Trying to Rescue Another from HMH Doctrine

[Barb]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Assumption? No you are wrong. I tried to talk to several pentecostal people and pastor's wife and one even indicated to me that she did not want to get involved. Then the shunning started.


This is the same type of callous response on your part as others have to make light of or dismiss a concern that other women have about your standards. Laughing at my concern tells me that you make light of other people's concerns, yet blow up when somebody crosses your convictions.

I should have expected it.

I suspect that very few of "you all" that espouse the hair doctrine will ever seriously want to know what other women who do not ascribe to your standards feel like and want to work to come to an acceptable solution for all. That would be compromising ...right?

You are right. We are just going around the tree with this.

Feel free to ignore me.

You are SO wrong!

I am NOT callous or unconcerned. I am NOT making light of your feelings, and if the lol was offensive, I apologize...sincerely apologize! I guessed I was trying to keep my response light because you and I seem to be at such odds on this.

I was merely trying to get you to see that if you have not talked to EVERY woman with a differing view, you cannot lump us all into the ALL pool.

AND FOR THE RECORD: saying that I am offended by a word or post does NOT mean I was blowing up.

Do NOT try to use this discussion as another witness of unconcern for your feelings. You won't find that here, regardless of how much you try.

My family has suffered the blows of arrogant people just as you have...and we LOOK just like them.

So please do not assume that you are alone in this, and again, I wasn't laughing at you...far from it.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Barb

My family has suffered the blows of arrogant people just as you have...and we LOOK just like them.

Come out from among them and be ye seperate

1 corinthians 6:17
Its a rock and a hard place i know that very well.

[Jay]

If I worried about mistreatment at the hands of other Pentecostal kids or preachers, I would not be in the church today. However, those kids whom I had problems with are all lost today. I pray for them and wish to see them saved, but I do not worry about the pain that they caused.

I made up my mind a few years ago that my life was going to be too short to be mortally wounded by the actions of others. I may not ever forget, but I refuse to think on the ill that was done to me and my family. Instead I thank God that I came out stronger than I went in, because some of the situations that I have been through more recently have been worse than that.

I think that Apostolic Pentecostals do need to be more kind, caring, and loving than we have been. However, that should never come at the cost of compromising doctrine or standards. It is not one or the other, but it takes both.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jay

...I think that Apostolic Pentecostals do need to be more kind, caring, and loving than we have been. However, that should never come at the cost of compromising doctrine or standards. It is not one or the other, but it takes both.

[RandyWayne]

The problem is that the doctrine amongst so many OP's that the way is SO straight and narrow that hardly anyone can or will make it has created the environment where judgement on others salvation, and thus them, is far too easy.

Person A believes that a man must been two (or three) criteria to be saved.

Person B believe that this same man must meet 47.

Person B now sees that the man is NOT (in person B's eyes) meeting items 17, 29, and 40.

Who is more likely to judge is brother and perhaps consider them backslid?

[Jay]

Just because Bro. A does not have the internet, but records services on video (hypothetically speaking), Bro. B does not record services on video, but allows the internet with the exception of social media, and Bro. C does not record on video, allows internet with only minimal (and obvious unless one is brick in a wall) restrictions should not keep them from fellowshipping one another.

Most of the standards have been in place and agreed upon by every denomination and group from the time of the Apostles until recently. Therefore, those who have compromised need to repent and return to their first love. Those who indulge in all of the sinful pleasures of the world vicariously shall meet the same fate as those who actually lived the lifestyle.

[bbyrd009]

"I think that Apostolic Pentecostals do need to be more kind, caring, and loving than we have been. However, that should never come at the cost of compromising doctrine or standards."

I disagree. Your doctrines and standards mostly
reveal your premises. They are just walls.
They might be your first love,
but that doesn't mean that they need
to be anyone else's.

Your doctrines and standards are the result
of another doctrine, "Original Sin,"
and they are all death-centered yack, imo.

Kindness and caring should take a back seat to these
dead letters? You have lost your mind.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Jay

Just because Bro. A does not have the internet, but records services on video (hypothetically speaking), Bro. B does not record services on video, but allows the internet with the exception of social media, and Bro. C does not record on video, allows internet with only minimal (and obvious unless one is brick in a wall) restrictions should not keep them from fellowshipping one another.

Most of the standards have been in place and agreed upon by every denomination and group from the time of the Apostles until recently. Therefore, those who have compromised need to repent and return to their first love. Those who indulge in all of the sinful pleasures of the world vicariously shall meet the same fate as those who actually lived the lifestyle.

well at one time the upci was open to support both one step and 3 step views.

That being said they had no specific doctrine like they do today about the three steps to salvation. what they did have was the ability for oneness Believer from the pci who merged with the PoJc to be able to preach and entertain both sides of their view. until in that past few decades has that changed and the pci view was pushed ou.

standards in the a similar way have been introduced by various people comming into the movement. And over time. So if you was to look back you would find short haired women in jewlery etc etc. so standards are a progressive thing that has come about mixed with traditions and sometimes from the dictatorship of some pastors.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

"I think that Apostolic Pentecostals do need to be more kind, caring, and loving than we have been. However, that should never come at the cost of compromising doctrine or standards."

I disagree. Your doctrines and standards mostly
reveal your premises. They are just walls.
They might be your first love,
but that doesn't mean that they need
to be anyone else's.

Your doctrines and standards are the result
of another doctrine, "Original Sin,"
and they are all death-centered yack, imo.

Kindness and caring should take a back seat to these
dead letters? You have lost your mind.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that it is not either one or the other, but that a person must be in possession of the entire package.

My standards are based upon principles and commands found within the pages of Scripture. I obey them because I love God, and desire to serve Him, and be His witness to the world. Nothing short of this is my goal.

Originally Posted by acerrak

well at one time the upci was open to support both one step and 3 step views.

That being said they had no specific doctrine like they do today about the three steps to salvation. what they did have was the ability for oneness Believer from the pci who merged with the PoJc to be able to preach and entertain both sides of their view. until in that past few decades has that changed and the pci view was pushed ou.

standards in the a similar way have been introduced by various people comming into the movement. And over time. So if you was to look back you would find short haired women in jewlery etc etc. so standards are a progressive thing that has come about mixed with traditions and sometimes from the dictatorship of some pastors.

As I am not in the UPCI, it would be of little use to debate the issue overall. However, I do not believe (nor apparently did many in the PoJC) that the PCI brethren were going to Hell. However, the did view them (rightly so) as less than the strongest proponents of the salvation message. The two positions should not have merged, even though both sides had members who held views that were closer to the other.

From my study of the books written about the various positions, including that by Rev. Fudge, because of the views that each side held, they were going to conflict when preaching for one another, or when attempting to move in similar circles. This is very easily seen if one looks at the history. This is especially true when you look at the temperaments of those involved. Often they were strong and forceful men and both sides (and they had to be to withstand the pressures that they had gone through) and this was guaranteed to lead to conflict eventually.

As I said earlier, the merger was a mistake as the views that were held were too far different to be reconciled. This was recognized by good men on both sides of the issue. Bro. Terry stated that he was against the merger for that very reason.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Jay

You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that it is not either one or the other, but that a person must be in possession of the entire package.

My standards are based upon principles and commands found within the pages of Scripture. I obey them because I love God, and desire to serve Him, and be His witness to the world. Nothing short of this is my goal.





As I am not in the UPCI, it would be of little use to debate the issue overall. However, I do not believe (nor apparently did many in the PoJC) that the PCI brethren were going to Hell. However, the did view them (rightly so) as less than the strongest proponents of the salvation message. The two positions should not have merged, even though both sides had members who held views that were closer to the other.

From my study of the books written about the various positions, including that by Rev. Fudge, because of the views that each side held, they were going to conflict when preaching for one another, or when attempting to move in similar circles. This is very easily seen if one looks at the history. This is especially true when you look at the temperaments of those involved. Often they were strong and forceful men and both sides (and they had to be to withstand the pressures that they had gone through) and this was guaranteed to lead to conflict eventually.

As I said earlier, the merger was a mistake as the views that were held were too far different to be reconciled. This was recognized by good men on both sides of the issue. Bro. Terry stated that he was against the merger for that very reason.

Not wishing to take this thread in another direction, I totally disagree!

How could the merger have been a mistake when we view the whole?

What great men we might not have known because they were PCI in doctrine...Bro. Vouga and Bro. Goss come to mind.

And what of the great churches established, missionaries sent out, and lasting friendships developed?

IMHO, the PAJC would never have become the powerhouse the UPCI once was without the added influence and vision of the PCI brethren.

They made it work in unity for over 70 years...doesn't sound like a mistake to me.