Embrace, Endorse, Promote...

[whollyHis]

If I say that I 'embrace' someone of a different doctrinal belief, am I saying that I endorse, or promote their beliefism?

Serious question. I have friends of other doctrinal beliefs that I 'embrace'- by embracing them, am I telling them that I AGREE with their beliefism??

Admin might move this thread, but I wanted this to get attention- so, I posted yet another thread...*sigh*

[rgcraig]

Not at all.

If that was so, it'd be a small world for many of us.

Did Jesus do that? I don't think so.

[stmatthew]

If I say that I 'embrace' someone of a different doctrinal belief, am I saying that I endorse, or promote their beliefism?

Serious question. I have friends of other doctrinal beliefs that I 'embrace'- by embracing them, am I telling them that I AGREE with their beliefism??

Admin might move this thread, but I wanted this to get attention- so, I posted yet another thread...*sigh*

I think you probably need to define what you mean by "Embrace".


Spiritual fellowship to me is different that just having friendships. I can be friendly and have folks that I associate with that are not of this Apostolic faith. But they will never get into the inner circle because they do not relate to my salvation. there will always be a part of me they do not get to receive, or commune with. And to be honest, my main goal will be the saving of their soul, so eventually they will either become interested in this Jesus I serve, or they will grow tired of our discussions and talks, and drift away.

I cannot just be friends and not share with them this glorious gospel, and this only saving plan that is available to man. If I am truly their friend, I will be able to do nothing less that show them truth.

[whollyHis]

I think you probably need to define what you mean by "Embrace".


Spiritual fellowship to me is different that just having friendships. I can be friendly and have folks that I associate with that are not of this Apostolic faith. But they will never get into the inner circle because they do not relate to my salvation. there will always be a part of me they do not get to receive, or commune with. And to be honest, my main goal will be the saving of their soul, so eventually they will either become interested in this Jesus I serve, or they will grow tired of our discussions and talks, and drift away.

I cannot just be friends and not share with them this glorious gospel, and this only saving plan that is available to man. If I am truly their friend, I will be able to do nothing less that show them truth.



Of course I minister and witness to them...but, most are 'christians' and feel they are saved already. Incidentally, the fact that they ARE believers, is what drew them to me...these are work acquaintances.

The thread about JB and his missions/doctrinal statement got me thinking about this....folks got 'up in arms' because he states that although they baptize in Jesus Name, they 'embrace' those of other doctrines...does he mean that he puts them in heaven, or that they will embrace them in fellowship, while trying to 'win them' to truth?

Just mulling things over in my mind...

[Malvaro]

*bump*

[Kutless]

our doctrine is exclusionary.

[Monkeyman]

Love Won Another.....got that from my pastor this weekend

[Barb]

our doctrine is exclusionary.

How so?!

[Kutless]

How so?!nobody else gets to go to heaven

[Sister Alvear]

lol...my goood friends are there really 2 churches that believe just alike on every thing?

[Kutless]

lol...my goood friends are there really 2 churches that believe just alike on every thing?I Think it would depend on if you are talking about standards or core doctrine.

[Nahum]

The least reported fact of Jesus' ministry is that He mentioned Hell more than any other speaker in the Bible. Apparently quite a few folks will end up there. I suppose we believe in the "narrow" way and that our our doctrine is exclusionary.

Of course none of our trinitarian friends would ever be so exclusionary. They would never accuse us of being a cult, or worshipping "another Jesus" or the like. The rift between Oneness believers and their trinny friends must surely be all our fault?

Why is it that AFF'ers go around with guilty looks on their faces for believing that our biblical stance regarding the proper response to the Gospel is somehow shameful? It's as if we despise ourselves for holding such a precious truth. I'll never understand the mentality.

I make no bones about it. I believe Acts 2:38 is the only biblically proper resonse to the Gospel. I also believe that those who refuse to respond to that message are doomed to Hell. If that makes me a judgemental intolerant -so be it.

[Hoovie]

nobody else gets to go to heaven

I for one do not see it this way. Holding fast to distinctives does not mean preaching all other Christians are damned.

[Felicity]

One of my best friends while we were overseas was a Southern Baptist missionary wife. We met at Language School and had so many great times together as couples but Marie and I especially spent a lot of time together.

We were the first Pentecostals they ever had personal contact with and they had lots of questions. :) We were able to explain a lot of things about Pentecost, the Holy Ghost and the Godhead with them. They were very impressed both with the liberty we had in regards to missionary work and with the work we were doing there.

He received the baptism of the Holy Ghost in his bedroom on his knees totally broken before the Lord and it revolutionized his ministry.

Our lives (both couples) were all the richer for having become friends. What if we had never "embraced" them?

[Felicity]

There was a man in the town we pastored in back home who was a member of the Anglican church. After we started pastoring the UP church there in that town, he came to visit now and then. He would talk to my husband about various things regarding church, doctrine, Pentecost, etc. and my husband never put down what he believed nor did he ever at any point put any pressure on him to visit our church or to change what he believed.

Instead we just "embraced" him where he was at spiritually and in regards to his church as well.

To make a long story short, within a relatively short time Don became a member of our church, baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and has been faithful now for more than 10 years and a great blessing as well. The fact his former pastor came was extraordinary! And people recognized it as such!

The night he was baptized his former Anglican pastor came to see him baptized as did half the church and many others from the community.

What if we hadn't been a friend to him? What if we hadn't accepted him where he was at? What if we hadn't just allowed the Word and truth we were feeding him and the Spirit of God to work in His life according to God's will and plan?

What if we hadn't "embraced" him?

[tbpew]

The least reported fact of Jesus' ministry is that He mentioned Hell more than any other speaker in the Bible. Apparently quite a few folks will end up there. I suppose we believe in the "narrow" way and that our our doctrine is exclusionary.

Of course none of our trinitarian friends would ever be so exclusionary. They would never accuse us of being a cult, or worshipping "another Jesus" or the like. The rift between Oneness believers and their trinny friends must surely be all our fault?

Why is it that AFF'ers go around with guilty looks on their faces for believing that our biblical stance regarding the proper response to the Gospel is somehow shameful? It's as if we despise ourselves for holding such a precious truth. I'll never understand the mentality.

I make no bones about it. I believe Acts 2:38 is the only biblically proper resonse to the Gospel. I also believe that those who refuse to respond to that message are doomed to Hell. If that makes me a judgemental intolerant -so be it.
I hear your challenge to think.

What I think is missing in many of our relationships with those who we PERCEIVE as being 'without' is the inescapable truth that THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBORS.

Would any of us have access (or even seek access) to the hearts of our neighbors if we carried-about a confident presumption that they are all sleeper-cells waiting to destroy what we value?

Do we wrestle against flesh and blood? If we don't, why is it so commonplace that we seem quite capable of detesting those who profess God but not as we do?

My take....
There is a subtle deception at work in our spirits that insert a sense of personal reassurance that we are IN and somebody else is OUT.

Can we learn to let the Spirit shape our words as being "love wrapped truth" AMONG THE NEIGHBORS who are part of the entire field that has been purchased by our Lord's sacrifice at Calvary?

Our witness, that is used by the Spirit to convey understanding must:

be long suffering, be kind; not envy; not exalt itself, not be puffed up, not behave unseemly, not seek her own, not be easily provoked, think no evil; not rejoice in iniquity, rejoice in the truth; bear all things, believeth all things, hope all things, endure all things.

By this shall all men know that we are HIS disciples. From that point forward we have done our job as members of God's anointed body. The Spirit is the master builder of his own habitation.

The carnal mind is the author of the wrestling match. Without access our testimony is DOA.

[Nahum]

I for one do not see it this way. Holding fast to distinctives does not mean preaching all other Christians are damned.

Define Christians?

If you believe folks can be saved without water baptism or the Holy Ghost baptism why do you consider yourself Pentecostal? Why not just join a group that adheres to "tolerance" of all those who believe Jesus lived?

[Kutless]

The least reported fact of Jesus' ministry is that He mentioned Hell more than any other speaker in the Bible. Apparently quite a few folks will end up there. I suppose we believe in the "narrow" way and that our our doctrine is exclusionary.

Of course none of our trinitarian friends would ever be so exclusionary. They would never accuse us of being a cult, or worshipping "another Jesus" or the like. The rift between Oneness believers and their trinny friends must surely be all our fault?

Why is it that AFF'ers go around with guilty looks on their faces for believing that our biblical stance regarding the proper response to the Gospel is somehow shameful? It's as if we despise ourselves for holding such a precious truth. I'll never understand the mentality.

I make no bones about it. I believe Acts 2:38 is the only biblically proper resonse to the Gospel. I also believe that those who refuse to respond to that message are doomed to Hell. If that makes me a judgemental intolerant -so be it.Pastor P, I applaud this post. I am going to print it and put it in my Bible.

There are no excuses folks. Get right or get left!

[Ferd]

I am with PP.... for the most part.

while I hold a very clear Water/Spirit doctrine, I also beleive the UPCI did itself harm in 1992 by working to get rid of the PCI folks that had been a part of it from day 1.

if you call that "Embracing PCI People" while not agreeing with them, then I do. we dont have to be in lock step on every point.

My dads family is by and large Baptist. They are all wonderful people I love them dearly. We have recently discussed the fact that their church has become much more animated and as they call it "Bapticostal" I embrace that...while at the same time, know that they need Acts 2:38 to get to heaven.

Embrace yes, validate? no.

[Nahum]

I hear your challenge to think.

What I think is missing in many of our relationships with those who we PERCEIVE as being 'without' is the inescapable truth that THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBORS.
Would any of us have access (or even seek access) to the hearts of our neighbors if we carried-about a confident presumption that they are all sleeper-cells waiting to destroy what we value?

Do we wrestle against flesh and blood? If we don't, why is it so commonplace that we seem quite capable of detesting those who profess God but not as we do?

My take....
There is a subtle deception at work in our spirits that insert a sense of personal reassurance that we are IN and somebody else is OUT.

Can we learn to let the Spirit shape our words as being "love wrapped truth" AMONG THE NEIGHBORS who are part of the entire field that has been purchased by our Lord's sacrifice at Calvary?

Our witness, that is used by the Spirit to convey understanding must:

be long suffering, be kind; not envy; not exalt itself, not be puffed up, not behave unseemly, not seek her own, not be easily provoked, think no evil; not rejoice in iniquity, rejoice in the truth; bear all things, believeth all things, hope all things, endure all things.

By this shall all men know that we are HIS disciples. From that point forward we have done our job as members of God's anointed body. The Spirit is the master builder of his own habitation.

The carnal mind is the author of the wrestling match. Without access are testimony is DOA.

I absolutely agree.

My relationship does not give me excuse to be an egotistical jerk. It does not give me a free pass to mock and deride other beliefs. But my relationship and belief will not allow for equal valuation of beliefs either.

I am not judgemental and hateful just because I don't agree with false doctrine. That is what people want here. It is not a simple tolerance, it is that they want an equal valuation. They want us to say that their false doctrine is just as valuable as our truth. I don't buy it.

That being said, I agree that we could handle ourselves in a better way sometimes.

[Coonskinner]

I think that many times if the only impression a person had of us was reading the words that are written on this forum, it would be very easy to get a wrong idea.

This is not an outreach activity; it is a discussion forum, and much of the time conversation revolves around confronting error.

I do NOT talk to sinners the same way I would discourse with an erring former Apostolic who ought to know better.

[Felicity]

My take....
There is a subtle deception at work in our spirits that insert a sense of personal reassurance that we are IN and somebody else is OUT.

Can we learn to let the Spirit shape our words as being "love wrapped truth" AMONG THE NEIGHBORS who are part of the entire field that has been purchased by our Lord's sacrifice at Calvary?

Our witness, that is used by the Spirit to convey understanding must:

be long suffering, be kind; not envy; not exalt itself, not be puffed up, not behave unseemly, not seek her own, not be easily provoked, think no evil; not rejoice in iniquity, rejoice in the truth; bear all things, believeth all things, hope all things, endure all things.

By this shall all men know that we are HIS disciples. From that point forward we have done our job as members of God's anointed body. The Spirit is the master builder of his own habitation.

The carnal mind is the author of the wrestling match. Without access our testimony is DOA.Very good!

[Nahum]

I am with PP.... for the most part.

while I hold a very clear Water/Spirit doctrine, I also beleive the UPCI did itself harm in 1992 by working to get rid of the PCI folks that had been a part of it from day 1.

if you call that "Embracing PCI People" while not agreeing with them, then I do. we dont have to be in lock step on every point.

My dads family is by and large Baptist. They are all wonderful people I love them dearly. We have recently discussed the fact that their church has become much more animated and as they call it "Bapticostal" I embrace that...while at the same time, know that they need Acts 2:38 to get to heaven.

Embrace yes, validate? no.

I read an agreement in what you and tbpew have posted.

I feel the same way. I embrace the things we can agree with our "Christian" friends on. We love Jesus, we believe in His soon return, we stand firm in the belief that there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun.

On these facts we can agree. But my agreement on those issues does not lead to an agreement in others. Sometimes we agree to disagree.....


and circle each other warily.

[Ferd]

I think that many times if the only impression a person had of us was reading the words that are written on this forum, it would be very easy to get a wrong idea.

This is not an outreach activity; it is a discussion forum, and much of the time conversation revolves around confronting error.

I do NOT talk to sinners the same way I would discourse with an erring former Apostolic who ought to know better.

very good point.

[Ferd]

I read an agreement in what you and tbpew have posted.

I feel the same way. I embrace the things we can agree with our "Christian" friends on. We love Jesus, we believe in His soon return, we stand firm in the belief that there is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun.

On these facts we can agree. But my agreement on those issues does not lead to an agreement in others. Sometimes we agree to disagree.....


and circle each other warily.

I agree!

[Kutless]

I think that many times if the only impression a person had of us was reading the words that are written on this forum, it would be very easy to get a wrong idea.

This is not an outreach activity; it is a discussion forum, and much of the time conversation revolves around confronting error.

I do NOT talk to sinners the same way I would discourse with an erring former Apostolic who ought to know better.I think you should talk to everyone with respect. Period.

And while this may not be an "Outreach Forum" persay. I have gained knowledge from certain ones here. I have developed friendships here. That was Outreach to me. Also we never know who is lurking. How can you discount outreach?

[Hoovie]

Define Christians?

If you believe folks can be saved without water baptism or the Holy Ghost baptism why do you consider yourself Pentecostal? Why not just join a group that adheres to "tolerance" of all those who believe Jesus lived?

There are about fifty other threads about this...

We can and should preach our understanding of Acts 2:38. But there are others who love the Lord and do interpret it differently than we do.

To not recognize that our understanding of scripture is also an interpretation (which we are convinced is correct) is arrogant and selfserving.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a table vendor at a prophecey meeting. She was selling books and materials from their ministry and from many Christian other Christian authors as well. She said, "These are good to study too, they have some valuable insight but of course are not all true like Bro. ________s' books.... he get's his straight from the Bible and the Lord."

I could hardly turn away fast enough before I broke out laughing.

[Coonskinner]

I think you should talk to everyone with respect. Period.

And while this may not be an "Outreach Forum" persay. I have gained knowledge from certain ones here. I have developed friendships here. That was Outreach to me. Also we never know who is lurking. How can you discount outreach?

I don't think I have been disrespectful, Kutless, but I have been more pointed and direct than I might be speaking to a sinner who knows nothing.

This is a forum for Apostolics. Not an outreach tool.

I hope some people are edified by things that are written, but this is not really a place or an environment for novices.

[Nahum]

I think that many times if the only impression a person had of us was reading the words that are written on this forum, it would be very easy to get a wrong idea.

This is not an outreach activity; it is a discussion forum, and much of the time conversation revolves around confronting error.

I do NOT talk to sinners the same way I would discourse with an erring former Apostolic who ought to know better.

Exactly, so let me broaden the base of this discussion.

I agree with some Baptost's theology more than I agree with some of the absolute drivel of theology that ex-pentecostals post here.

Examples would be....

1. preterism
2. not needed to pronounce a name at baptism
3. no need for holiness

SOME Baptists put us to shame.

[Ronzo]

I think you should talk to everyone with respect. Period.

And while this may not be an "Outreach Forum" persay. I have gained knowledge from certain ones here. I have developed friendships here. That was Outreach to me. Also we never know who is lurking. How can you discount outreach?
*bump*

[Coonskinner]

Exactly, so let me broaden the base of this discussion.

I agree with some Baptost's theology more than I agree with some of the absolute drivel of theology that ex-pentecostals post here.

Examples would be....

1. preterism
2. not needed to pronounce a name at baptism
3. no need for holiness

SOME Baptists put us to shame.


You find much hunger for truth among certain incependent Baptist groups, and low tolerance for fluff and tripe.

I got started coon hunting with one of them, and he is now Baptized in Jesus Name.:)

[Felicity]

Sometimes we agree to disagree.....


and circle each other warily.This is kind of sad isn't it? :(

[Kutless]

I don't think I have been disrespectful, Kutless, but I have been more pointed and direct than I might be speaking to a sinner who knows nothing.

This is a forum for Apostolics. Not an outreach tool.

I hope some people are edified by things that are written, but this is not really a place or an environment for novices.now that I understand better, I can fully agree with that statement Dr.

[Nahum]

There are about fifty other threads about this...

We can and should preach our understanding of Acts 2:38. But there are others who love the Lord and do interpret it differently than we do.

To not recognize that our understanding of scripture is also an interpretation (which we are convinced is correct) is arrogant and selfserving.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a table vendor at a prophecey meeting. She was selling books and materials from their ministry and from many Christian other Christian authors as well. She said, "These are good to study too, they have some valuable insight but of course are not all true like Bro. ________s' books.... he get's his straight from the Bible and the Lord."

I could hardly turn away fast enough before I broke out laughing.

I get your point Bro.

What illumination awaits US just around the next bend?

I just think we need to be careful. I will not accept any old wind of doctrine.

[Nahum]

This is kind of sad isn't it? :(

It is a necessary truth, no matter how sad it may be.

[Nahum]

I think you should talk to everyone with respect. Period.

And while this may not be an "Outreach Forum" persay. I have gained knowledge from certain ones here. I have developed friendships here. That was Outreach to me. Also we never know who is lurking. How can you discount outreach?

I don't think I have been disrespectful, Kutless, but I have been more pointed and direct than I might be speaking to a sinner who knows nothing.

This is a forum for Apostolics. Not an outreach tool.

I hope some people are edified by things that are written, but this is not really a place or an environment for novices.

I can't imagine using AFF for outreach. You would have some pretty messed up folks. There is just too much variance of opinion here.

It's a great place to hang and debate, but I would never send a potential new convert here.

[Felicity]

It is a necessary truth, no matter how sad it may be.Why is it necessary do you think?

[Kutless]

I can't imagine using AFF for outreach. You would have some pretty messed up folks. There is just too much variance of opinion here.

It's a great place to hang and debate, but I would never send a potential new convert here.While I agree with the new convert statement....

Outreach should not be limited to new converts. The UPCI that has been in my life should be ashamed at the amount of training they put into the folks that attend there church.

Act 2:38 doesn't end it. We need to continue to reach for people and train them up. I talked to someone the other day who had been in church for nearly 40 years who quoted the scripture to say.....and they spoke with tongues.

I thank God for the words of wisdom that I have encountered on AFF. The Cafe?????Not so much. But I believe God has blessed this site with men and women who have great knowledge of scripture.

It has reached out to me.

[Nahum]

Why is it necessary do you think?

I am told consistently throughout the NT to be wary of false doctrine. I have devoted about two years of study time to the first three chapters of Revelation and came away with the understanding that Jesus will remove me from my pastorate, or remove Himself from my church if I tolerate false doctrine.

It is a weight on every pastor's shoulders. For that reason I am wary of those who have traditionally rejected the Name.

[Ferd]

I am afraid that some have come to the conclusion that the words "I am right" are meanspirited.

[Ronzo]

I am afraid that some have come to the conclusion that the words "I am right" are meanspirited.
Uh.... some times they truly are.

[Ferd]

Uh.... some times they truly are.

I think it is sad that this is the preception.

[Kutless]

I think it is sad that this is the preception.pre-ception as in before the ception?

[Ferd]

pre-ception as in before the ception?

picking on the dyslexic? that was meanspirited.






























:nahnah

[Ronzo]

I think it is sad that this is the preception.
Sometimes it's the inflection and intent... which is also really sad... so... ya know, it cuts both ways...

[Ferd]

Sometimes it's the inflection and intent... which is also really sad... so... ya know, it cuts both ways...

ok, you got me. sometimes there is an intent to say things here to sharpstick someone else here...

But when it comes to discussing things like this, as others have said, what one says here is not a reflection of how they deal with those they feel are not saved.

I think that is very important.

[Ronzo]

I think that is very important.
I think it's just as important... I think they should treat people the same...


Guess we'll have to agree to disagree again...

[Ferd]

Ron, how do we then discuss or debate some very relevent issues and topics? we cant do that by
1. agreeing
2. validating what we do not believe

[Ronzo]

Ron, how do we then discuss or debate some very relevent issues and topics? we cant do that by
1. agreeing
2. validating what we do not believe

Respect does not need to include "agreeing with" or "validating" beliefs. It is simply respect and not talking to someone like their dirt.


And not everything you consider important is really all that important to me... I still give you respect.

[Ferd]

Respect does not need to include "agreeing with" or "validating" beliefs. It is simply respect and not talking to someone like their dirt.


And not everything you consider important is really all that important to me... I still give you respect.


I can respect that.