UPCI Affirmation Statement

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The fundamentals are a lot more than is just in the AOF and I have to ask...if it's all in there why mention standards in the A\S to begin with? See the point yet? Why EMPHASIZE standards and NOT emphasize all the other Christian truths?

The Fundamental Doctrine is just that. It is not all of the fundamentals.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rrford

The Fundamental Doctrine is just that. It is not all of the fundamentals.

How nice.....

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I was just responding to your earlier post. I don't think there was an emphases on standards. Standards were included just like the AOF and the manual with the same preface. I believe and embrace them.

The A/S statement ...we are talking about the A/S statement...did it mention standards specifically or did it just say "our articles of faith" or "the manual"???

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rrford

Say, care to read your post, and then mine, and then see that I made pefect sense?

The things you said were lacking are covered by the AS. Sorry you can't seem to see that.

You made something, perfect or sense it was not...I said they emphasized STANDARDS for some odd reason leaving out mention of all the other essentials....Im talking BIBLE. Get it now? If standards are in the AOF and the manual....why did it need to be MENTIONED in the A/S?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Fibbed?

What was the "fib?"

That "99% of the General Board supported the resolution." No vote of the General Board had even been allowed because of the high level of dissent. They didn't want a record of so many being in disagreement on the GB.

So when the resolution was introduced on the floor of the GC in 1992, several questions came from the floor asking how the GB had voted on the matter. A member of the GB, a great man, took the mic and said "90 - 99% of the General Board supported the resolution."

I walked into that meeting with my elder and we were both set to vote against the Res. - if it even came to a vote. My elder didn't think it would get that far. After the General Board member "fibbed" we both ended up voting in favor. Yes, I vote for the resolution in 1992, to my shame.

The next January at the Winter Meetings, the dissenters forced a vote. They felt that they had been grossly betrayed by their brethren. The exact tally was never released but members of the GB have reported it as being something like 60-40% in favor (one man said a third was against). If such a large number of GB members had been reported as being in dissent the AS resolution would have gone down in 1992.

At the very next GC, the great man who had "fibbed" tearfully apologized. He said he was not only sorry that he had said anything, but that he wished that the whole resolution had never even been brought to the conference.

In the words of the Resolution's author, our movement had a "bowel movement" that day in 1992.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Ferd

App, this comes from the lore that has become the story of 1992.

I believe the story as related was Fudged.... hee hee...


At any rate, a certain member of the General board stated that the board was unanimous in its support of the Infernal Resolution that provided for the creation of the Infernal Document.

It seems that this was not exactly the case....after the fact....


What the actual truth of the matter is, is anyone’s guess. These things like all legends grow with time.

I was there. That's exactly how it came down. Ask anyone who was there. Most are too ashamed to even talk about it.

An unnamed pastor from Plano, TX, led a group of almost 100 men into the meeting just before it started. They all walked in enmass with the apparent deliberate intent of "making a scene." The aforementioned pastor then led a chorus of cries that eventually came from all across the stadium, "Question! Question!"

In parliamentarian language, to call for the "Question" meant that they wanted to vote immediately and without debate. As it turns out, had the chair listened to them, the chair would have prevented many men from sinning that day. The pastor and so many others knew that to allow someone on the platform to speak "evangelistically*" about the resolution would sway a huge number of men in the meeting. They were right. My elder and I were both swayed by the false report.

Anyone else online who was there? Did I describe the scene accurately?

* Why is it that when we have someone exaggerate or tell a fib, we say he was "evangelistically speaking?" Was does this say about our own approach to the Evangel, or the Gospel message?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The A/S statement ...we are talking about the A/S statement...did it mention standards specifically or did it just say "our articles of faith" or "the manual"???

Minister's in the UPC are required to sign the following statement every two years.


Minister's Affirmation


I ministers name, do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the fundamental Doctrine as stated in

the Articles of faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International.

I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set

forth in said articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach, and teach the same.


_____________________________________

Signature


____________________________________

Date


He's the question. Would you allow a minister to be your pastor who intentionally lied when he signed it?

This is what started the thread Prax.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That "99% of the General Board supported the resolution." No vote of the General Board had even been allowed because of the high level of dissent. They didn't want a record of so many being in disagreement on the GB.

So when the resolution was introduced on the floor of the GC in 1992, several questions came from the floor asking how the GB had voted on the matter. A member of the GB, a great man, took the mic and said "90 - 99% of the General Board supported the resolution."

I walked into that meeting with my elder and we were both set to vote against the Res. - if it even came to a vote. My elder didn't think it would get that far. After the General Board member "fibbed" we both ended up voting in favor. Yes, I vote for the resolution in 1992, to my shame.

The next January at the Winter Meetings, the dissenters forced a vote. They felt that they had been grossly betrayed by their brethren. The exact tally was never released but members of the GB have reported it as being something like 60-40% in favor (one man said a third was against). If such a large number of GB members had been reported as being in dissent the AS resolution would have gone down in 1992.

At the very next GC, the great man who had "fibbed" tearfully apologized. He said he was not only sorry that he had said anything, but that he wished that the whole resolution had never even been brought to the conference.

In the words of the Resolution's author, our movement had a "bowel movement" that day in 1992.

Who authored the resolution?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I was there. That's exactly how it came down. Ask anyone who was there. Most are too ashamed to even talk about it.

An unnamed pastor from Plano, TX, led a group of almost 100 men into the meeting just before it started. They all walked in enmass with the apparent deliberate intent of "making a scene." The aforementioned pastor then led a chorus of cries that eventually came from all across the stadium, "Question! Question!"

In parliamentarian language, to call for the "Question" meant that they wanted to vote immediately and without debate. As it turns out, had the chair listened to them, the chair would have prevented many men from sinning that day. The pastor and so many others knew that to allow someone on the platform to speak "evangelistically*" about the resolution would sway a huge number of men in the meeting. They were right. My elder and I were both swayed by the false report.

Anyone else online who was there? Did I describe the scene accurately?

* Why is it that when we have someone exaggerate or tell a fib, we say he was "evangelistically speaking?" Was does this say about our own approach to the Evangel, or the Gospel message?

I was not there but I do remember reading some letters that were circulated like by Bro Sabin and from others that were there and they all felt it was less than honest the way it went through

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Minister's in the UPC are required to sign the following statement every two years.


Minister's Affirmation


I ministers name, do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the fundamental Doctrine as stated in

the Articles of faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International.

I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set

forth in said articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach, and teach the same.


_____________________________________

Signature


____________________________________

Date


He's the question. Would you allow a minister to be your pastor who intentionally lied when he signed it?

This is what started the thread Prax.

I realize that. Then I pointed out or asked why the need to emphasize "standards"...and not other specific things rather than just relegate them to the AOF or manual?