The Reason Some Apostolics Are Concerned: The Results of Erased Lines

Originally Posted by Esther

Although I certainly understand the concerns here. And they are justified.

I wonder where were the ones concerned when some were going overboard with the standards, causing folks to not be able to measure up and then studying for themselves to find out they were being taught things were sin when in fact it was not.

However, I wil say this. What is sin for one MAY not be for another. One may can watch TV and control what they watch where another may have no control. Same for a phone, one may can control what they say and listen to where another can not. But we don't preach against phones, yet how many have used this device to sow discord?

We need to teach LOVE God and the character of being a Christian; which is being Christ like.

You can never have a list of things to do and not do and hit every person without going over board. Folks have to learn to seek out their own salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING, which I don't think many do.

Miss Esther,

There is a MAJOR difference between a few standard differences and the wholesale acceptance of key Bible doctrines like the Oneness.

[Joseph Miller]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

It will be a really cold day in a very, very hot place before you'll find 'tolerance' in me for absolute false doctrine. That's not called 'intolerance' but 'steadfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship'.

If truth doens't matter then why waste our time having Church.

We must hold on to the doctrine. As a matter of fact the Bible said we would be hated of all men for his name. That is the part that the trinity crowd don't want. They want the spirit but they don't want the name.

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I guess it would depend if the concept of truth is your "golden calf" or if THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE is the focus.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a picture perfect example of how to say "I don't believe the Apostle's Doctrine" without saying the exact words.

By the way, this IS an Apostolic forum.

[revrandy]

Doctrine is a Salvation Issue...without Truth we are lost....

[ThePastorsCoach]

Didn't Jesus Christ our Lord say "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH and the LIFE"?
I can't find where Jesus said, or the Apostles said that belief in one scripture or one mode of baptism or the exact precise wording in baptism was THE TRUTH! Could someone give me the EXACT scripture out of the HOLY BIBLE that says - Your exact doctrine or standards is THE TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!

Did you know that some preach if your not baptized in "running water" you are not saved. Is that a lie?
Did you know some that preach that if the women do not wear head coverings - God does not hear their prayer and they are rebellious and going to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you do not have the name "Church of Jesus Christ" over the door of your church building - you are not saved? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you go to doctors - you are in unbelief and will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you do not speak in tongues - the way they do - in their own familiar tongue - that you are not filled and will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach if you wear a ring - you will go to hell? Is that a lie?
Do you know that some preach that if you have a computer - you will go to hell? Is that a lie?

Originally Posted by ILG

I understand the concern of erased lines, Steadfast, but I have to ask the question: If a person's relationship with Jesus is based on rules to the extent that they are going to sin without the rules, how much of a relationship with Jesus does a person really have? Doesn't the Bible say that his Word would be written on our HEARTS? If the rules are gone, is the heart Word erased?? Seriously.

I, for one, can't make any sense out of this line of reasoning. We're not talking about 'rules' here; we're talking about Biblical absolutes like the Oneness of the Godhead.

I have friends and, yea, even fellowship people who don't think exactly like me in areas of separation. I will, however, never erase the line of distinction that comes with being Oneness.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Esther

I for one certainly understand Steadfast concerns here.

Even though I have studied, prayed and came to the conclusion many of our standards are just that standards, not salvation issues. But you have to have a line drawn somewhere.
I still adhere to the standards KNOWING they are standards. One of the reasons I have not changed them is being concerned of the possiblity of going to far. Perhaps I feel that way because it has been taught for so long.???

But I HATE the other extreme equally if not more so, when I hear ignorance preached of it being a sin to wear red and such like. Now that makes me really, really mad.

The question is why? Why does a line "have" to be drawn somewhere collectively as a group? Doesn't this have the possible negative effect of making things sin that are not sin? Why is drawing a line always viewed as the positive thing to do? We all draw lines for ourselves and our families. Why is that not good enough?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

Miss Esther,

There is a MAJOR difference between a few standard differences and the wholesale acceptance of key Bible doctrines like the Oneness.

Of course I agree with you, however, I understood that to be your concern of the lines blurring.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by ILG

The question is why? Why does a line "have" to be drawn somewhere collectively as a group? Doesn't this have the possible negative effect of making things sin that are not sin? Why is drawing a line always viewed as the positive thing to do? We all draw lines for ourselves and our families. Why is that not good enough?

No where did I say it had to be a group thing. In fact, I gave examples of it being individual.

But I believe as indivduals we need a line drawn for our own protection.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Steadfast

I, for one, can't make any sense out of this line of reasoning. We're not talking about 'rules' here; we're talking about Biblical absolutes like the Oneness of the Godhead.

I have friends and, yea, even fellowship people who don't think exactly like me in areas of separation. I will, however, never erase the line of distinction that comes with being Oneness.

Here is what you wrote:

Much has been said about Tulsa, the UPC's Resolution #4 and even the P.A.W. lately. Obviously there are some serious concerns in the Apostolic movement about the laying down of spiritual disciplines and changing of direction that many groups are experiencing.

The reason? It seldom stops once the decline starts. One recent example is exemplified by the vote the College of Bishops of the P.A.W. (Similar to our General Board) just had in which they voted 55 to 58 to basically accept the trinitarian movement and allow them as Brothers and Sisters in their pulpits.

Can you imagine that one of the strongest doctrinal groups that ever lived is now only THREE votes away from accepting trinitarians as right? Look at them closely and you'll see (a fact that was even acknowledged by Bishop Morris E. Golder) a gradual decline that covered the entire spectrum beginning at a disregarding of Apostolic disciplines, overlooking sin to keep talent, ignoring false doctrines and now accepting heresy as doctrinally viable.

THREE votes... The oldest oneness organization and the greatest doctrinal preachers I've ever heard are now three votes away from accepting heresy.

God wake us up.

I have to ask what a rule about advertising on television could possibly have to do with the Oneness of God. Why should Oneness have ANYTHING to do with television? They used to preach against coffee years ago. The acceptance of coffee doesn't make people trinitarian. So you are going to have to do a little better connecting the dots than to say "There is a great hurly-burly" in the PAW about trinitarianism. You need to bring forth a logical reasoning process as to WHY televistion should have ANYTHING to do with Oneness other than....well in the PAW some got loose on standards (even though not all are) and now they *might* accept some form of trinitarians fellowship. Thre are trinitarian groups that are holiness standards all over. Your reasoning process leaves a lot to be desired.