The Reason Some Apostolics Are Concerned: The Results of Erased Lines

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Esther

No where did I say it had to be a group thing. In fact, I gave examples of it being individual.

But I believe as indivduals we need a line drawn for our own protection.

That's fine, but the TV resolution is collective.

[ThePastorsCoach]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

AB, the PAW fell just three votes short of basically saying it was acceptable. While they, themselves, may not 'believe' trinity (and, yes, some DO believe the trinity) they basically said they see no issue accepting false doctrine.

As for 'brethren separated' nonsense? There was always a difference in the sons of promise and the sons of Hagar. If you don't like that point a finger at God as He is the one that declared it to be so.

Trinitarians believe a lie. Now that is really simple. Can one be saved not understanding Oneness? I'm persuaded that if they have obeyed the New Birth according to the Bible... perhaps. But NOBODY can be saved promoting a lie and the TRINITY is a lie.

If the truth about Oneness doens't matter then what else doesn't matter?

1. I am not so sure that was the wording of the resolution - "accepting Trinitarians as brethren." I understood it was about allowing those outside the PAW to minister in their pulpits.

2. I was not the one to preach or believe in the "separated brethren" doctrine. It was the DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF FLORIDA UPC that said that - NOT ME!

3. Do you know any "Oneness" that believe a lie?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

1.

2. I was not the one to preach or believe in the "separated brethren" doctrine. It was the DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF FLORIDA UPC that said that - NOT ME!

3. Do you know any "Oneness" that believe a lie?

I wonder what the wording was, exactly.

Originally Posted by AtlantaBishop

Didn't Jesus Christ our Lord say "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH and the LIFE"?
I can't find where Jesus said, or the Apostles said that belief in one scripture or one mode of baptism or the exact precise wording in baptism was THE TRUTH! Could someone give me the EXACT scripture out of the HOLY BIBLE that says - Your exact doctrine or standards is THE TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!

Did you know that some preach if your not baptized in "running water" you are not saved. Is that a lie?
Did you know some that preach that if the women do not wear head coverings - God does not hear their prayer and they are rebellious and going to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you do not have the name "Church of Jesus Christ" over the door of your church building - you are not saved? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you go to doctors - you are in unbelief and will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you do not speak in tongues - the way they do - in their own familiar tongue - that you are not filled and will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach if you wear a ring - you will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you have a computer - you will go to hell? Is that a lie?

Your argument is ridiculous and a miserably failing 'smokescreen' to avoid the real issue. You know as well as I do that we ALL have personal preferences and varied Church standards. You listed many of them.

However, to equate a 'rings / no rings' argument on the same level as Oneness vs. trinity is beyond absurd. To remotely insinuate that a 'computers / no computers' preference is on an even keel with Name vs. title baptism is absolutely void of any merit.

But, then again, you are smart enough to know that. This is simply a ploy to take the focus off an unfailing biblical doctrine that you can't argue with: Oneness. It's usually right after this fails that you resort to personal attacks and saying things like, "I knew a UPC preacher that claimed to believe in UFO's and that proves that the KGB is involved in the NCO" type stuff in some strange attempt to justify your failed doctrinal argument.

[revrandy]

AB... I think your loyaties are somewhat torn at the moment...

being around TBN and everything going on there...you hate the practices of some of those who are there and yet you have to defend them too because of the time given you there...and WHY do you expose your folks to them who are really misleading people and misguiding them?? That is something I don't get???

Sandra i can understand... but you ??? Why??

It comes across in your posts...

Originally Posted by ILG

Here is what you wrote:



I have to ask what a rule about advertising on television could possibly have to do with the Oneness of God. Why should Oneness have ANYTHING to do with television? They used to preach against coffee years ago. The acceptance of coffee doesn't make people trinitarian. So you are going to have to do a little better connecting the dots than to say "There is a great hurly-burly" in the PAW about trinitarianism. You need to bring forth a logical reasoning process as to WHY televistion should have ANYTHING to do with Oneness other than....well in the PAW some got loose on standards (even though not all are) and now they *might* accept some form of trinitarians fellowship. Thre are trinitarian groups that are holiness standards all over. Your reasoning process leaves a lot to be desired.

My reasoning is fairly simple. Let me clarify for you... when you see things like the PAW's recent vote that almost kicked the doors open to say, "False doctrine doesn't matter" you start seeing why other Apostolics (not just UPC either) are quick to get nervous about people who want to erase the lines of Apostolic distinctives - whether they be Resolution 4 or anything else.

There is a faction of the Apostolic movement that are concerned about the 'direction' our movement will go if we keep saying, "Well, this doesn't matter anymore and that doesn't matter anymore".

When you see a well established group like the PAW that can even remotely consider false doctrine as a viable option... well... many Apostolics can't help but wonder "Is this where we'll eventually end up?"

[revrandy]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

My reasoning is fairly simple. Let me clarify for you... when you see things like the PAW's recent vote that almost kicked the doors open to say, "False doctrine doesn't matter" you start seeing why other Apostolics (not just UPC either) are quick to get nervous about people who want to erase the lines of Apostolic distinctives - whether they be Resolution 4 or anything else.

There is a faction of the Apostolic movement that are concerned about the 'direction' our movement will go if we keep saying, "Well, this doesn't matter anymore and that doesn't matter anymore".

When you see a well established group like the PAW that can even remotely consider false doctrine as a viable option... well... many Apostolics can't help but wonder "Is this where we'll eventually end up?"

Steady... you get it here and on CAF..you just Can't win...

Originally Posted by revrandy

Steady... you get it here and on CAF..you just Can't win...

Yea, I haven't been on CAF for ages until recently. Don't know what happened but I started lurking a few weeks ago and now I'm 'unable to access' it at all! In that I felt like my 'contributions' weren't well accepted on a few issues I haven't posted at all so I doubt that I've been banned for any reason.

Maybe right in the middle of the two mindsets is an 'alright' place to be... I don't know, though, as it seems the CAF group has lightened up on some of the viciousness that made me back away the first time.

Bro. Riggen is a good man and can hopefully keep the forum that way.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

My reasoning is fairly simple. Let me clarify for you... when you see things like the PAW's recent vote that almost kicked the doors open to say, "False doctrine doesn't matter" you start seeing why other Apostolics (not just UPC either) are quick to get nervous about people who want to erase the lines of Apostolic distinctives - whether they be Resolution 4 or anything else.

There is a faction of the Apostolic movement that are concerned about the 'direction' our movement will go if we keep saying, "Well, this doesn't matter anymore and that doesn't matter anymore".

When you see a well established group like the PAW that can even remotely consider false doctrine as a viable option... well... many Apostolics can't help but wonder "Is this where we'll eventually end up?"

OKay, sure....ask the question "Where will we end up?" That is only reasonable. But lack of standards does not automatically equal trinitariansim because many standards holders ARE trinitarian. When someone decides to cause division over a MAYBE that is serious cause for concern. The conservatives are maybe saying that this issue is causing division because some are getting liberal, but the truth is that the conservatives are going to FORCE division out of nothing but FEAR over a MAYBE. That's pretty serious if you ask me. I think the latter is worse than the former.

[revrandy]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Yea, I haven't been on CAF for ages until recently. Don't know what happened but I started lurking a few weeks ago and now I'm 'unable to access' it at all! In that I felt like my 'contributions' weren't well accepted on a few issues I haven't posted at all so I doubt that I've been banned for any reason.

Maybe right in the middle of the two mindsets is an 'alright' place to be... I don't know, though, as it seems the CAF group has lightened up on some of the viciousness that made me back away the first time.

Bro. Riggen is a good man and can hopefully keep the forum that way.

You can still get on...Kansas Preacher has redone the forum..he just needs to get a password to you... it still works...