Encouraged

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Both sides of my mouth... what on earth? I have always been transparent and consistent on this question.

The classic Oneness/UPCI position in recorded in my signature. Are you trying to rewrite history?

Let me be clear.

People are saved by faith in Christ and his work on the cross. They then respond to their faith and obey Acts 2:38. The fact is there is some dispute over how we do that. I firmly believe in calling the name of Jesus at the moment of baptism and that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Spirit's indwelling. When others reach different conclusions or have not yet accepted Acts 2:38 in the same way that I have, I do not feel at liberty to question or belittle their faith in Christ. I honestly do not.

Brother, please show me where I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth.

Originally Posted by Hoovie

My previous post clearly states my position.

Please, would you reciprocate the same favor?

With all due respect, your recent posts have lead me to believe I really do not understand you position. And, I should add, if you don't feel at liberty to share here - that is OK too!

Bump! for Charn

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Frugality is the key word. Generally speaking, a dollar goes much further in the hands of an Amishman!

Yes, I believe that.

BTW, I don't have doubts that your marriage is a good one!

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

At least not the way you believe (or believed?) it I guess.

The human frailty accepting that there is no other way possibly causes the mind to refuse to accept God will judge every man based on their walk or lack thereof. John 3:5 offers no solutions to the thief on the cross and the requirement was stated prior to this event. The fact that Jesus could pardon someone who's preacher said F, S, HG, and they called upon the name of Jesus is foreign to most apostolic people, due to the nature of our beliefs.

In short if many of us could believe Acts 2:38 and know that the application of acts 2:38 is different in our eyes then theirs, we could understand the point of view that God has to judge.

If we had more scripture showing that being baptized in Jesus name means the "preacher has to say the phrase for it to be valid" or something of that nature, we could be more narrow sighted as to how acts 2:38 has to be carried out.

Again folks, where the Bible is silent, we must be silent.

Preach acts 2:38 and how we believe the application of it and leave the rest to God! We will not water down the message because we don't know all the answers to all the questions that will be asked. Good post again Hoovie and I understand you are not watering down the message!

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by Charnock

The concept presented is tolerance.

I simply do not see how you can be "encouraged" that OP's are watering down their doctrine, and accepting alternative routes to salvation, unless you do not believe OP doctrine matters.

Also, let's cut to the chase. No self-respecting Apostolic would receive alternatives with such tolerance.

I know OP Apostolic doctrine and you, dear sir, do not believe it.

In the 50's my family was very much UPC; Acts 2:38, 3 steppers ----the whole 9 yards. We were taught we had the "truth"---but in spite of that I was not taught the intolerance I see.
Since I was a "kid" maybe my memory is faulty....I associate it with the teachings of the church but perhaps it was my parents who were tolerant.

I can't say...both are deceased.
Mom was raised Catholic and was introduced to Pentecost at age 14. Dad was Lutheran and his family was witnessed to when he was 14 or 15.

Their early experiences with the Apostolic Pentecostal message were well established before the 1945 merger. Maybe they were taught tolerance or it was their interpretation of same.