Another SPLIT from the UPCI???

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by GraceAmazing

I agree with this statement and I understand where Maple Leaf is coming from...that's why we left the UPC. We couldn't preach the standards message anymore and we didn't want to be a hinderance to the UPC. So, we left. It costs us a lot, but it was worth it!

If Rex Johnson doesn't preach what the UPC believes and endorses, he should probably find another Ministerial Fellowship to join up with! That being said, I would love it if things would change in the UPC, but I just don't see that happening. Now people are leaving in groves...it's sad and scary and exciting at the same time!

I personally love TFT and Rex Johnson! I think they are GREAT men of God and I believe wholeheartedly that they love God and they want what is the best for God's children!

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I think MapleLeaf is saying, if you're going to sign it, believe it. Otherwise, show what you believe by refusing to sign it. If more people did that, things would change (for better or for worse, depending what is better or worse to you).

I do not agree. When the fundamental doctrine has provision made for different views, how much more should we admonish "all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

There needs to be room for the RJ's in the UPC - even if it means returning to the old paths and changing the tolerance level and language to what it once was.

[Scott Hutchinson]

See I don't agree with manual on somethings therefore I'm not UPCI,it seems to me if one can't agree with the AOF or the manual why not be independent or join another group.
Now there are great Christians in The UPCI if you are going teach some things differently than the org. why stay in it ?

[Hoovie]

I would contend pretty much everyone disagrees with parts of the AOF.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I couldn't get a license with them if I wanted to.
But if one knows they are supposed to contend for certain things,and then they don't ,it would seem like another affliation or being independent might be best for them.
Of course I understand there are those who feel they should stay in it and work for change.
Of course an affliation does not make one saved or lost,and orgs are not the call of God upon a person's life.

[Scott Hutchinson]

The Lord founded a body of The Day Of Pentecost,Christ is the head of the church and I don't see The church going down any time soon ,Christ said the gates of hell won't prevail agains't her.
The church will be strong and vibrant until she is caught away.

[GraceAmazing]

For me, it's an issue of integrity. I feel you are sowing discord no matter which way you slice that pie. I agree Hoover that there should be room, but I don't think that will work. Period. Look at what happened at the General Conference in 2003. They practically destroyed a great man just because his viewpoint didn't match theirs. I don't know, just don't think it best to stay in something that teaches and upholds certain truths when I don't live nor preach those certain truths.

[tv1a]

The people who should be leaving are the ones who changed the intent of the original upci charter. It's ok to promote change when one is looking at the backside of the leader, but by god one they get in charge opposing views have to leave. That is garbage and you know it.

By 1992, the upci was nothing like the it was at the merger.

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Well said. Now, why didn't you just come along and say it at the beginning and save me a whole lot of two fingered typing.

If you want to have Sandra sing on Sunday morning and if you want to preach on TBN on Monday night, go ahead and do it, but, for sanity's sake, get rid of the card in your wallet that says that you wholeheartedly disapprove of Sandra's paint and powder, and that you reject the doctrinal foundation upon which the Trinity Broadcasting Network is built.

Verily, verily, Akiro Kurosawa had this thread in mind when he wrote: "In a mad world, only the mad are sane."

[Jaxon]

This is very simple....The affirmation statement is not ambiguios.......If you are a UPC preacher and don't agree with it then don't sign it.........If there are enough preachers that feel like you do, then get it changed if you have the votes.............Isn't that the way things work??? If you're using a cover letter or white out you are circumventing the process......If you don't like it...get it changed (if you can)....If you can't, then take it for what it is.

[Jaxon]

You don't have to belong to the UPCI to be saved........If you feel very strongly you cannot support the affirmation stmt then do yourself a favor and preserve your honesty and don't sign it.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I think it comes down to what the preacher thinks the definition of 'is', is.

Yeah? That line didn't work so good for Bill Clinton.