Ferd says "Apostolic doctrine should not be debated."
When people make something off-limits, it's referred to as a Sacred Cow:
I don't get the concern.
I realize we have moved past the point but this needs to be clarified.
Apostolic Doctrine is not what I am talking about.
What I said was that we ought to be able to recognize that within a certain level of orthodoxy here should be room for the very differnt views.
Both the Neo-PCI view and the very conservative Water/Spirit Holiness Standards veiws should be seen as within that orthodoxy. At least where AFF is concerned and these things all fall well within the terms set out in the rules here.
Members ought to be able to discus/debate the different views within that orthodoxy without resorting (on both sides) to calling each other heritics.
When I say what is Apostolic as far as AFF goes, isnt up for debate, I mean that NEITHER side should be allowed to stake a claim that they are apostolic to the exclusion of ohthers witin the orthodoxy that makes up AFF.
THIS is what is out of kilter. This is where things will have to change before many of us come back and post more often.
I do not believe it will change.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
__________________
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8 KJV
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2 KJV
Their theology is flawed, and they are abandoning it in droves.
Legalism has failed.
__________________
I'm (sic) not cynical, I just haven't been around long enough to be Jedi mind-tricked by politics as usual. Alas, maybe in a few years I'll be beaten back into the herd. tstew
I realize we have moved past the point but this needs to be clarified.
Apostolic Doctrine is not what I am talking about.
What I said was that we ought to be able to recognize that within a certain level of orthodoxy here should be room for the very differnt views.
Both the Neo-PCI view and the very conservative Water/Spirit Holiness Standards veiws should be seen as within that orthodoxy. At least where AFF is concerned and these things all fall well within the terms set out in the rules here.
Members ought to be able to discus/debate the different views within that orthodoxy without resorting (on both sides) to calling each other heritics.
When I say what is Apostolic as far as AFF goes, isnt up for debate, I mean that NEITHER side should be allowed to stake a claim that they are apostolic to the exclusion of ohthers witin the orthodoxy that makes up AFF.
THIS is what is out of kilter. This is where things will have to change before many of us come back and post more often.
I do not believe it will change.
I agree.
__________________
I'm (sic) not cynical, I just haven't been around long enough to be Jedi mind-tricked by politics as usual. Alas, maybe in a few years I'll be beaten back into the herd. tstew
I realize we have moved past the point but this needs to be clarified.
Apostolic Doctrine is not what I am talking about.
What I said was that we ought to be able to recognize that within a certain level of orthodoxy here should be room for the very different views.
Both the Neo-PCI view and the very conservative Water/Spirit Holiness Standards views should be seen as within that orthodoxy. At least where AFF is concerned and these things all fall well within the terms set out in the rules here.
Members ought to be able to discus/debate the different views within that orthodoxy without resorting (on both sides) to calling each other heretics.
When I say what is Apostolic as far as AFF goes, isn't up for debate, I mean that NEITHER side should be allowed to stake a claim that they are apostolic to the exclusion of others within the orthodoxy that makes up AFF.
THIS is what is out of kilter. This is where things will have to change before many of us come back and post more often.
Originally Posted by Ferd
I realize we have moved past the point but this needs to be clarified.
Apostolic Doctrine is not what I am talking about.
What I said was that we ought to be able to recognize that within a certain level of orthodoxy here should be room for the very differnt views.
Both the Neo-PCI view and the very conservative Water/Spirit Holiness Standards veiws should be seen as within that orthodoxy. At least where AFF is concerned and these things all fall well within the terms set out in the rules here.
Members ought to be able to discus/debate the different views within that orthodoxy without resorting (on both sides) to calling each other heritics.
When I say what is Apostolic as far as AFF goes, isnt up for debate, I mean that NEITHER side should be allowed to stake a claim that they are apostolic to the exclusion of ohthers witin the orthodoxy that makes up AFF.
THIS is what is out of kilter. This is where things will have to change before many of us come back and post more often.
I do not believe it will change.
I agree with everything except the last sentence.
I believe it COULD change.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
It's funny that these guys NEVER read AFF but knew enough to respond on this thread.
Jon Alfaro's immature output is typical of the types of things that caused the strife and problems in the past. I would hope that someone who considers himself a minister and called to represent the Gospel would find a way to do so and drop the childishness.
I was called away ("work") and am only partially caught up on the blizzard of posts on this thread. I've seen some real healthy and profitable contributions by folks like Pressing On. I've also just begun reading Robin Johnston's new book, "Howard Goss - A Pentecostal Life." Johnston offers what I think would be helpful ways to move a discussion forward.
There is still a HUGE amount of material and ground that could be covered with a respectful dialog - and we don't have to be "starchy." We can have fun, be playful and even tease one another at times.
I realize we have moved past the point but this needs to be clarified.
Apostolic Doctrine is not what I am talking about.
What I said was that we ought to be able to recognize that within a certain level of orthodoxy here should be room for the very differnt views.
Both the Neo-PCI view and the very conservative Water/Spirit Holiness Standards veiws should be seen as within that orthodoxy. At least where AFF is concerned and these things all fall well within the terms set out in the rules here.
Members ought to be able to discus/debate the different views within that orthodoxy without resorting (on both sides) to calling each other heritics.
When I say what is Apostolic as far as AFF goes, isnt up for debate, I mean that NEITHER side should be allowed to stake a claim that they are apostolic to the exclusion of ohthers witin the orthodoxy that makes up AFF.
THIS is what is out of kilter. This is where things will have to change before many of us come back and post more often.
I do not believe it will change.
__________________ You can't reach the world with your talents. People are sick and tired of religious talents. People need a Holy Ghost annointed church with real fruits to reach out and touch their lives. ~ Pastor Burrell Crabtree
In fact I think that the insinuation of "hateful" Pentecostals is coming mostly from the fertile imaginations of bitter, backslidden ex Apostolics who are constantly trying to find a way to justify their actions. ~ strait shooter
Linear Mode
