Is this an AFFirmation statement?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Rhoni,

Nothing has changed. We are not becoming an exclusive club or anything. This was just an effort to bring a little clarity to what the foundation of the forum is, since we really have never addressed it. While we still welcome conversation from non-apostolic folks, as our rules already state, we will not allow the tearing down of the Apostolic faith.

I think this is a good move, and wise to boot.

Matthew, how will this impact the threads started by our trinitarian friends?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I think this is a good move, and wise to boot.

Matthew, how will this impact the threads started by our trinitarian friends?

We are not attempting to stifle discussion, only those that may come in with the intention of tearing down Apostolic doctrine.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

We are not attempting to stifle discussion, only those that may come in with the intention of tearing down Apostolic doctrine.

Does that doctrine extend to traditional holiness positions of specific orgs, or is it defined in the statement you presented alone?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Does that doctrine extend to traditional holiness positions of specific orgs, or is it defined in the statement you presented alone?

We left it very generic for the purpose of this forum. It is not meant to be a salvational statement either. Only a very basic rallying point for the forum.

Again, if this were a church ministry, we would define it clearly and give particulars. But because we are a forum, who's existence is one more of fellowship and discussion, we have only given a starting point that the forum endorses. We have left it open for both PCI and PAJC views to be discussed, as well as various views on everything past the initial statement.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

We left it very generic for the purpose of this forum. It is not meant to be a salvational statement either. Only a very basic rallying point for the forum.

Again, if this were a church ministry, we would define it clearly and give particulars. But because we are a forum, who's existence is one more of fellowship and discussion, we have only given a starting point that the forum endorses. We have left it open for both PCI and PAJC views to be discussed, as well as various views on everything past the initial statement.

Matthew, I agree with the content of the pm that was sent to all of us, however, I do have some questions.

1. Is there an attempt to push the board toward a more "traditional" Pentecostal mindest?

2. Were all owners and admins in agreement with the pm before it was sent out?

3. Does ownership feel a need for some of our more dominant posters to step back? Is this pm an attempt to accomplish that goal?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Matthew, I agree with the content of the pm that was sent to all of us, however, I do have some questions.

1. Is there an attempt to push the board toward a more "traditional" Pentecostal mindest?

2. Were all owners and admins in agreement with the pm before it was sent out?

3. Does ownership feel a need for some of our more dominant posters to step back? Is this pm an attempt to accomplish that goal?

Matt can answer since you asked him, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in too.

1. No
2. YES!!
3. Everyone is welcome here as long as they aren't here to destroy.

Note: I'm still here aren't I?

[IAintMovin]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Matthew, I agree with the content of the pm that was sent to all of us, however, I do have some questions.

1. Is there an attempt to push the board toward a more "traditional" Pentecostal mindest?

2. Were all owners and admins in agreement with the pm before it was sent out?

3. Does ownership feel a need for some of our more dominant posters to step back? Is this pm an attempt to accomplish that goal?

Let me say as one of the owners this statement was not written with any attempt to have ANY poster step back. We were in agreement with it when it came out to the best of my knowledge and I do not think it is in any kind of attempt to push the forum in any direction. Actually I think we said what we were trying to say in the statement with nothing between the lines.

That is my take...........

[rgcraig]

We actually are just four months behind doing this - - when we first opened, things moved so quickly that we didn't have time to make a AFF Statement, so things settled down, we were able to focus on this for the past couple weeks and send it out.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by IAintMovin

Let me say as one of the owners this statement was not written with any attempt to have ANY poster step back. We were in agreement with it when it came out to the best of my knowledge and I do not think it is in any kind of attempt to push the forum in any direction. Actually I think we said what we were trying to say in the statement with nothing between the lines.

That is my take...........

Let me say as one of the owners, that I actually get along with this guy!:sshhh

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Matt can answer since you asked him, but I wanted to put my 2 cents in too.

1. No
2. YES!!
3. Everyone is welcome here as long as they aren't here to destroy.

Note: I'm still here aren't I?

I just felt this needed to be clarified.

Thanks.

No hidden agenda here.