An Apology

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Charnock

In general, ultraconservatives are uneducated, vindictive, controlling and hypocritical.


Every time an ultracon preacher is exposed as a cheat, liar, adulterer, wife swapper or child abuser there are immediate calls to treat the situation as an isolated incident. Meanwhile, I've watched the body count rise. These behaviors are TYPICAL of ultraconservative preachers and they've played out among some posters from this board over the years.

Ladies and gentlemen, here is another of the bitter disgruntled crowd who is bent on misrepresenting and twisting facts to impugn good men. So now we are to believe that it is "typical" behavior for "ultra-con" (read those who believe in/preach/practice old fashioned standards) preachers to be "cheats, liars, adulterers, wife swappers and child abusers." Please.....if one cannot see through such statements and know the spirit behind such drivel then I question their ability to discern anything.

As I have said before, are there some who fit this description? Of course, and those men will answer for their deeds to a righteous God. But to state this as "TYPICAL" for any group is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Charnock

Is there anything more abusive than telling a person they are going to Hell? Instilling fear day after day, sermon after sermon?

The error of this statement depends on what you actually mean by it. If you mean it is abusive to warn the wicked that hell is his destination unless he repents, then IMO there could be nothing as abusive and sinful as NOT warning him.

If you are referring to manipulating people and keeping them in constant fear of being lost in order to control them......then it is absolutely sinful and must be repented of. I believe we do a grave injustice when we preach a God who can save from the gutter-most but has to dangle you over hell from then on to make you "want" to stay saved. (Therefore he is not a God big enough to keep you saved.) Those whom he called he justified, and those he justified he glorified. If he saved you he intends to glorify you.....and I do not serve him out of fear but out of love. Fear may pull some out of the fire, but only love will keep them out.

JMO.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Yes, it has happened, and yes, it has happened in "Apostolic" circles, and even in the UPC.

What is my opinion? I believe most of these folks are honest in their belief of "trusting God", instead of "...the arm of flesh..." However, they are misguided, and the practice is very wrong. It is wrong to not intelligently use medical assistance when human life is in stress and danger. It is also wrong to abuse, and overuse drugs and painkillers, because there are side effects of all drugs, and horrible bodily damage inflicted by many drugs. The drug industry is out of control and the greed, and corruption in federal approval is criminal.

If one actually sees this in process, especially where children are in great danger, proper authority should be informed. Not only is it wrong, it is against the law. These folks need to learn how to trust God, along with availing themselves of the medical help He has provided in the civilized world.

Hope that satisfies the hornet that is in your hat, and you can now sleep and let it rest. Again, NO ONE on this forum is advocating this doctrine.

Thank you. You know it's happened, I know it's happened, others know it's happened. Since I've had this 'hornet that is in my hat' and attempted to talk about the issue, I've been met primarily with ridicule, hatred, denial, personal attacks on my character, mockery and damnation of my soul to hell.

But, as usual, those things deter me not at all. They mean nothing to me. The issue is the issue and when I started getting the responses that I mentioned above, when others (epley) wouldn't respond to questions and inquiries, that only strengthened my resolve to examine this theology.

This does/has occurred within a segment of oneness pentecostalism. No, it's not limited to oneness pentecostalism. This is an 'apostolic' board so it was addressing the 'apostolic' behavior in certain sub-sects of the movement that usually self-label themselves as 'apostolic'.

I haven't accused anyone in the forum, including epley, of advocating this doctrine. My issue was with those who fellowship where the ministers of certain churches allow such practices. Why would someone continue there? If that's in one's fellowship circle, why didn't voices rise against hte practice?

Here on the forum, there were those who openly rejected the practice. There were others who rejected the issue with few words, but were very wordy when it came to condeming me for bringing it up.

The issue does exist and it exists in the 'apostolic' sect. The question now becomes, is it reasonable and proper to fellowship with those who practice such things? Those same 'apostolic' folks wouldn't fellowship with the trinitiarian folks across the street and in fact would openly condemn them to hell, as we've seen on this forum, but it seems that it's acceptable for those same folks to associate and have a ministerial fellowship with those who promote the theology which results in the suffering, and sometimes death, of children.

I don't handle the sweeping things under the rug very well. Be open and honest about it all, even when it hurts.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Every time an ultracon preacher is exposed as a cheat, liar, adulterer, wife swapper or child abuser there are immediate calls to treat the situation as an isolated incident.

This is certainly true. Whereas we recognize that preachers are human and can make mistakes, the regular ultra-con way to react is more like denial. While you are supposed to act as if it is an isolated incident, which would naturally cause shock, you are also not supposed to act shocked because they are "only human", and the only correct response is the rug sweep.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Thank you. You know it's happened, I know it's happened, others know it's happened. Since I've had this 'hornet that is in my hat' and attempted to talk about the issue, I've been met primarily with ridicule, hatred, denial, personal attacks on my character, mockery and damnation of my soul to hell.

But, as usual, those things deter me not at all. They mean nothing to me. The issue is the issue and when I started getting the responses that I mentioned above, when others (epley) wouldn't respond to questions and inquiries, that only strengthened my resolve to examine this theology.

This does/has occurred within a segment of oneness pentecostalism. No, it's not limited to oneness pentecostalism. This is an 'apostolic' board so it was addressing the 'apostolic' behavior in certain sub-sects of the movement that usually self-label themselves as 'apostolic'.

I haven't accused anyone in the forum, including epley, of advocating this doctrine. My issue was with those who fellowship where the ministers of certain churches allow such practices. Why would someone continue there? If that's in one's fellowship circle, why didn't voices rise against hte practice?

Here on the forum, there were those who openly rejected the practice. There were others who rejected the issue with few words, but were very wordy when it came to condeming me for bringing it up.

The issue does exist and it exists in the 'apostolic' sect. The question now becomes, is it reasonable and proper to fellowship with those who practice such things? Those same 'apostolic' folks wouldn't fellowship with the trinitiarian folks across the street and in fact would openly condemn them to hell, as we've seen on this forum, but it seems that it's acceptable for those same folks to associate and have a ministerial fellowship with those who promote the theology which results in the suffering, and sometimes death, of children.

I don't handle the sweeping things under the run very well. Be open and honest about it all, even when it hurts.

At the heart of most cult religious control is the false and blasphemous teaching of eternal, conscience, literal fiery punishment. Without this false doctrine, most, if not all cults would lose there strength to hold folks in bondage. Milton in Dante, and the RCC have so ingrained this false doctrine, that the Gospel of GOOD NEWS, has become the most horrible news possible, except for a few privileged, elected individuals.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Charnock

Is there anything more abusive than telling a person they are going to Hell? Instilling fear day after day, sermon after sermon?

There is not, it is spiritual terrorism. And it is the power of cults.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by crakjak

At the heart of most cult religious control is the false and blasphemous teaching of eternal, conscience, literal fiery punishment. Without this false doctrine, most, if not all cults would lose there strength to hold folks in bondage. Milton in Dante, and the RCC have so ingrained this false doctrine, that the Gospel of GOOD NEWS, has become the most horrible news possible, except for a few privileged, elected individuals.

Several years ago I attended a few universal reconciliation meetings, enjoyed them, and found the arguments for the view to be persuasive. We may even have attended the same meetings. The first one was in the Dallas area several years ago where I met the couple who has the tentmaker site. Great people. I think the last one was in central Louisiana with a Bro. Cripps.

To be honest, I haven't totally accepted all the universal reconciliation view but at the same time I also haven't rejected it.

You're right though, the torment in hell hammer has been used has been used detrimentally to promote and preach the gospel of good news. Living for God because you don't want to burn forever in a torture chamber for all eternity is quite different than living for God because you love him and results in a totally different relationship with Him.

[tv1a]

You'll never find Jesus scaring the hell out if people to get them to follow Him. He said come. Either people followed or they stayed home.

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Ladies and gentlemen, here is another of the bitter disgruntled crowd who is bent on misrepresenting and twisting facts to impugn good men. So now we are to believe that it is "typical" behavior for "ultra-con" (read those who believe in/preach/practice old fashioned standards) preachers to be "cheats, liars, adulterers, wife swappers and child abusers." Please.....if one cannot see through such statements and know the spirit behind such drivel then I question their ability to discern anything.

As I have said before, are there some who fit this description? Of course, and those men will answer for their deeds to a righteous God. But to state this as "TYPICAL" for any group is ludicrous.

Where is "Esther?" This post is an attack on my character.

I am not bitter or disgruntled. I am, however, blessed with rational thought. I'm able to discern fact from fiction.

I stand by my previous statements. The labels you just used are a hallmark of abusive cults.

Those of us who point out abuse are labeled bitter and disgruntled. Then, you go for the jugular by stating that I am lying and under some sort of demonic influence.

Seriously, what could be worse than what you've just posted?

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by ILG

This is certainly true. Whereas we recognize that preachers are human and can make mistakes, the regular ultra-con way to react is more like denial. While you are supposed to act as if it is an isolated incident, which would naturally cause shock, you are also not supposed to act shocked because they are "only human", and the only correct response is the rug sweep.

Yes, absolutely right.

And we all know these incidents are not isolated. They are in the DNA of this segment of the "Christian" family tree.

[Abiding Now]