The conscience of AFF

[noeticknight]

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14).


Given the profound truth of this verse, I have asked myself the question, “what are the implications for God’s body of believers today, and how are we able to realize this wonderful place of safety and victory for our generation?”

Could it be that informal gatherings face to face, as well as online forums such as this one, are platforms that enable groups, and more specifically Christian groups, to achieve this truth? I have to think that technologies that link peers together, particularly the ones which provide individuals an opportunity to express themselves in the “marketplace of ideas,” are reshaping the religious terrain with terrific force, and the momentum seems to be quickening.

A question for each of you, (lurkers, occasional posters, and frequent posters): Are your religious beliefs and opinions more influenced by the conscience and the voice of one man, the man who holds the microphone as I like to call it, or “the conscience of the court,” meaning, the counsel of the community?

[ManOfWord]

The only way this can take place in a positive way is through freedom. AFF strives to be a place where discussion CAN take place with varied viewpoints. Some don't like that and want to stifle the discussion. AFF is not the conscience of anyone or group, but it certainly is a place where one can in safety and freedom ask questions and not have to worry about repercussions from a "hierarchy."

[noeticknight]

Also, in your opinion, does there seem to be a general consensus of belief on AFF? If so, does it lean to the left or to the right of your experience?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Also, in your opinion, does there seem to be a general consensus of belief on AFF? If so, does it lean to the left or to the right of your experience?

AFF is generally like that bipolar girlfriend. One moment she'll be saying one thing through a post. Then the next she'll be saying the exact opposite through a different post. There are times though when most everyone comes together and agrees on something. Those times are pretty amazing

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

The only way this can take place in a positive way is through freedom. AFF strives to be a place where discussion CAN take place with varied viewpoints. Some don't like that and want to stifle the discussion. AFF is not the conscience of anyone or group, but it certainly is a place where one can in safety and freedom ask questions and not have to worry about repercussions from a "hierarchy."

Do you believe there is a possibility that this forum could "develop a conscience?" Or possibly, already has? AFF certainly holds a unique position in the mind of certain ministers, does it not?

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Do you believe there is a possibility that this forum could "develop a conscience?" Or possibly, already has? AFF certainly holds a unique position in the mind of certain ministers, does it not?

I think it really is different things to different people. It depends upon what their needs are. I have received numerous calls from UPCI ministers from AFF who needed someone to talk to about issues which they felt they could not discuss among their peers without negative consequences. Others just want some fun filled fellowship and still others want someone to "fuss" with.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I think it really is different things to different people. It depends upon what their needs are. I have received numerous calls from UPCI ministers from AFF who needed someone to talk to about issues which they felt they could not discuss among their peers without negative consequences. Others just want some fun filled fellowship and still others want someone to "fuss" with.

Consider this quote from bishoph: "Again, IMHO, this forum has a strong bias against the WPF, and for some any/all "apostolic" organizations: so to bring such a question would most certainly gender strife."

AFF has certainly positioned itself strongly within this poster's mind, and most likely, it is an opinion shared by his particular circle of friends. So yes, I believe the amount of engagement may help to shape a person's verdict of AFF, but they will most certainly generate one nonetheless.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

Also, in your opinion, does there seem to be a general consensus of belief on AFF? If so, does it lean to the left or to the right of your experience?

Sure there is a general consensus here on AFF. Right or left depends on the center we are comparing to of course.

I would say there is a general consensus among us about Christianity, basic Oneness Pentecostalism, discipleship, separation from worldly habits and licentious lifestyles. I think we could throw in political conservatism as well.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Sure there is a general consensus here on AFF. Right or left depends on the center we are comparing to of course.

I would say there is a general consensus among us about Christianity, basic Oneness Pentecostalism, discipleship, separation from worldly habits and licentious lifestyles. I think we could throw in political conservatism as well.

So your conclusion is that the majority of AFF falls under the label of "Oneness Pentecostalism?" Why? Because many believe in the promise of the Holy Spirit as is recorded in the Book of Acts? Because some may acknowledge God's sovereign work of "speaking in tongues?" Because the Google link describes this forum as such?

According to the general definition of Oneness Pentecost, if one doesn't believe in the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, or "Outward Holiness Standards," or "Regenerative Water Baptism," then that person isn't really saved. I don't know how many who frequent AFF formally belong to a Pentecostal church, but I would say judging from the recurring dialogue of many, that they may not fit very neatly theologically into that small subset of Christianity. In fact, I'm convinced that there are a number of people favoring the label "Apostolic" over "Pentecostal" due to the latter's linkage to a host of controversial teachings. The bundling of beliefs in denominational brands like Pentecostalism are being offered, yet truth seekers everywhere are not buying into the package deal.

I don't consider myself "Pentecostal." However, I do hope to live up to the label in Acts 11:26: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

So your conclusion is that the majority of AFF falls under the label of "Oneness Pentecostalism?" Why? Because many believe in the promise of the Holy Spirit as is recorded in the Book of Acts? Because some may acknowledge God's sovereign work of "speaking in tongues?" Because the Google link describes this forum as such?

According to the general definition of Oneness Pentecost, if one doesn't believe in the "Initial Evidence" doctrine, or "Outward Holiness Standards," or "Regenerative Water Baptism," then that person isn't really saved. I don't know how many who frequent AFF formally belong to a Pentecostal church, but I would say judging from the recurring dialogue of many, that they may not fit very neatly theologically into that small subset of Christianity. In fact, I'm convinced that there are a number of people favoring the label "Apostolic" over "Pentecostal" due to the latter's linkage to a host of controversial teachings. The bundling of beliefs in denominational brands like Pentecostalism are being offered, yet truth seekers everywhere are not buying into the package deal.

I don't consider myself "Pentecostal." However, I do hope to live up to the label in Acts 11:26: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Oneness Pentecostalism - I use that designation rather loosely.

Oneness - Those who invoke the Name of Jesus at baptism.

Pentecostalism - Those who believe tongues and the gifts of the Spirit are for today and did not cease entirely after the writings of the New Testament.

This is similar to the criteria Talmage French used is his research for Our God is ONE, the most current and exhaustive work documenting Oneness Pentecostalism throughout the world.

As to the bolded statement, I think it perhaps reflects the general definition of those in the UPCI, but not so much Oneness Pentecostalism in the larger context. According to French's work the UPC represents only a small percentage of Oneness Pentecostal believers.