non-response to wedeclare.org

MrMasterMind · #1 09-23-2009, 09:52 PM

There are so many things on this site deserving of response, but in retrospect it appears that a non-response would be best.

I was going to point out that the majority of the first 50 listed appear to be from the APF. From the owner of that forum on down they have openly declared their intention to identify, isolate and run off anyone not holding their standards.

I was going to note that the ones who started this have a monastic mentality and therefore the few men with whom they socialize exclusively serve to delude their perception of reality to the point they honestly don’t know that they are actually the noisy minority.

I was going to say- once again the ultra-cons try and put a different spin on the same ole song. “If you don’t preach against what I preach against you are not holy enough to be my brother.”

Part of the response would have been to point out the spirit of the petition is actually the antithesis of that of the founding fathers of the UPC. They not only oppose the unity statement but some have declared it was a mistake to begin with and the merger should never have happened. The fact is these vigilantes are the ones who actually betray their forefathers.

But to respond in such a manner would be to lower my standards and engage useless debate.

Instead I would rather expend my energy building relationships with men who love Jesus and love each other. Who would rather declare what they are for as opposed to those who preach clothesline salvation. Who are satisfied bringing souls into relationship with Christ, burying them in His Name, seeing them filled with His Spirit, instead of wasting resources on endless circular arguments of ecclesiology.

Since men of that ilk are apparently missing from the declarations list, I will merely not respond.

Theophil · #2 09-23-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

There are so many things on this site deserving of response, but in retrospect it appears that a non-response would be best.

I was going to point out that the majority of the first 50 listed appear to be from the APF. From the owner of that forum on down they have openly declared their intention to identify, isolate and run off anyone not holding their standards.

I was going to note that the ones who started this have a monastic mentality and therefore the few men with whom they socialize exclusively serve to delude their perception of reality to the point they honestly don’t know that they are actually the noisy minority.

I was going to say- once again the ultra-cons try and put a different spin on the same ole song. “If you don’t preach against what I preach against you are not holy enough to be my brother.”

Part of the response would have been to point out the spirit of the petition is actually the antithesis of that of the founding fathers of the UPC. They not only oppose the unity statement but some have declared it was a mistake to begin with and the merger should never have happened. The fact is these vigilantes are the ones who actually betray their forefathers.

But to respond in such a manner would be to lower my standards and engage useless debate.

Instead I would rather expend my energy building relationships with men who love Jesus and love each other. Who would rather declare what they are for as opposed to those who preach clothesline salvation. Who are satisfied bringing souls into relationship with Christ, burying them in His Name, seeing them filled with His Spirit, instead of wasting resources on endless circular arguments of ecclesiology.

Since men of that ilk are apparently missing from the declarations list, I will merely not respond.

Awesome post. Who are you?

mizpeh · #3 09-23-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophil

Awesome post. Who are you?

Maybe if he took off those dark glasses you might recognize him?

Encryptus · #4 10-05-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophil

Awesome post. Who are you?

Yes, who was that masked man?

mizpeh · #5 09-23-2009, 10:03 PM

LOL!! Please don't respond to anything I write unless you agree with me.

Papabear · #6 09-23-2009, 10:05 PM

Long response for a non response. So, my response to your non response will be shorter seeing I think corresponding with people that lack the ability to value the declaration a waste of my time as well. I can say for myself. I support it, signed it and for those who don't that is there right. However, the UPC has stood for some basic holiness issues. We intend to encourage other men to have the strength and conviction to follow that formula that has produced some of the most wonderful people, ministries, churches and revivals. I am for that. It is what we are for. We declare it.

mizpeh · #7 09-23-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papabear

Long response for a non response. So, my response to your non response will be shorter seeing I think corresponding with people that lack the ability to value the declaration a waste of my time as well. I can say for myself. I support it, signed it and for those who don't that is there right. However, the UPC has stood for some basic holiness issues. We intend to encourage other men to have the strength and conviction to follow that formula that has produced some of the most wonderful people, ministries, churches and revivals. I am for that. It is what we are for. We declare it.

I'm sorry, what did you say your name is?

Theophil · #8 09-23-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papabear

Long response for a non response. So, my response to your non response will be shorter seeing I think corresponding with people that lack the ability to value the declaration a waste of my time as well. I can say for myself. I support it, signed it and for those who don't that is there right. However, the UPC has stood for some basic holiness issues. We intend to encourage other men to have the strength and conviction to follow that formula that has produced some of the most wonderful people, ministries, churches and revivals. I am for that. It is what we are for. We declare it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm sorry, what did you say your name is?

Now I'm LOL.

Jeffrey · #9 09-24-2009, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papabear

Long response for a non response. So, my response to your non response will be shorter seeing I think corresponding with people that lack the ability to value the declaration a waste of my time as well. I can say for myself. I support it, signed it and for those who don't that is there right. However, the UPC has stood for some basic holiness issues. We intend to encourage other men to have the strength and conviction to follow that formula that has produced some of the most wonderful people, ministries, churches and revivals. I am for that. It is what we are for. We declare it.

Encourage them or pressure them?

I declare the Word of God to have final authority in all matters. To draw a line in the sand on some issues that have no such clarity is a mistake.

n david · #10 09-24-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papabear

Long response for a non response. So, my response to your non response will be shorter seeing I think corresponding with people that lack the ability to value the declaration a waste of my time as well. I can say for myself. I support it, signed it and for those who don't that is there right. However, the UPC has stood for some basic holiness issues. We intend to encourage other men to have the strength and conviction to follow that formula that has produced some of the most wonderful people, ministries, churches and revivals. I am for that. It is what we are for. We declare it.

It wouldn't be a bad thing ... if it weren't for the reference to Deut 22:5 and blatantly ignoring the context of not just the verse, but the chapter as a whole.

Most of you ministers who signed this document would flip out if someone told you they agreed with some of acts 2:38, but the part about receiving the HG they don't believe in. They would be slammed for not following the whole scripture and just choosing bits and pieces to follow.

Yet with Deut 22:5 (which does NOT have a thing to do with women wearing pants and most of you know it, just not brave enough to admit it), you want people to use that scripture as the basis for women not wearing pants ... yet ignore the rest of the chapter that also includes abstaining from wearing clothes from different types of material, etc.

Again, having a document (if that's needed to make you feel good) to sign about what you believe is great ... it's just the blatant theologically incorrect stuff that's been added that ruins it.

But at least it gives you conservatives a list of people you can fellowship with or refrain from fellowshipping if their name's not on the list.

Jesus and the Apostles would love Wedeclare.org ...

No, not really.