UPCI - Page 2

snicker1986 · #1 02-09-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by U376977

But the point is still not lost that there is a distinct and OH SO IMPORTANT, difference in the orgs that you mention and those who practice baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ. Yes, many of the "oneness" trinitarians use the name of Jesus in prayer, some what hypocritically, to be honest and true to their refusal to use the name of Jesus Christ in baptism, they should also refuse its use in all cases including prayer. They should close all their prayers in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost!

Okay, I know this is off topic, and I appologize, and I DO appreciate Sister's point, BUT this bothers me so much that I have to reply

If the NAME of the father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus, then doing something in the name of (or by the authority of) the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the same as doing it in the name of (or by the authority of) JESUS. Doing something in the name of the President of the U.S.A. is the SAME as doing it in the name of Barak Obama.

Trinitarian churches honor the command to do ALL things in the name of Jesus, they just interpret Jesus words with regard to baptism differently. Based on a oneness belief, the two statements of gramatically identical.

Now back to your originally scheduled thread, already in progress.........

pelathais · #2 02-08-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

Maybe I'm just way out of the loop, but I don't see how this could be true. You're saying that the UPC has done more, quantitatively, to spread the gospel than even the Assemblies of God, or Southern Baptists, just to name a couple of large organizations? More than Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians? They are all Jesus Name groups. I guess I just don't see how the UPC has done more than any other Jesus Name group. I'm confused.

I think that you may be "confused" over the "Jesus name" tag. She's probably got the Oneness branch of the Apostolic Faith movement in mind exclusively.

Why do you always try to make so much trouble... ah! ... nevermind.

TroubleMaker · #3 02-08-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother David

I think that you may be "confused" over the "Jesus name" tag. She's probably got the Oneness branch of the Apostolic Faith movement in mind exclusively.

Why do you always try to make so much trouble... ah! ... nevermind.

Yeah, I'm definitely confused. I think I'm starting to pick up that there are some denominations that attempt to own the name of Jesus and keep it for themselves. Very confusing. I was at a Methodist funeral recently and they ended every prayer, many of them, by saying, "In Jesus' Name."

Mischief Maker · #4 02-09-2010, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

Maybe I'm just way out of the loop, but I don't see how this could be true. You're saying that the UPC has done more, quantitatively, to spread the gospel than even the Assemblies of God, or Southern Baptists, just to name a couple of large organizations? More than Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyterians? They are all Jesus Name groups. I guess I just don't see how the UPC has done more than any other Jesus Name group. I'm confused.

It appears you are so way out of the loop you may be out there in outer space.

Southern Baptist, Lutherans, Methodist or Presbyterians are NOT Jesus name groups and don't want to be called that.

Sister Alvear · #5 02-08-2010, 06:27 PM

I am speaking of Oneness Jesus name groups...

TroubleMaker · #6 02-08-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I am speaking of Oneness Jesus name groups...

Now I'm really confused!! All those denominations I mentioned...Methodists, Southern Baptists, etc., are also oneness (the belief in one God) and use the name of Jesus.

jfrog · #7 02-08-2010, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

Now I'm really confused!! All those denominations I mentioned...Methodists, Southern Baptists, etc., are also oneness (the belief in one God) and use the name of Jesus.

...Please tell me you are not still arguing about the definition of that term. It was plainly stated what was meant. As long as we all understand what is being said then who cares? Doesn't it offend you just as much that some call themselves Baptists as if they are the only ones that baptize? Or some call themselves Holiness as if they are the only ones that are holy? Or some call themselves Catholic as if they are the universal Church for everyone? Or some call themselves church of Christ as if they are the only ones in the Church of Christ? Or some call themselves church of God as if they are the only church of God? Or some call themselves full gospel as if they are the only ones that have the full gospel? Go harp on some of those groups for a while. But it seems to me that no one besides ya has a problem with all these terms being used... Maybe ya should reevaluate your position don't ya think?

TroubleMaker · #8 02-08-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

...Please tell me you are not still arguing about the definition of that term. It was plainly stated what was meant. As long as we all understand what is being said then who cares? Doesn't it offend you just as much that some call themselves Baptists as if they are the only ones that baptize? Or some call themselves Holiness as if they are the only ones that are holy? Or some call themselves Catholic as if they are the universal Church for everyone? Or some call themselves church of Christ as if they are the only ones in the Church of Christ? Or some call themselves church of God as if they are the only church of God? Or some call themselves full gospel as if they are the only ones that have the full gospel? Go harp on some of those groups for a while. But it seems to me that no one besides ya has a problem with all these terms being used... Maybe ya should reevaluate your position don't ya think?

You have raised a valid point. I am heading, right now, over to www.baptistfriendsforum.com and I'm going to tell them off. Man, I'm really mad now!

Seriously, the term, "Full Gospel" has always been terribly irritating to me. "We're 'Full Gospel', you other poor schmucks are only half-gospel!"

I don't care for labels, in case you can't tell. They're terribly exclusionary and unfair.

jfrog · #9 02-08-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

You have raised a valid point. I am heading, right now, over to www.baptistfriendsforum.com and I'm going to tell them off. Man, I'm really mad now!

Seriously, the term, "Full Gospel" has always been terribly irritating to me. "We're 'Full Gospel', you other poor schmucks are only half-gospel!"

I don't care for labels, in case you can't tell. They're terribly exclusionary and unfair.

lol.

Maybe labels are unfair. It just depends on how one takes them I think.

Personally I think labels are useful. And besides naming or labeling was one of the first jobs God gave man to do. Man had to name the animals. I guess it might can be said that naming or labeling things is in our nature

Sam · #10 02-08-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TroubleMaker

You have raised a valid point. I am heading, right now, over to www.baptistfriendsforum.com and I'm going to tell them off. Man, I'm really mad now!

Seriously, the term, "Full Gospel" has always been terribly irritating to me. "We're 'Full Gospel', you other poor schmucks are only half-gospel!"

I don't care for labels, in case you can't tell. They're terribly exclusionary and unfair.

Full Gospel (at least in my understanding) means a Gospel that includes physical healing and the Holy Ghost Baptism(Pentecostal Experience) and the gifts of the Spirit in contrast to some churches who teach salvation but also cessationism. I agree, when we say that we are Full Gospel it can be seen as a putdown of others.