Another SPLIT from the UPCI??? - Page 17

harleypreacher · #**161** 06-23-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

I agree with Mr. Maple Leaf in his general reading of Urshan's letter . Although Urshan seems to be pointing to having to accept the Holiness Article at face value the wording is very muddy and clearly states that the Westberg Resolution doesn't provide for enforcement. Whether signed in good faith or not, a signature will not be contested or challenged.

The Affirmation Statement only tells a minister to affirm two of the 23 articles of Faith. However, the Westberg Resolution as a whole seems to point to the Articles of Faith as whole being "affirmable".

It reads:

As HarleyPreacher has stated a preacher is not obligated to preach against jewelry or pants. He can also preach that salvation happens at repentance since the Fundamental Doctrine and other articles to not spell out the New Birth.

In signing the affirmation statement, ministers also affirm to actively preach and teach their disapproval of televisions in the homes of their people. They also affirm not contend about views open to interpretation like pants, jewelry, and salvation. But, the recent committee appointed by the General Superintendent has done just this. In the end, many of the men and women that sign this document are made to be liars.

Some have argued that by contending for a particular view, Westberg, was contending against the binding validity of the unity statement.

Who and What is the committee appointed by the General Superintendent?

GrowingPains · #**162** 06-23-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I'm always puzzled why people resort to the extremes in an attempt to make their point.

You have me pegged wrong.
But on what basis do you decide tank tops are extreme?

GrowingPains · #**163** 06-23-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.

I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.

Really? I have many "ultra-con" friends, and none of them would call sleeve length salvational. Their buddies church does it different than them -- they decided something different. Most see it as ecclesiological, not soteriological, and that's the major difference. I'm not promoting sleeve length, I'm just engaging the conversation on this.

GrowingPains · #**164** 06-23-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Platform rules, sure, but the question was asked if he'd allow a woman in a tank top to be on the platform, as if that was the point being made by CC1. My grandma is Methodist, and of the times I've visited there (which is about twice a year), I have yet to see anyone on their platform dressed immodestly by even my standards. MOST people know how to dress when it comes to church. If there is an issue, it's about as extreme as suggesting that if someone doesn't have 'standards', they must allow women in tank tops on their platforms! LOL!

I think platform rules are a good thing, regardless what the church believes about standards, if any.

Okay, well actually that's where I was going with it HeavenlyOne. You agree to a platform standard. It's interesting what we decide that to be, and why we decide that. For the record, I've seen plenty of "free pentecost" churches have praise services and concerts in a tank top.

GrowingPains · #**165** 06-23-2009, 01:44 PM

I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).

rgcraig · #**166** 06-23-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If you were ever in his presence, you would understand ALL about him. He exudes everything Biblical and good - everything solid and everything true.

You are so correct!

GraceAmazing · #**167** 06-23-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).

I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!

If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!

I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!

Maple Leaf · #**168** 06-23-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraceAmazing

I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!

If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!

I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!

Well said. Now, why didn't you just come along and say it at the beginning and save me a whole lot of two fingered typing.

If you want to have Sandra sing on Sunday morning and if you want to preach on TBN on Monday night, go ahead and do it, but, for sanity's sake, get rid of the card in your wallet that says that you wholeheartedly disapprove of Sandra's paint and powder, and that you reject the doctrinal foundation upon which the Trinity Broadcasting Network is built.

Verily, verily, Akiro Kurosawa had this thread in mind when he wrote: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane."

CC1 · #**169** 06-23-2009, 04:41 PM

Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.

The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.

Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.

Jermyn Davidson · #**170** 06-23-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Back to the basis of this thread I think it is interesting that "progressive" UPCers may be forming a support / fellowship group within the UPC.

The ironic thing is that in the case of AM for all of the talk of him being progressive or liberal I just don't see it in anything other than the use of television. He preaches against women cutting their hair, etc with the best of them.

Now RJ is definitely more progressive and his church reflects it.

How about Bishop Tenney?