Okay, that's good- if I've understood you. Do you believe that "Haywood, Goss [and] Ewart" and company, were "off course?" Or perhaps that they were just "getting on course" and that your exclusivism provides the final missing component to a real apostolic restoration?
I do not believe the PCI version of salvational doctrine is correct. You are welcome to label the above however you please.
But my question is, WHY do you demand that I acknowledge them as some great one. They were men that were fallible.
And also, I do not see doctrine as exclusive, but inclusive. Anyone that will simply obey in faith is included.
I do not believe the PCI version of salvational doctrine is correct. You are welcome to label the above however you please.
So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stmatthew
But my question is, WHY do you demand that I acknowledge them as some great one. They were men that were fallible.
I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stmatthew
And also, I do not see doctrine as exclusive, but inclusive. Anyone that will simply obey in faith is included.
The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.
I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion.
So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?
If someone has been born again (Acts 2:38) then I would consider them a spiritual brother/sister.
Quote:
I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.
Then why the press for us to acknowledge them, or affirm them?
Quote:
The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.
I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion.
The word Christian simply means " a follower of Christ". If someone is attempting to follow Christ, I can call them a Christian. However, I believe there is a difference in being a Christian, and being born again. Thus I may not have any depth of a spiritual relationship with someone that is not born again. It will be based on natural things we have in common, and a limited amount of spiritual things. I can be friends with anyone, but not everyone is considered a "family member"
So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?
I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.
The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.
I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion.
Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?
Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.
What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!
Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?
Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.
What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!
Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.
I believe this is the crux of the matter.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?
Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.
What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!
Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.
I am surprised by your apparent assertion that I have been the cause for...
Quote:
... that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
I have never made the statement that anyone is a "Papist or Mormon..." In fact, I don't believe that I have even used those words in a post until just now.
I did see others make that statement and moved on, not wanting to be involved in that kind of back and forth. Personally, I don't see the connection except in a overly broad application of the "baptismal regeneration" idea. From my experience, OP's of the "Water&Spirit" persuasion have so many different nuanced stands on the issue that it's difficult to lump them in with any other group.
the only thing really exceptional about the post in question is how completely irrelevent it is to the discussion at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
I am surprised by your apparent assertion that I have been the cause for...
Quote:
... that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
I have never made the statement that anyone is a "Papist or Mormon..." In fact, I don't believe that I have even used those words in a post until just now.
I did see others make that statement and moved on, not wanting to be involved in that kind of back and forth. Personally, I don't see the connection except in a overly broad application of the "baptismal regeneration" idea. From my experience, OP's of the "Water&Spirit" persuasion have so many different nuanced stands on the issue that it's difficult to lump them in with any other group.
Bumping for Ferb... took me a while to catch up, but I'm off this week and nothing is moving very fast.
I did Google apostolicfriendsforum.com for any instances where I used the words "Mormon" and/or "Papist" and derivations thereof. With one exception, the only hits I got were the posts of others who had my name in their sig line. Here's the "one time" I used the word "Mormom" -
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
Polygamy is just a part of the human condition. It existed once and was prevalent- probably out of a survival need in distant antiquity.
You will find a hankering for it in every group of humans. And because the "need" for it (whatever that need may have truly been) has long since been satisfied, most people are appalled by the practice in modern times; especially when you see how abusive its implementation ends up being. Just read some of the Mormon accounts and you see that it’s detrimental to society.
As far as "Apostolics" practicing polygamy, I think what isolated cases you might find are of individuals who are behaving in other sociopathic ways - isolation from church and community, disregard for other civil laws and stretching the Scriptures to justify about any other lust and whimsy.
Could be that the "angenda" you fear in this thread (if there is one) was instigated by some other authoritarian abuse. The scars of that abuse could now be generalizing other sins and lumping everything together that is "bad" or that triggers memories of a bad experience. I dunno, just thinking about what triggers me sometimes, maybe.
I have never used the word "Papist" until just now.
Your apparent refrence to Azusa Street as being a "street revival in San Francisco" sheds a lot of light on your understanding of your own heritage.
But no, I am speaking about the teachings of the founders of the PCI and the PAJC and PAW. Howard Goss, John Dearing, WT Witherspoon, A.D. Urshan, G.T. Haywood, S.G. Norris, and a host of others.
Why don't you follow their beiliefs? I'm just asking... I'm sure you've got good reasons for splintering away from the movement. But why?
To insist upon such a subjective standard as "by the Spirit" leads inevitably to chaos. What you have stated here is identical to the teachings of the Mormon church. Also, the Roman Catholic Church makes the same claim about itself. About the only group that doesn't make this same claim is when you hear a Baptist say they were "founded by John the Baptist and so they're older than the apostles!"
It's great to be truly led by the Spirit. But you have a paper trail that you can follow as well that will give you important insights into your own heritage.
I'm left with the impression that you and StMatthew are ashamed of your roots. You side step every mention of them and treat great men and women of God as if they were a hair lip cousin that you have to hide in the barn whenever company visits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
I am surprised by your apparent assertion that I have been the cause for...
I have never made the statement that anyone is a "Papist or Mormon..." In fact, I don't believe that I have even used those words in a post until just now.
I did see others make that statement and moved on, not wanting to be involved in that kind of back and forth. Personally, I don't see the connection except in a overly broad application of the "baptismal regeneration" idea. From my experience, OP's of the "Water&Spirit" persuasion have so many different nuanced stands on the issue that it's difficult to lump them in with any other group.
I bring your attention to post 220 of this thread. (first quote above)
I want this place to be a place where all of us PCI and PAJC can meet and discuss all issues. As a Water/Spirit proponent I am not intimidated at all by other beliefs and I think the same can be said for you as a PCI guy.
we ought to be able to talk and "sharpen our iron". In the past, I have spoken out when I felt the PCI view was being held down. In fact, Ive taken heat for doing so, and I have applied heat to admin over that very issue.
now however, it seems that in an effort to allow the debate some on your side (and you in the above post) have crossed a line. It needs to be uncrossed.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Hybrid Mode
