Becoming An Ex-Pentecostal

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Reformed Dave knew what I meant.

I revere him in many ways. He knew that.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

What a stupid remark. Not wanting truth? The truth is that leaving was THE most difficult thing I've ever done. I left because I felt that I was moving toward greater truth not the lesser.

I have no doubt that leaving was the most difficult thing you have done - as it was with the prodigal and for anyone who has left truth, myself included. The issue is not leaving but returning. If indeed you feel that by leaving the essentiality of Acts 2:38, separation from the world and living a life pleasing to God; than you are open to deception.


As the only one in my family left serving God, I have seen the other 6 enter into various delusions and my father pass away in delusion. These issues are not semantics with me nor my personal interpretation. I was a backslider 14 years ago. I understand emphatically what it takes to come out from among them and be separate.

My remark was relegated as stupid, I will not descend to personal attacks however truth has never been based upon feelings (I will not get into a post modernist debate with anyone either). Truth is the word of God and a revelation of the same in which sincere, humble and thankful people partake.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by the raven

My remark was relegated as stupid, I will not descend to personal attacks however truth has never been based upon feelings (I will not get into a post modernist debate with anyone either). Truth is the word of God and a revelation of the same in which sincere, humble and thankful people partake.

You made it personal when you said

Those who become ex-pentecostal simply show what is in their hearts. Be it offense, lack of first love, bitterness, etc. The bottom line is they no longer want truth nor the responsibility which comes with it.

I did not leave over petty disagreements over supposed 'holiness standards'. I left over our disagreement as to what TRUTH is. Believe me if I took the easy road I would have stayed. "Responsibility"? It is because of being responsible that I took the road that I did.

It's good to know that people who disagree with you are neither sincere, humble or thankful.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

You made it personal when you said

I did not leave over petty disagreements over supposed 'holiness standards'. I left over our disagreement as to what TRUTH is. Believe me if I took the easy road I would have stayed. "Responsibility"? It is because of being responsible that I took the road that I did.

It's good to know that people who disagree with you are neither sincere, humble or thankful.

Again you are resorting to personal attacks. While I used a broad brush in my comments, it was dipped in the ink of experience both personal and ministerially. Your usage of ex-pentecostal leads me to conclude your rejection of the Acts 2:38 message and holiness both inward and outward - if this is not what you meant, then I stand corrected.

However, if it is a battle of wits you prefer, I refuse to fight an unarmed man.

Your sincere, humble and thankful servant!

The Raven

[Rico]

Originally Posted by the raven

Again you are resorting to personal attacks. While I used a broad brush in my comments, it was dipped in the ink of experience both personal and ministerially. Your usage of ex-pentecostal leads me to conclude your rejection of the Acts 2:38 message and holiness both inward and outward - if this is not what you meant, then I stand corrected.

However, if it is a battle of wits you prefer, I refuse to fight an unarmed man.

Your sincere, humble and thankful servant!

The Raven

Oh Puhleeeeze! RD understands what you believe better than you do.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by the raven

Again you are resorting to personal attacks. While I used a broad brush in my comments, it was dipped in the ink of experience both personal and ministerially. Your usage of ex-pentecostal leads me to conclude your rejection of the Acts 2:38 message and holiness both inward and outward - if this is not what you meant, then I stand corrected.

However, if it is a battle of wits you prefer, I refuse to fight an unarmed man.

Your sincere, humble and thankful servant!

The Raven

I don't reject any part of Scripture. I just don't happen to believe the OP position is the correct one. You are the one who stated that I do not want truth or responsibility. You are the one that implied that those who don't believe as you are not sincere, humble or thankful.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by Rico

Oh Puhleeeeze! RD understands what you believe better than you do.

Oh genderless one! Why hast thou chosen to bring the Reader's Digest into this discussion. Alas! If indeed Davie boy is that all understanding than his doctrine was most probably derived from the RD. Your help in establishing that fact is of inestimable value.

[Light]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I don't reject any part of Scripture. I just don't happen to believe the OP position is the correct one. You are the one who stated that I do not want truth or responsibility. You are the one that implied that those who don't believe as you are not sincere, humble or thankful.

Please tell me what is it about acts 2:38 that you don't believe? Not trying to cause trouble just want to know.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

I don't reject any part of Scripture. I just don't happen to believe the OP position is the correct one. You are the one who stated that I do not want truth or responsibility. You are the one that implied that those who don't believe as you are not sincere, humble or thankful.

Forgive my lack of education in abbreviatory linguisticalitations. What pray tell is OP - the last time I heard this term it referred to Ocean Pacific clothing.

When one disregards the written truth are they then not choosing to be accountable to the word of God? I did not mean to imply that those who do not believe as I do are not sincere, humble and thankful. That statement should be read as fact not implication. Hopefully I have cleared the air on any mis-communication in regards to the statement.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Light

Please tell me what is it about acts 2:38 that you don't believe? Not trying to cause trouble just want to know.

I don't have a problem with any part of scripture, including Acts 2:38. I just don't agree with the traditional oneness position of a salvation formula. I will not get into that debate here. There have been millions (evangelastically speaking) of pages written about it already.