Trying to Rescue Another from HMH Doctrine

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Barb

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.

I believe much of the writing over the decades concerning the issue was to foster a sense of unity, but it has been a joke for many decades that the UPC was not united. Since the beginning there were always two sides that were polar opposite of one another, and this was true no matter the decade. Bro. Goss spent his who time in office trying to hold the organization together, but it still did not work. I count three major splits in the organization over the issues of compromise and doctrine. I agree that they did much to further the cause of the Gospel together, and both were more conservative than other Pentecostal organizations.

I believe that we will have to agree to disagree. I am not trying to say that the PCI was bad by any means, but that the merger was necessarily the best thing that could be done at that time. Perhaps had they been willing to wait a few more years, we would have seen how compatible they actually were as the world grew progressively worse. It could be that they would have still made the decision to merge.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe much of the writing over the decades concerning the issue was to foster a sense of unity, but it has been a joke for many decades that the UPC was not united. Since the beginning there were always two sides that were polar opposite of one another, and this was true no matter the decade. Bro. Goss spent his who time in office trying to hold the organization together, but it still did not work. I count three major splits in the organization over the issues of compromise and doctrine. I agree that they did much to further the cause of the Gospel together, and both were more conservative than other Pentecostal organizations.

I believe that we will have to agree to disagree. I am not trying to say that the PCI was bad by any means, but that the merger was necessarily the best thing that could be done at that time. Perhaps had they been willing to wait a few more years, we would have seen how compatible they actually were as the world grew progressively worse. It could be that they would have still made the decision to merge.

Interesting...

Well, I will only say that I was Apostolic Pentecostal born and bred, and it wasn't until I stumbled on FCF several years ago that I ever heard tell of a merger, or any differences in doctrine among the churches for that matter.

Bro. Vouga preached in our church when I was a young'un as I recall...

Interesting...

[Jay]

I grew up in a preacher's home, so I had access to various books and things. However, some things that I read and heard did not start piecing themselves together until I was older.

I do not view that the merger was all bad, but I have wondered if maybe it was ill advised. However, some of my view might be colored by Dad saying that if anything better came along he would leave (which we did).

[bbyrd009]

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.

While I agree with your words, when this means my def of standards,
applied to you, as is usually the case, one is misrepresenting Grace.
Interpreting it from an Original Sin, death-centric pov unaware.

"How many civilizations have you seen fall before you?"
Why do we suppose that God needs any help in that area?
It is His domain.

One's premises are revealed in this;
they can't possibly be singing Falla's song of humility.

[bbyrd009]

Here, a lollipop.
The fruit of Western Christianity.

http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the...ristian-Models

[bbyrd009]

So a pox on your doctrine and your standards,
when that is the way they play out.

[AreYouReady?]

After a good night sleep, I was able to digest the many answers this morning a whole lot easier. I try to take in account everybody's pov.

Thank you lemon and accerak for putting things in a more proper perspective for me.

I apologize for calling hair and dress standards garbage, even though I still do not see the necessity of it to salvation in addition to the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I am of the opinion that Christ suffered so for our sakes that nothing we can do will ever compare to the love He has for us. His blood is sufficient for me.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

(II Corinthians 12:9)

I am going to personalize this just for me.


As I read more about other people's views, it has dawned upon me that many of you never knew anything outside the boundaries of your faith and standards.
Therefore, you cannot possibly understand the way other people feel about certain issues...and probably never will. Many of you will never understand the difficulties one faces when rejecting what they have been taught all their life and entering into a new life, relearning what should have been taught all the years growing up. For some it is easy to walk away, for others not so easy. You will never know the inner struggles to reapply doctrine and reinterpret doctrine in your mind and heart. The RCC interprets much of the Bible passages with different explanations than the Apostolic movement.

Let me say right now that many of you here DO know what it feels like and I know your inner feelings and struggles you convey by your posts. Many of those posts are well thought out.

Just consider the turmoil some of you would go through if you ever felt God leading you out of what you have been taught about standards and feel the rejection of your family and friends.

I should be content to let you all who believe that church standards must be followed to be able to stand before the throne of Christ. It is, by all means what you feel you must do for your salvation.

Growing up RCC, in poverty and being disapproved of by both the RCC and the UPC, I have a completely different perspective of God because He has revealed to me who He is, not from any church doctrine or position, but from His Word itself.

You see, I have a sister who rejects me because I do not revere "Mother Mary" in the same fashion as she does. Then those who believe that standards are a part of the path to seeing Jesus also reject my pov because I do not revere standards as necessary. I believe in modesty. Some of my outerwear is quite more modest than some dresses females come to church in. I've seen everything from party dresses to short, tight leather skirts and I would wonder to myself how this is more acceptable than slacks. But that is neither here nor there for me anymore.

While it may seem trivial to all the people around me, my passion to just want to believe God without any church denominational influence, to me my struggles to stay in my belief of Christ and what He has done for me through His shed blood will take precedence over anybody else's belief. If I am not considered to be a sister in the Lord ...worthy of love by others because I do not share the same belief point by point...I will just learn to live with that.

However, I am quite adaptive to rejection by people because of personal beliefs. Occasionally, I find myself embroiled into arguments over something I do not consider to be of great issue overall.

Galatians 5:18-26
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.


I realized this morning that if anything, the above emboldened will keep me from seeing Jesus more so than the hair issue or other doctrines that some believe and I do not share with them. Their not loving me is not as big an issue for me as it is if I do not love them.

I will not change other people's pov with any dissension because it only serves to strengthen their resolve to keep their pov.

What good is changing somebody's pov if it comes through dissension?
Therefore, I will do my best to ask the Lord to: Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips.
(Psalms 141:3)
when referring to Apostolic standards. That is not saying I will never talk about the standard issue, but that I will try to be more respectful in my discussion when I do have conversation and not as blunt has I have been in the past.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Jay

Most of the standards have been in place and agreed upon by every denomination and group from the time of the Apostles until recently.

Nice revisionist history, Obama!

[Jay]

Originally Posted by houston

Nice revisionist history, Obama!

You can say what you will, but it remains the truth whether it is popular or not to believe it. The laws of God (even to the seemingly most insignificant) are to be followed and obeyed. This means taking great care in how a person dresses, eats, walks, speaks, and acts. This will also govern where, when, how, and why they go or do not go certain places, do or do not do certain things, wear or refrain from wearing certain things, etc. This has ceased to be taught, but at one time these teaching were universal, even among people who had very different theological view points.

However, it is difficult to hold a rational conversation with a spirit of compromise as all that is accomplished is being on the receiving end of vicious name calling and derogatory remarks.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Jay

You can say what you will, but it remains the truth whether it is popular or not to believe it. The laws of God (even to the seemingly most insignificant) are to be followed and obeyed. This means taking great care in how a person dresses, eats, walks, speaks, and acts. This will also govern where, when, how, and why they go or do not go certain places, do or do not do certain things, wear or refrain from wearing certain things, etc. This has ceased to be taught, but at one time these teaching were universal, even among people who had very different theological view points.

However, it is difficult to hold a rational conversation with a spirit of compromise as all that is accomplished is being on the receiving end of vicious name calling and derogatory remarks.

Just wait until he isn't in as cheerful of a mood! LOL

Seriously though, fashions, styles, and cultures change. I can most assuredly say that the same "standards" commonly held by OP's is NOT the same today (or the past 50 years) as it was during the church's beginning or for about about 1900 years after.