HO....if I were to go by that picture and by some of the TV preachers I have seen and their mannerisms then I might be more sympathetic to the no women preachers side
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Some folks around don't even know there's another whole world of Oneness Apostolics that were never governed by St. Louis and that's why many of those views of Apostolic Pentecost is so distorted.
They're not distorted views... they're just experiences that are different from yours... AND - they are the experiences of the majority of Oneness Pentecostals.
Now, obviously the stuff that was "introduced" in the 1940's came from somewhere. There was (and still is) a lively and vibrant, though by most standards, a small movement that represents the ideals you crave.
It's just a plain fact: your position was never the majority among Oneness Pentecostals. When you cry out for "the olde tyme religion" you are crying for a rather small and marginalized sectarian viewpoint that was never the heritage of the vast number of Oneness Pentecostals.
Numbers alone don't make you wrong, however. I'm certain that you're capable of being wrong either all by yourself or among millions. It's just a fact of history that you've been wrong with a rather small number of people, most of whom have learned not to try and advance their opinion in public forums lest they be proven wrong, again.
They're not distorted views... they're just experiences that are different from yours... AND - they are the experiences of the majority of Oneness Pentecostals.
Now, obviously the stuff that was "introduced" in the 1940's came from somewhere. There was (and still is) a lively and vibrant, though by most standards, a small movement that represents the ideals you crave.
It's just a plain fact: your position was never the majority among Oneness Pentecostals. When you cry out for "the olde tyme religion" you are crying for a rather small and marginalized sectarian viewpoint that was never the heritage of the vast number of Oneness Pentecostals.
Numbers alone don't make you wrong, however. I'm certain that you're capable of being wrong either all by yourself or among millions. It's just a fact of history that you've been wrong with a rather small number of people, most of whom have learned not to try and advance their opinion in public forums lest they be proven wrong, again.
Small as in a FEW.
Correct.
Thousands, even millions would definitely be "small" (FEW) compared to the BILLIONS that have absorbed your false doctrines and of that FEW I am happy to be a part.
Matt 7:14
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
KJV
They're not distorted views... they're just experiences that are different from yours... AND - they are the experiences of the majority of Oneness Pentecostals.
Now, obviously the stuff that was "introduced" in the 1940's came from somewhere. There was (and still is) a lively and vibrant, though by most standards, a small movement that represents the ideals you crave.
It's just a plain fact: your position was never the majority among Oneness Pentecostals. When you cry out for "the olde tyme religion" you are crying for a rather small and marginalized sectarian viewpoint that was never the heritage of the vast number of Oneness Pentecostals.
Numbers alone don't make you wrong, however. I'm certain that you're capable of being wrong either all by yourself or among millions. It's just a fact of history that you've been wrong with a rather small number of people, most of whom have learned not to try and advance their opinion in public forums lest they be proven wrong, again.
My understanding and belief is that the North American outpouring in the 20th century came through the Methodist holiness movement.
I tend to believe that at one time, most if not all, believed and obeyed the UPC manual out of conviction and because it was their conviction, tended to communicate that conviction to their saints as well.
Has it stayed that way among most if not all? Obviously not. But just as in the early rain after Acts 2, Paul warning them night and days with tears about those on the outside who would come after he departed not sparing the flock and those on the inside who would rise up and speak perverse (distort, misinterpret, corrupt) things to draw away disciples after them; and those who would depart from the faith, etc. Peter and Jude also speaking of these types of people.
Therefore, there is nothing new under the sun. Just like in the early rain it happened, so now in the latter rain outpouring it is happening.
The apostolic organizations are shaking.
Heb 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. Heb 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Heb 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.
__________________
Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls...
LOL! I never said that you said that either, silly.
You said when you see pics like that, you have to lean toward no women preachers. You judged an entire gender based on a picture (and yes, I know you added about seeing TV women preachers also, but that is only part of why you made the statement you did).
I just wonder if it would be fair of me to see a pic of a male preacher in a pose that might be considered unmanly, then post that seeing that pic makes me lean toward no male preachers.
That wouldn't be a fair statement, would it?
Is 'strutting around on stage' something only men should do?
Why is it that men can foam at the mouth and be all sweaty when preaching, and we think women who do the same are acting 'manly', but we don't think men who are more the quiet type and have dry shirts on at the end of their sermon are acting 'womanly'?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because women are generally expected to have a measure of grace and femininity about them. Seeing a woman get all sweaty and aggressive doesn't fit the notion of women being the soft and graceful beings God created them to be. I am not against women preachers, but I don't think a woman needs to come into a pulpit and emulate a man to be effective.
Thousands, even millions would definitely be "small" (FEW) compared to the BILLIONS that have absorbed your false doctrines and of that FEW I am happy to be a part.
Matt 7:14
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
KJV
This is interesting pathology to me.
Lets break this down a little bit.
Pelathais just wrote a very articulate and very accurate, down to the bone post that made reference to what can be proven as fact.
The best that Old Path could do in response is to berate him and essentially tell him he is not part of that constituent who is taking the narrow way to heaven.
Great Job Old Path, you followed your tradition well. I am glad the right remains consitently predictable.
My understanding and belief is that the North American outpouring in the 20th century came through the Methodist holiness movement.
I tend to believe that at one time, most if not all, believed and obeyed the UPC manual out of conviction and because it was their conviction, tended to communicate that conviction to their saints as well.
Has it stayed that way among most if not all? Obviously not. But just as in the early rain after Acts 2, Paul warning them night and days with tears about those on the outside who would come after he departed not sparing the flock and those on the inside who would rise up and speak perverse (distort, misinterpret, corrupt) things to draw away disciples after them; and those who would depart from the faith, etc. Peter and Jude also speaking of these types of people.
Therefore, there is nothing new under the sun. Just like in the early rain it happened, so now in the latter rain outpouring it is happening.
The apostolic organizations are shaking.
Heb 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. Heb 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Heb 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.
Nice start, but can you bring it full circle and apply what you said to the contemporary church?
Those of us who went to public school need you to carry this thought further so we are crystal clear on what you mean...
HO....if I were to go by that picture and by some of the TV preachers I have seen and their mannerisms then I might be more sympathetic to the no women preachers side
I'm just puzzled why the actions of a few end up as a blanket statement for the entire gender.
To me, it's no different than hearing a group of black people talking Ebonics and stating, 'see, that's why I don't think blacks should educate children in schools'.
There are lots of women who have preached, and lots of them who are admired as such, but I think it's unfair to take a picture of one and the mannerisms of a few others and blanket the entire gender as being like those few.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because women are generally expected to have a measure of grace and femininity about them. Seeing a woman get all sweaty and aggressive doesn't fit the notion of women being the soft and graceful beings God created them to be. I am not against women preachers, but I don't think a woman needs to come into a pulpit and emulate a man to be effective.
But God created men to be sweaty and aggressive?? Can you point me to a Biblical example of such a preacher?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Linear Mode
