2010 UPCI Resolutions

[Hoovie]

I think we can all pretty much agree that "speaking in tongues" in a basic tenet of the general Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that comprises one of the largest groupings in Christianity.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

But my departure wasn't over tongues. I would not sign an oath that made me swear to "Practice, preach, and teach" certain rules, something that was never demanded in the AOF.

I would need to see it again....

nevertheless, I also have no serious qualms with the many who use "line item veto" as long as the final agreement is accepted by the powers that be.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think we can all pretty much agree that "speaking in tongues" in a basic tenet of the general Pentecostal/Charismatic movement that comprises one of the largest groupings in Christianity.

I wouldn't. At all. In the pentecostal/charismatic genre of religion, there are many groups who practice complete inclusion for those who haven't spoken in tongues. All make it available and believe in it, but many include completely those who believe, as I Corinthians 12 states, that not all speak in tongues.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

I wouldn't. At all. In the pentecostal/charismatic genre of religion, there are many groups who practice complete inclusion for those who haven't spoken in tongues. All make it available and believe in it, but many include completely those who believe, as I Corinthians 12 states, that not all speak in tongues.

Right, individual experience might vary, still yet a basic tenant of the movement.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I would need to see it again....

nevertheless, I also have no serious qualms with the many who use "line item veto" as long as the final agreement is accepted by the powers that be.

Oh boy, I do. Big time. There was NEVER a "Line-item" provision provided but many made it up so that could sign the paper with a lie and thereby, save their ministerial rears.

No way. To sign the "OATH" while have no intention of obeying a SWORN OATH is an absolute LIE.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Right, individual experience might vary, still yet a basic tenant of the movement.

A tenant as in "It's there for you if you want". But really, the word, "Tenant" means, in the context you're using, "Law" so in that context, tongues is not a tenant of most pentecostal groups.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Oh boy, I do. Big time. There was NEVER a "Line-item" provision provided but many made it up so that could sign the paper with a lie and thereby, save their ministerial rears.

No way. To sign the "OATH" while have no intention of obeying a SWORN OATH is an absolute LIE.

I think attorneys have actually stated that crossing out is legitimate if it's properly done and accepted by the issuing party.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

A tenant as in "It's there for you if you want". But really, the word, "Tenant" means, in the context you're using, "Law" so in that context, tongues is not a tenant of most pentecostal groups.

We are really beating this one to death. Point is, you could not even affirm to "It's there for you if you want". Correct?

Perhaps that should have been reason enough for you to part ways - before the bad guys nabbed you.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think attorneys have actually stated that crossing out is legitimate if it's properly done and accepted by the issuing party.

Only if the written contract is changed. The oath wasn't changed.

Yes, accepted by the issuing party IF they get wind they're about to lose half of the denominational population. Yes, accepted by private phone calls telling friends to go ahead and sign it anyway. Yes, accepted by allowing a letter of disagreement with the oath to accompany the signed oath.

But many of us did the honest thing and didn't sign.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

We are really beating this one to death. Point is, you could not even affirm to "It's there for you if you want". Correct?

Perhaps that should have been reason enough for you to part ways - before the bad guys nabbed you.

Incorrect. Of course I would affirm that.