Agenda Driven or Accepting of Diversity?

Okay, it’s almost ‘taboo’ to talk about but I’m going to give it a shot.

I am, by and large, a conservative to the core. I have friends who are both ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. Let me stress again that I do have friends that are much more liberal than I am.

I have NO problem with a man not seeing everything ‘eye to eye’ with me. I preach for people that aren’t close to the same page as I am ‘standard’ wise. Fortunately they trust my ministry and I respect their arena of pastoral authority.

I guess my real ‘breaking point’ is when there is a blatant disregard for biblical spiritual disciplines or a violation of the New Birth doctrine of repentance, baptism in Jesus Name and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

However, here is the premise of this thread: I don’t mind a man who may believe somewhat different ‘standard’ wise but I have very little regard for a person who is ‘agenda’ consumed… someone who has an agenda - making it their goal - to tear down what I hold precious.

I’m conservative and believe in biblical absolutes and an unwavering New Birth message. I resent those whose whole agenda is to tear away at my core beliefs.

And I, personally, think that most so called ‘liberal’ people feel the same way. Be their friend and fellowship on the areas you agree on… but they resent an ‘agenda’ driven person whose whole purpose is trying to convince them that they are a first cousin to Lucifer because of some variance in what they call 'standards' (I was once put in Hell for wearing short sleeves).

QUESTION: How ‘wide’ is your willingness to have friends who, while Apostolic, don’t believe exactly like you?

QUESTION: Who do you find the most ‘agenda’ driven... ‘cons’ or ‘libs’… and why do you think that is?

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

QUESTION: How ‘wide’ is your willingness to have friends who, while Apostolic, don’t believe exactly like you?

QUESTION: Who do you find the most ‘agenda’ driven... ‘cons’ or ‘libs’… and why do you think that is?

I have a wide tolerance for less conservative friends. If by some conversation or prayer they may see what I see and an avenue for conversation and bible study is wide open.

Obviously libs are more agenda driven lol. Conservatives tend to live like they believe and you can take it or leave it. Smoooth talking tends to come from less forthright people who have an agenda, con or lib.

[StMark]

I have friends who are Baptist. We just try not to discuss doctrine cuz we start yelling and talking over each other lol
So, i can be friends and believe a different doctrine.

I think the Cons are more aggressive by nature. libs usually have more laid back personalities. cons are black and white

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

QUESTION: How ‘wide’ is your willingness to have friends who, while Apostolic, don’t believe exactly like you?

If they are in the body of Christ, who am I to not call them brother or sister?

QUESTION: Who do you find the most ‘agenda’ driven... ‘cons’ or ‘libs’… and why do you think that is?

I would have said cons at one time (especially regarding 'holiness standards') until Daniel Alicea.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I have friends who believe in doctrines that I feel are false and will cause their hides to be thrown in a devil's hell, but we talk and hang out with each other. We also have dinner together and argue with each other and still have respect for one another. We all have to draw a line when it comes to the pulpit and I have no hard feelings for those who would not preach me because what I believe concerning Eschatology. I cannot allow anyone to get behind the pulpit if they don't hold to water baptism in Jesus name only, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as a MUST HAVE.

I don't play when it comes to receiving the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of tongues and Jesus name baptism. I don't go for the compromise of baptizing in the titles father, son, and spirit, and saying the name of Jesus Christ after you spoke each of the titles. That is weak as the water in which the person is dunked in.

I believe in holiness or hell, and that's the way it is, so sue me.

Everyone can still have pizza together and have good discussions, we might no be able to preach each other, but hey, that doesn't make us not able to sit down and shoot the breeze.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Originally Posted by StMark

I have friends who are Baptist. We just try not to discuss doctrine cuz we start yelling and talking over each other lol
So, i can be friends and believe a different doctrine.

I think the Cons are more aggressive by nature. libs usually have more laid back personalities. cons are black and white

Perhaps it's just the 'view' from my perspective but, in my opinion, the 'libs' are somewhat more 'agenda' driven. So many times they make your spiritual disciplines, your organization or your convictions a target to make light of.

Again, it may just be from my perspective, but I find the 'libs' much less 'laid back' when pushing their differences. Some have an attitude that says, "I'm living less and going to berate you for not joining me." You are right, though, that 'cons' are pretty much 'black or white' oriented and, granted, some do have a beligerant attitude that stinks.

I would say that, whether 'con' or 'lib', nobody wants others to make light of things precious to their soul.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If they are in the body of Christ, who am I to not call them brother or sister?


I would have said cons at one time (especially regarding 'holiness standards') until Daniel Alicea.

Poor Dan... even if it's the truth that's got to sting!

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I have friends who believe in doctrines that I feel are false and will cause their hides to be thrown in a devil's hell, but we talk and hang out with each other. We also have dinner together and argue with each other and still have respect for one another. We all have to draw a line when it comes to the pulpit and I have no hard feelings for those who would not preach me because what I believe concerning Eschatology. I cannot allow anyone to get behind the pulpit if they don't hold to water baptism in Jesus name only, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as a MUST HAVE.

I don't play when it comes to receiving the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of tongues and Jesus name baptism. I don't go for the compromise of baptizing in the titles father, son, and spirit, and saying the name of Jesus Christ after you spoke each of the titles. That is weak as the water in which the person is dunked in.

I believe in holiness or hell, and that's the way it is, so sue me.

Everyone can still have pizza together and have good discussions, we might no be able to preach each other, but hey, that doesn't make us not able to sit down and shoot the breeze.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

While I'm mainly talking about other 'Apostolics' who differ on various issues I have to admit that I pretty much agree with this whole post... except that whole eschatology stuff that you're confused about.

I agree, I can't open my pulpit to someone who doesn't believe the truth about the New Birth. It's a 'must have' in my heart of hearts.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Perhaps it's just the 'view' from my perspective but, in my opinion, the 'libs' are somewhat more 'agenda' driven. So many times they make your spiritual disciplines, your organization or your convictions a target to make light of.

Again, it may just be from my perspective, but I find the 'libs' much less 'laid back' when pushing their differences. Some have an attitude that says, "I'm living less and going to berate you for not joining me." You are right, though, that 'cons' are pretty much 'black or white' oriented and, granted, some do have a beligerant attitude that stinks.

I would say that, whether 'con' or 'lib', nobody wants others to make light of things precious to their soul.

just take their different preaching styles for instance -listen to a con preach then listen to a lib.the lib walks around with one hand in the pocket and sort of preaches like he's at a fireside chat. the cons hit it hard and aggressive, spitting, shouting, walking the pews lol
I think we make fun of each other equally

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

While I'm mainly talking about other 'Apostolics' who differ on various issues I have to admit that I pretty much agree with this whole post... except that whole eschatology stuff that you're confused about.

I agree, I can't open my pulpit to someone who doesn't believe the truth about the New Birth. It's a 'must have' in my heart of hearts.

Amen, If they don't have it right in the Water Way, then there is a big issue that must be dealt with.