted seeing him in a ministerial spotlight.

What did we say about the restoration of Pastor Haggard again?

I hope Langston the best, and I pray that God has mercy on him, but be careful about listening to him. He leaves a path of destruction where ever he goes and still needs to make things right with some folk at previous church's he's been to. I agree with Carpenter about restoration, but Langston needs to fix some of the problems he has caused in the past before I would ever listen to one word from him

[mfblume]

bumpo...

[AnotherTrave]

whew

[mfblume]

Bump again

[James Griffin]

Bump again

Tony actually styled his comments on the NCO site as an "upcoming doctrinal thesis".

Not sure what progress, if any, he has made on the thesis, but you have my word if it ever starts getting even close to a book I'll post here and let you know!!

:thumbsup

[CC1]

It has been exactly 3 months since the last post on this forum. Any update on the publlication of Pastor Langston's doctrinal thesis previewed at the NCO website oh so long ago?

[pelathais]

Put 'er to bed, CC1. That's where we all should be heading.http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A thoughtful bump, though. C'mon Tony! What about at least a picture book version?

[James Griffin]

It has been exactly 3 months since the last post on this forum. Any update on the publlication of Pastor Langston's doctrinal thesis previewed at the NCO website oh so long ago?

Actually the article was published in Aug 2007

:-)

[mfblume]

Actually the article was published in Aug 2007

:-)

Can it be scanned and put here?

[Encryptus]

Can it be scanned and put here?

Blume it appears the article in its entirety is post 1 and 2 of this thread.

:nod

[Encryptus]

Can it be scanned and put here?

Following is a link to the original article, it is formatted so that it can be saved as a .pdf or printed.

http://www.newchurchorder.com/content/view/69/39/

[CC1]

Actually the article was published in Aug 2007

:-)

I knew it was sometime last fall. I was referring to three months since the last post on this thread where folks were inquiring as to when the full book version of it would be available if there is such a thing.

[James Griffin]

I knew it was sometime last fall. I was referring to three months since the last post on this thread where folks were inquiring as to when the full book version of it would be available if there is such a thing.



I gathered as much my friend, I was just pointing out the date of origin.

As far as "book" I believe that was webmaster editing. :-)

I don't believe even the "thesis" has yet been completed, the article is in all probably it.

It is somewhat interesting in spite of the prognostications of being kicked out and comments about the evils of "parting shots" that Tony is still, 9 months later, UPCI.



:rooting

[bkstokes]

I gathered as much my friend, I was just pointing out the date of origin.

As far as "book" I believe that was webmaster editing. :-)

I don't believe even the "thesis" has yet been completed, the article is in all probably it.

It is somewhat interesting in spite of the prognostications of being kicked out and comments about the evils of "parting shots" that Tony is still, 9 months later, UPCI.



:rooting


James

I know Tony, yet I haven't alked to him in over 7 years. How is he?

[RevBuddy]

DB doesn't like Langston's photo. Anyone else w/ him?


Absolutely...very weak eyes, too!?!?!?! :happydance

[RevBuddy]

More of the same ole same ole. Guys depart from the faith and give their excuses. I have already read the other books by others who departed so here is another so what? Not impressed.


EXACTLY...elder

[James Griffin]

EXACTLY...elder

RB you do realize Steve made that comment about parting shots over 9 months ago and Tony is still in the UPCI.

Furthermore it wasn't an anti-UPCI article to begin with.

:-)

[James Griffin]

James

I know Tony, yet I haven't alked to him in over 7 years. How is he?

Will PM, but doing great last time I saw him.

[azbusinessman]

More of the same ole same ole. Guys depart from the faith and give their excuses. I have already read the other books by others who departed so here is another so what? Not impressed.

Really? Really? I was just reading this old thread, and I am just amazed that someone would say this. So "changing beliefs on standards" now is "departing the faith". So "the faith" is "american pentecostal standards" (which incidently are deeply different from nation to nation)? Are you sure brother? It is THE FAITH?

[Sam]

tradition, we've done it this way for years, it's even mentioned in "The Manual"

[ILG]

tradition, we've done it this way for years, it's even mentioned in "The Manual"

Women wearing skirts isn't mentioned in the manual and that's a sacred cow. ;)

[Sam]

Many of our cherished traditions are not only sacred cows but also bovine feces.