Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Ferd

And the beat goes on...

Originally Posted by Ferd

the only thing really exceptional about the post in question is how completely irrelevent it is to the discussion at hand.

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.

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" -

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.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

----

I do wonder though now concerned, if at all, the owners of this site are, at how the nature of this board has shifted.

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

One of the owners started this thread. It is a high priority, or this thread would have been pulled.

Originally Posted by Barb

Okay, then what did you mean by "pulled?!"

I wondered that last night myself...

Barb and Felicity-

To clarify my posting to TRFrance's questions-

Open questioning of the intentions of this board's owners is not needed. We need everyone to discuss issues instead of personalities. Unfortunately the latter has degraded us to a state that is not friendly to anyone.

There is a thread "Is AFF Friendly?" that to me seemed a direct slap in the face to the Admin Team. It was allowed and I say to anyone- If you don't like it here, don't post here. Pure and to the point. If you do like what we saw in February, when we all joined together- start self moderating and pass the message to some others that they perhaps need to step up and end the attacks on persons or move along. If you are not comfortable with saying so openly, PM or use the reported post too.

Ferd, I hope we can find a solution to this. It is disheartening to see the status quo.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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.

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.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Barb and Felicity-

To clarify my posting to TRFrance's questions-

Open questioning of the intentions of this board's owners is not needed. We need everyone to discuss issues instead of personalities. Unfortunately the latter has degraded us to a state that is not friendly to anyone.

There is a thread "Is AFF Friendly?" that to me seemed a direct slap in the face to the Admin Team. It was allowed and I say to anyone- If you don't like it here, don't post here. Pure and to the point. If you do like what we saw in February, when we all joined together- start self moderating and pass the message to some others that they perhaps need to step up and end the attacks on persons or move along. If you are not comfortable with saying so openly, PM or use the reported post too.

Ferd, I hope we can find a solution to this. It is disheartening to see the status quo.

I must be dumber than I thought...was anyone openly questioning the intentions of the owners?!

I must have missed that...

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Barb

I must be dumber than I thought...was anyone openly questioning the intentions of the owners?!

I must have missed that...

Ok, I trust my explaination was sufficient. If not, please take this to PM?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I beg to differ. Seems to me that the intent of the thread is to determine how many are "three steppers", and form what I've read, there are a few who seem to feel that if you're not a confirmed "three stepper" then you have no business on this forum. This post appears to reveal that at one time the "three steppers" and "one steppers" fellowshipped together, and this issue wasn't as big as it is now.

I would love to see a forum where the three-steppers and one-steppers and two-steppers, etc. could discuss such issues without rancor and malice, and I do like Scotty's suggestion that there be a separate room in the forum for just such discussions.

Michael, It seems there has been a major exodus of those claiming to be 3-steppers and as a result has changed the entire make up of the board. Also there are some very vocal one-steppers who do deny the essentiality of Baptism in both Water and Spirit.

The PCI/George Glass thread was the greatest thing we lost on NFCF. Seems the attitudes and spirit were much different then also.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't intend to insult you Scotty by "telling you what your heritage is..." However, I have often felt insulted by those who have deliberately edited our heritage and removed material that was once required for all prospective ministers.

When I was first considering joining the UPC ministerial fellowship the one issue that caused me to be hesitant was the idea that I would be called upon to "send all other Christians to hell." However unreasonable that may sound to you, that was a real concern for me almost 30 years ago.

The one thing that really settled my mind was the attached page from the Pentecostal Home Study Course - required reading for all UPC ministers. You didn't have to agree with everything in the book, but you had to be aware of it to be able to discuss the issues intelligently.

All of the writings of John Dearing (J.H.D.) were later removed from the book without comment or notice. The book itself was first removed from the required reading materials. This is just one example of how my own heritage has been treated within the UPCI and the Apostolic fellowship in general. One dear friend calls me "blathering" every time I it up. But it is part of the heritage of all Oneness Pentecostals.

From everything I’ve been able to find, the “Acts 2:38 exclusivism” didn’t really appear on the scene until around the time of the merger. This would lead me to question the statements of many that they are “conservatives” for advocating this position because “conservatives” don’t usually advocate new things. This teaching of exclusivism is really the introduction of something new. It’s not really a “heritage” so much as a novelty. Attempts have been made to create a “heritage” for it (for example Marvin Arnold’s History Outline) but these things all end up being a source of embarrassment. Another example might be a UPC bible college’s booklet several years back that argued “Jesus had no beard.” Why do we feel we have to invent these notions?

I would like to ask you though, Scotty - can you trace your current "3 Stepper" or "Acts 2:38 or hell" persuasion back? How far can you go with this "heritage?" I am genuinely interested and would benefit greatly from anything you might have to share that is older than about 60 years.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Actually, that post is relevant to Matt's first post.

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I beg to differ. Seems to me that the intent of the thread is to determine how many are "three steppers", and form what I've read, there are a few who seem to feel that if you're not a confirmed "three stepper" then you have no business on this forum. This post appears to reveal that at one time the "three steppers" and "one steppers" fellowshipped together, and this issue wasn't as big as it is now.

I would love to see a forum where the three-steppers and one-steppers and two-steppers, etc. could discuss such issues without rancor and malice, and I do like Scotty's suggestion that there be a separate room in the forum for just such discussions.

lest you think i take exception to Pel's post above, let me say that I agree by and large with the post. I dont agree that this post represents what Matt was questioning. that is, why the 3 steppers are MIA.

I want the PCI people here. I dont believe having a discussion or a debate needs to be a matter of winning or converting.

but what needs to be looked at are the reasons why the "3 Steppers" (i really hate that term) have left.

i think there are 3 reasons.
1. some cant tollerate any divergence in doctrine (their loss)
2. Some are have gotten tired of being unfairly attacked (this has been the case of late)
3. Some are laying low until after the Tulsa deal shakes out because they are under attack right now and need to lay low.

those that left for reason 1, need to adjust their attitude because it is wrong.

those that left for reason 3, will eventually come back to us when things settle down. they are just doing what they need to do and I respect that.

but number 2 is the one we can deal with here and now. and we ought to.
(by the way I think guys like Raven and Truely Blessed represent what we need on this forum from the PCI side of things... and generally Pelathias too...)

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Ferd

lest you think i take exception to Pel's post above, let me say that I agree by and large with the post. I dont agree that this post represents what Matt was questioning. that is, why the 3 steppers are MIA.

I want the PCI people here. I dont believe having a discussion or a debate needs to be a matter of winning or converting.

but what needs to be looked at are the reasons why the "3 Steppers" (i really hate that term) have left.

i think there are 3 reasons.
1. some cant tollerate any divergence in doctrine (their loss)
2. Some are have gotten tired of being unfairly attacked (this has been the case of late)
3. Some are laying low until after the Tulsa deal shakes out because they are under attack right now and need to lay low.

those that left for reason 1, need to adjust their attitude because it is wrong.

those that left for reason 3, will eventually come back to us when things settle down. they are just doing what they need to do and I respect that.

but number 2 is the one we can deal with here and now. and we ought to.
(by the way I think guys like Raven and Truely Blessed represent what we need on this forum from the PCI side of things... and generally Pelathias too...)

Thanks for your assessment Ferd - - I have to agree 100% with it.

We can't control what others do, but we can control the atmosphere of the forum.

I just don't want anyone to knee-jerk.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am seeing less and less of the traditional Acts 2:38 believers posting here. Who is left that still believes that it takes obeying Acts 2:38 in its completion to be saved??


Is this the beginning of the end for this forum being an Apostolic forum?? Have we gone charismatic?? Is the fat lady singing??

They've been relegated to the Debate Room, kicked out of the Fellowship........Hall!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I am seeing less and less of the traditional Acts 2:38 believers posting here. Who is left that still believes that it takes obeying Acts 2:38 in its completion to be saved??


Is this the beginning of the end for this forum being an Apostolic forum?? Have we gone charismatic?? Is the fat lady singing??

I grew up hearing strong preaching teaching that went like this:

1. You MUST repent of your sin.
   
2. You MUST be baptized in the name of Jesus.
   
3. You MUST receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost accompanied by the initial sign of tongues.

There were no ifs, ands or buts about it. All 3 steps were necessary. However, there were some differences among the men who pastored me as to WHY the baptism of the Spirit was essential. And these differences exist today in the Oneness Apostolic movement. If you think otherwise I'm here to tell you different.

Hehe.