This Place Is The Only Source Of...

[Jermyn Davidson]

my dose of (if I can borrow someone else's term) Apostolica.

It is with real sadness that I admit that I have not attended my Apostolic church in over a month now.


I don't know how to bring myself to bid my Pastor good bye.

I want to, I really, really want to. But I love the man and his wife, and my old church. I miss them dearly. I miss our services and going to the prayer room there sorely. It bothers me that the church I attend does not have an official prayer room with a times designated throughout the week for prayer . It bothers me that my church thinks clapping their hands with a few seconds of scattered, "Hallelu-Jah's" are worship. My word, do I miss my church!


I tried a few months back, to tell my Pastor good-bye, but he convinced me that it was not the best decision and that I may be under some kind of attack. Together, we were convinced that there was room for our diversity, as long as we still believed that the three things are a part of the saved life.

Even if he believes that way, it's not what the UPCI stands for. It just isn't and I know it.

I am not about to bad mouth the UPCI or my former Pastor.


I respectfully disagree with him and the stance of the organization he represents.

Since that is the case, I've changed my place of fellowship.


This has been a very difficult time for me, sincerely.

[scotty]

what stance exactly is it you disagree with ?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by scotty

what stance exactly is it you disagree with ?

I see the expectation (or demand even) for someone to speak in togues before they are to be considered saved as the foundation for a bad relationship with Jesus Christ and not biblical.

[onefaith2]

Where are you going?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Where are you going?

I have been attending the Assembly of God church in my area.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I have been attending the Assembly of God church in my area.

Will you convert to Trinitarianism because they do not have the expectation of every to speak in tongues?

Acts 2:38 is two commands and a promise. THE AOG while embracing the promise of the HG as a priviledge to every believer, does not emphasive their converts to earnestly seek for it.

The General Superintendent or overseer says this about the baptism of the HG "Why would you want a 4 cylinder when you can have a 6 cynliner motor"

I'm not so sure this is healthy either because it is obvious that the HG was a normulative experience for believers in the NT.

If the condemning to hell would leave and the promise stay, believers wouldn't feel so bad that they hadn't got it yet in the UPC. I think it just needs to be expressed differently so people can understand salvation is a process and just because you haven't spoken in tongues, does not mean you are not part of the body of Christ (as in baptism you unite with Christ). There is a reason though a high percentage of new converts claim the Holy Ghost baptism in the UPC. Its made imperative that is necessary and God wants everyone to have it. Threat of hell is not needed for this though in my opinion.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Will you convert to Trinitarianism because they do not have the expectation of every to speak in tongues?

If being a Trintarian means firmly believing that the Son is NOT the Father, then I am probably almost there in your book.

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Acts 2:38 is two commands and a promise. THE AOG while embracing the promise of the HG as a priviledge to every believer, does not emphasive their converts to earnestly seek for it.

A Promise and not a command is EXACTLY how I see it. Apostolics add to the Bible when we present the infilling of the Holy Ghost in any other light.

Originally Posted by onefaith2

The General Superintendent or overseer says this about the baptism of the HG "Why would you want a 4 cylinder when you can have a 6 cynliner motor"

I'm not so sure this is healthy either because it is obvious that the HG was a normulative experience for believers in the NT.

If the condemning to hell would leave and the promise stay, believers wouldn't feel so bad that they hadn't got it yet in the UPC. I think it just needs to be expressed differently so people can understand salvation is a process and just because you haven't spoken in tongues, does not mean you are not part of the body of Christ (as in baptism you unite with Christ). There is a reason though a high percentage of new converts claim the Holy Ghost baptism in the UPC. Its made imperative that is necessary and God wants everyone to have it. Threat of hell is not needed for this though in my opinion.

I've held out as long as I have been willing to, hoping for that change.

For the sake of honesty it is just better for me to pitch my tent with Christians that I agree with on such a crucial issue.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If being a Trintarian means firmly believing that the Son is NOT the Father, then I am probably almost there in your book.
.

No you are where I am in my book. I firmly believe the form of the Son and the Father are distinct. I just hope you don't go to where you see God as an US eternally when He said I am alone and there is no God beside me (that was the Father, WOrd, and Spirit speaking, else the other two aren't God)

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

A Promise and not a command is EXACTLY how I see it. Apostolics add to the Bible when we present the infilling of the Holy Ghost in any other light.
.

They don't add to the Bible, they interpret the birth of the Spirit to be the infilling of the HG. The phrase "so is everyone that is born of the Spirit" (sound of wind Acts 2:1) gets the church on this. How I read it is.. so is everyone that is born of the Spirit, NOT so is everyone WHEN they are born of the Spirit. THere is a difference. THe UPC emphasizes that every believer should experience the HG baptism and that is the Bible. Anyone that doesn't preach this is not adding to, but taking away in my opinion. It just WHEN someone is baptized with the HG that is in argument. Acts 8 and Acts 19 clearly show me it doesn't always happen at belief and baptism. That Jermyn is what we have to go on, the Bible. The AOG have backed away from the exhortation to receive this gift in a lot of their assemblies but not all. So if you are going there, try to get them to see the importance of exhortance every believer, while embracing them as "being" saved.

Also try to show them the name of Jesus is not a bad thing to call on in baptism. A lot of their pastors baptize either way or both ways and thats a plus in my book!

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I've held out as long as I have been willing to, hoping for that change.

For the sake of honesty it is just better for me to pitch my tent with Christians that I agree with on such a crucial issue.

Honesty? If you preach the Bible and fellowship with those who you may disagree with, thats dishonest? Honestly you are not going to agree with the AOG either on some things. A know salvation is a crucial issue but understand that no one has "made" heaven their home yet. Salvation is not just an event and that has done more damage to Christianity than any other doctrine in my opinion. When a person says, I've got it all; and just trusts on their experiences, vs., the abiding presence of Christ to lead them; any church gets in danger whether its Apostolic, Baptist, Methodist, etc.

I'm just letting you know those of us who leave condemnation to God and believe the HG baptism as for everyone and a promise can coexist and agree to disagree on "when" someone is forgiven of sins, etc. as long as we continue to pursue all that God has for us. Thats why I continue my lot with the Oneness truth and fellowship with the UPC. We believe the baptism has salvational importance and so it does. We are going to need everything we can get from the Lord Jesus to take care of this flesh and walk in the overcoming power of the Lord.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Will you convert to Trinitarianism because they do not have the expectation of every to speak in tongues?

Acts 2:38 is two commands and a promise. THE AOG while embracing the promise of the HG as a priviledge to every believer, does not emphasive their converts to earnestly seek for it.

The General Superintendent or overseer says this about the baptism of the HG "Why would you want a 4 cylinder when you can have a 6 cynliner motor"

I'm not so sure this is healthy either because it is obvious that the HG was a normulative experience for believers in the NT.

If the condemning to hell would leave and the promise stay, believers wouldn't feel so bad that they hadn't got it yet in the UPC. I think it just needs to be expressed differently so people can understand salvation is a process and just because you haven't spoken in tongues, does not mean you are not part of the body of Christ (as in baptism you unite with Christ). There is a reason though a high percentage of new converts claim the Holy Ghost baptism in the UPC. Its made imperative that is necessary and God wants everyone to have it. Threat of hell is not needed for this though in my opinion.

What if a lot of what is seen in the Pentecostal movement isn't "biblical tongues"? We have examples ranging from the ancient pagan cults to Voodoo to Sufi Islam of people speaking in unintelligible sounds. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke languages that were understood by those who spoke a different native tongue. We don't see this among those who "speak in tongues" today. The tongues of today don't even reflect those governed by I Corinthians 14. Here's a video of Voodoo tongues....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxsQkKdqR2Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVSLc0cqlZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMWD5mWxMSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mBKz...eature=related

One has to admit... it is thought provoking. Having Pentecostal roots... I find it a rather important contemplation.

[UnTraditional]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if a lot of what is seen in the Pentecostal movement isn't "biblical tongues"? We have examples ranging from the ancient pagan cults to Voodoo to Sufi Islam of people speaking in unintelligible sounds. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles spoke languages that were understood by those who spoke a different native tongue. We don't see this among those who "speak in tongues" today. The tongues of today don't even reflect those governed by I Corinthians 14. Here's a video of Voodoo tongues....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxsQkKdqR2Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVSLc0cqlZM

Now, I do take exception with these cessationists and their 'reasoning' away tongues. John MacArthur claims that the tongues in Corinthians were demonic. Let me state directly that the tongues back then are the same tongues today.

In addressing the tongues spoken at Pentecost, let us look at Acts 2.

And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:6 NKJV)

Notice what is said. They all heard them speak in their own language. The modern argument against tongues is that each heard someone there speak in their own language. The fact is, as tongues were spoken, they all heard them all speak in different languages. In other words, as tongues were spoken, The Parthians heard them all speak in their own language, the Greeks in their own, etc.

You are accusing tongues of being voodoo. To me, that is borderline blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. I would be very careful of not crossing that line.