UPC - "Apostolic" Wesleyan Holiness Standards

[rrford]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I've always viewed the statement's "not to contend" and "till we all come into the unity"

as "you all be quiet till we convince you we are right".

Not sure most would agree with you. Now if it were used today...

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Not at all, and that is my point. They knew there were difference sin some doctrinal and lifestyle stances. Therefore, there would be a progressive move by the movement to solidify those differences over time into "unity of the faith." No one should be surprised that the group did exactly that. it was their intnent form the beginning, IMO. The would endeavor to keep "the unity of the spirit" until they came into "the unity of the faith." Same spirit, different "faith" beliefs. Allow the common spirit to guide them to a common faith.

I think you're misconstruing the purpose of the "unity of the spirit ' .... "until they came into the "unity of the faith" clause ... as an attempt to "progressively solidify those differences"

The same clause ... goes on to say:
at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for
their different views to the disunity of the body.

I think these men knew they wouldn't always agree and so the purpose
of this clause, seems to me, that it was not a call to be lock-step
on faith ... but a call to respect and tolerate views without contending.

I think part of the issues found in the org today ...is that some have
seen to interpret this clause in the FD as a call to codify uniformity in views.

JMO

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I think you're misconstruing the purpose of the "unity of the spirit ' .... "until they came into the "unity of the faith" clause ... as an attempt to "progressively solidify those differences"

The same clause ... goes on to say:
at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for
their different views to the disunity of the body.

I think these men knew they wouldn't always agree but purpose
of this clause, seems to me that it was not a call to be lock-step
on faith ... but to respect and tolerate views without contending.

I think part of the issues found in the org today ...is that some have
seen to interpret this clause in the FD as a call to codify uniformity in views.
JMO

And just to be fair, some have used it as reason to be as lliberal as they like and feel that should be alright.

Both sides are wrong for so doing.

Personally, I firmly believe the statement dealt specifically with the differences between the PCI and PAJC salvation differences. It has metamorphosed to cover everything else.

We know the "faith" is what was in question. They felt they were close enough together to merge and allow a unity of spirit to work in them until they came to a unity, or agreement, of what "the faith" was.

My post bringing in jewelry was for the specific purpose of getting some to question it and then to show that it would be wrong to use the statment as ana dovocation or defense of particular holiness stances. Again, this is all hypotheses in my part. But it is interesting that when we read any account of the merger none seem to mention "holiness" issues. They all reference the doctrinal difference.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

And just to be fair, some have used it as reason to be as lliberal as they like and feel that should be alright.

Both sides are wrong for so doing.

Personally, I firmly believe the statement dealt specifically with the differences between the PCI and PAJC salvation differences. It has metamorphosed to cover everything else.

We know the "faith" is what was in question. They felt they were close enough together to merge and allow a unity of spirit to work in them until they came to a unity, or agreement, of what "the faith" was.

My post bringing in jewelry was for the specific purpose of getting some to question it and then to show that it would be wrong to use the statment as ana dovocation or defense of particular holiness stances. Again, this is all hypotheses in my part. But it is interesting that when we read any account of the merger none seem to mention "holiness" issues. They all reference the doctrinal difference.

I agree that this statement was originally written because of the difference in PCI vs PAJC doctrinal views on when salvation is afforded to us.

However, there is no way that these level-headed men would have thought that one day they would come to some type of agreement on when salvation happens ... one would have to make major leaps in compromising doctrine.

They already agreed on major points of doctrine at the time of the merger:
1. The Oneness of God
2. Baptism in Jesus name
3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ evidence of speaking in tongues

This was had to be a major selling point for the merger.

Again, I think the clause was included to promote respect and tolerance while not contending for views.

Furthermore, I think history shows us that the AS resolution was a final crowning moment for those who did not want PCIers in the org.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree that this statement was originally written because of the difference in PCI vs PAJC doctrinal views on when salvation is afforded to us.

However, there is no way that these level-headed men would have thought that one day they would come to some type of agreement on when salvation happens ... one would have to make major leaps in compromising doctrine.

They already agreed on major points of doctrine at the time of the merger:
1. The Oneness of God
2. Baptism in Jesus name
3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ evidence of speaking in tongues

This was had to be a major selling point for the merger.

Again, I think the clause was included to promote respect and tolerance while not contending for views.

Furthermore, I think history shows us that the AS resolution was a final crowning moment for those who did not want PCIers in the org.

You know, I have heard that often. Funny thing is, from my personal experience, everyone I was around at the time felt it was all about getting rid of the "liberals."

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

You know, I have heard that often. Funny thing is, from my personal experience, everyone I was around at the time felt it was all about getting rid of the "liberals."

In some people's minds they are one and the same

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree that this statement was originally written because of the difference in PCI vs PAJC doctrinal views on when salvation is afforded to us.

However, there is no way that these level-headed men would have thought that one day they would come to some type of agreement on when salvation happens ... one would have to make major leaps in compromising doctrine.

They already agreed on major points of doctrine at the time of the merger:
1. The Oneness of God
2. Baptism in Jesus name
3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ evidence of speaking in tongues

This was had to be a major selling point for the merger.

Again, I think the clause was included to promote respect and tolerance while not contending for views.

Furthermore, I think history shows us that the AS resolution was a final crowning moment for those who did not want PCIers in the org.

And I am not so sure that wasn't their intnent. Remember the entire movement was relatively new to these men. They may very well have realized that as a group they could pray, study and worship together until a true "unity" was found. JMO.

In all honesty, I see no other conclusion to be drawn. Either they had unity of the faith or they were willing to pursue it together. From the wording it seems to me they were on a pursuit.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

In some people's minds they are one and the same

This is true. Except by and large we know this is not true.

[SDG]

TF, makes a strong argument in his book that the intent of Westburg's and AS was directed at pruning the PCIers ... I think the proof is in looking at some of the prominent PCIers that dropped out as a result of the AS... coincidence ... I think not.

[ThePastorsCoach]

Reminds me of the time -
A popular Pastor and Presbyter/Board Member at the time came to me at a District Campmeeting and said (pointing at my small cuff links) - "WE DON'T WEAR CUFF LINKS HERE IN GEORGIA!" I said - "Oh yes - WE do!" Again - he pointed his finger in my chest as about 10 men stood around and said - "I SAID - WE DO NOT WEAR CUFF LINKS HERE IN GEORGIA!"

I just laughed and said - "I SAID - OH YES WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE DO - INCLUDING YOU!"

He said - "What are you talking about - I only wear the silk ones and have never wore gold or silver ones!"
I said - "Oh yes you have and that is exactly why I am wearing these - because YOU set the precedent for wearing them!"
He was so shocked and denied EVER wearing them. "Well - I NEVER" he proclaimed!

I reminded him that when I came to Georgia with the UPC - I did not wear cuff links. They wore them for the most part in UPC - Florida along with other jewelry.
So I did not wear them in Georgia - but then I went to a church to preach and this NOW finger pointer - he was the presbyter and lo and behold when we were praying at the altar with people - he took his coat off and he had big ole CUFF LINKS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said a word about it until he jumped ME for having some on!

He said sheepishly, "Well - I did - but I had forgot mine and had to borrow some from the pastor and that was all he had." But he said - "I still don't believe in them!" LOL

And that ladies and gentlemen is one reason I wear big gawdy GOLD cuff links today - I was persuaded and influenced by EXAMPLE - by a genuine Son of the Superintendent, Preacher in the most Conservative "Apostolic" churches and campmeetings, Presbyter, Pastor and former "friend"!