| Author | Message | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1163 Registered: 7-2005  |
I have a UPCI friend at work and I visited her church yesterday. Before the service began, I asked her what her church believes that is different than the other Pentecostals (being primarily the Assemblies of God). She briefly explained their belief regarding the Trinity. They believe there is one God, whose name is Jesus. The other names - the Father and the Holy Spirit - are nothing more than titles. They don't believe there are three separate beings. I didn't give much of a response, because it wasn't the time or place to discuss doctrine. I understand and agree that the Trinity is not three separate beings. But I do believe that there is more to the Trinity than just titles. So many verses don't make sense, if the difference between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just titles. For example, John 5:22. "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the son..." I'm sure there are many more verses, but that one is a good start. Anyway, the service was very rousing, to say the least. They are certainly energetic in their worship. In fact, they wore me out. I was doing pretty well at keeping up with the clapping, hand raising, standing up alternating with sitting down, etc. I didn't get involved in the shouting, though, because that is just not my style. It was pretty loud, but it was mostly fun. It has been a long time since I was at a Pentecostal service, but I'm no stranger to them. I attended a Full Gospel church for about five years in the 70s. One thing I very much appreciated was the repetition of so many afirmations of God's love for us. (Message edited by honestwitness on April 18, 2011) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1864 Registered: 7-2007 |
It sounds like they have a "different" idea of God than the Bible gives. Sounds weird. The Holy Spirit can be grieved, but a title cannot be grieved. Most of us came out of a church with a different "Jesus." It doesn't sound as though this church is any better.... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12519 Registered: 12-2003  |
Paul Carden stated to us that the UPCI is considered a cult. Deviations in the identity of Christ (and the Trinity) qualify an organization for cult classification. If Jesus is wrong, the entire message is wrong. You can't have the real gospel pasted onto a false Jesus. It breaks down when you try to live with it. We who have been Adventists understand this rather profoundly... Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3660 Registered: 10-2004  |
Also, the UPCI teaches a false gospel of salvation by faith plus works. Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7210 Registered: 9-2006  |
Agreed Colleen, they are known as oneness, I wouldn't say they are more legalistic than Adventists, but they would run them a close second. It is not just the trinity thats wrong with it, they rival Adventist for trying to attain perfection. They pretty much believe if you fail on any one of their doctrinal points, your bound for hell. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7211 Registered: 9-2006 |
Yep! In spades Jeremy. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1574 Registered: 7-2003  |
Honest Witness, The UPCI hold to an ancient heresy known as modalism. The Bible absolutely teaches that there is only one single being that is God. They have that part right. The Bible certainly teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. They have that part right. Unfortunately, they stop there and then try to put God into a box that can be fully comprehended by finite humans. They shove God into a false box by denying the third thing that the Bible teaches about the being of the of the one God: He is eternally defined by relationships of love between the Father, Son, and Spirit. They instead choose to say that He was the Father prior to the incarnation, the Son during the incarnation, and the Spirit after the incarnation. In other words, they claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely "modes" that the one God has been in at different points in time. This flies directly in the face of all the biblical evidence that shows that the one God has always existed in relationship with Himself and has never lacked for anything, including love, communication, and relational interaction. It is because this one being has always existed as three personal, relational distinctions that He is able to create us as relational beings and bestow that communicable attribute upon us (you cannot give that which you do not posses). Because the UPCI denies this fundamental biblical teaching about God, they are not only a cult, but a very legalistic one. They start with a misunderstanding of God and that leads to all kinds of heresies including the belief that those who aren't baptized with a specific spoken formula (i.e. in the name of Jesus only) are not saved. Most UPCI congregations also believe that you must demonstrate speaking in tongues in order to be saved. While a bit hard to connect (and I won't take space here), this too flows from a misunderstanding of God (most heresies do). | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7212 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well what part of Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: does these people not understand? Do they think Jesus just sort of tacked that on as window dressing or something, it ain't that complicated to follow. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7213 Registered: 9-2006 |
I guess the patch on my jacket runs true, you can't fix stupid. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1164 Registered: 7-2005 |
Thanks to all of you who have answered so far. Lots of food for thought. So, are there any Pentecostal groups that are not considered a cult? | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7214 Registered: 9-2006 |
A better question might be, are all denominations who have been accused of being cultic, really cultic? What group is not considered a cult by someone? We have to be careful as to how wide a blanket we throw, lest we end up walking on the blanket to get into bed. Whats left is us laying there trying to pull up our own blanket while laying on it. There are people like Hank Hanegraff of CRI who do blanket all Pentecostals as cultic because of his stand on tongues, but that is a foolish supposition than any serious Bible student should avoid lest we end up like rabid dogs instead of defending the gospel. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 1167 Registered: 7-2005 |
Thanks for your perspective on this, River. Sometimes I wonder if I'm more of a rabid dog than a gospel defender. One needs to tread very carefully around this topic, indeed. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 930 Registered: 7-2004  |
There are a few reasonable standards for classifying a group as cultic: 1) denying that Scripture is the only source of authority for Christians 2) denying the Triune God 3) adding our works of righteousness to the Gospel, teaching that we are saved by becoming holy 4) spiritually or emotionally abusive behavior 5) teaching they are the only true church or that all other believers are 2nd class citizens. 6) history of actively stealing sheep (any group with the specific goal of getting other people to leave their mainstream churches in order to join their special sect is implicitly denying the invisible, universal church) | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 666 Registered: 2-2003  |
I remember reading somewhere that around 90% of Pentecostals are trinitarian. The Assemblies of God denomination in Britain and the Hungarian Pentecostal Church I now belong to certainly are. The usual marks of a cult, being somthing like: A) Extra-Biblical revelation which is considered essential; B) Salvation is not by faith alone, but by adherence to the distinctive teachings and practices of the group; C) There is a central authority figure, founder, prophet, or whatever, whose teachings cannot be denied; D) They consider themselves the one true church, but at the same time deny one or more fundamentals of the historic Christian faith; in my approx. 30 years of experience, do not apply to Pentecostals in general, though at least B and D do apply to Oneness Pentecostals. Just for information, of course, I would prefer to preach the gospel rather than argue over denominations. By the way River, as far as Matthew 28 is concerned, the text says "baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". As the word "name" is singular, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus, so there must be only one person in the godhead. QED. I don't believe that, by the way, but that is the UPCI excuse, err... explanation. There is always an explanation... Isten áldjon, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 667 Registered: 2-2003 |
I think we must have been posting at the same time Ric! | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 931 Registered: 7-2004 |
Doc, My biggest reason for questioning whether American AoG might warrant consideration in the cultic group are; 1) Defining salvation as victory over sins in our life, this downplays or ignores the substiutionary atonement that is central to the Gospel. And I really cringe at the description of salvation as a "second chance" 2) Refusing to remove high profile false prophets. If we apply the same prophetic tests to EGW and to some of the most prominent US AoG teachers who have made prophetic statements, we would have to make the same conclusion about both. Failing to oversea the ministers in the flock and remove those who Biblically should be is a concern to me. Personally, I would be at ease with the doctrinal positions of Vineyard but not as much so the AoG here in the US. Perhaps Vineyard has just done a better job of explaining their doctrines and the AoG here made some unfortunate choices of words-although when it comes to public doctrinal statements, I think most churches carefully select their words. I agree with River that we shouldn't group all non-cessationists as cults simply for believing and practicing the gifts of the Spirit. But I have also noticed the tendency with Charismatic circles to give anyone claiming to practice these gifts a free pass on some very serious errors. (Message edited by Ric_b on April 19, 2011) (Message edited by Ric_b on April 19, 2011) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7215 Registered: 9-2006 |
I am thinking it would at least be wise...to understand that the AoG (or) Assembly's of God, are really a group of independent churches formed for the purpose of missions and churches may differ in practice from church to church. While I may not be comfortable at all in one, I may be comfortable in another for that reason. A particular church is not ruled by Springfield, they are each on a voluntary basis and the each support themselves independently of Springfield, tithes and offerings do not go to Springfield and then bled back down to the individual Churches, it stays to support that church, although the pastors do send their own tithes to Springfield HQ. Its not near the same as you were used to in Adventism. I don't know how it works in Doc's territory. As for salvation bringing victory over sin, it certainly does, when we are saved sin no longer has power over us to kill us and no it does not ignore substiutionary atonement that is central to the Gospel. That my friend, is a false notion. And yes Ric, there is sometimes poor leadership in the churches, but the independent churches are the only ones that have the power to remove poor leaders. It goes right back to the way the organization is set up, the main offices in Springfield are not set up to control a bunch of churches with an iron hand, it is set up to send missions and help missionaries in their work under the sponsorship of AoG, not rule all the churches. As for how prophetic words go, all you formers have from day one, and I know of no exceptions, been wrong by applying the old covenant test of a prophet to Ellen G. White, I mean every one of you, yet when I tell you, you still don't get it. I mean every one of you harp day after day, week after about the old covenant having ceased and how we are under the new covenant, which is correct..right as rain..but then you turn right around and try to apply the old covenant to Ellen White. Its not biblical. Did Ellen White live and die BC or AD? What gives friend? There is plenty of ignorance going on in churches, but it goes with the territory then don’t it? I ain’t noticed any of you having a great impact on ignorance reduction as a general rule, accept to become formers, which is at least some ignorance reduction.  Trying to get rid of the ignorant will work you to death with no pay me buckos. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3661 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, Here is the AG's official "Statement of Fundamental Truths": http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm But the following article on their site (which says that it "reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery") does seem to teach salvation by works: http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/gendoct_09_security.cfm Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3662 Registered: 10-2004 |
River, Ellen White claimed to be an OT-style prophet and writer of God's word. I think that is why we tend to apply both OT and NT tests to her. In other words, she claimed to write inspired writings, like the Bible writers, and thus her writings must be tested to see if they match the standards for Bible writers. Jeremy | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 932 Registered: 7-2004 |
River, I mean no offense in my comments. I am only speaking from my experiences and from the church sponsored publications. We can set aside the tests of a prophet that you don't want used, and we can stick only to the NT teachings about how the NT church should respond to those presenting false teachings. The conclusion is stll the same, the church has a responsibility regarding it's pastors. I appreciate the desire to emphasize local church independence. I wish we had more of that in our own church. Please know that I am not questioning the authenticity of your experience with your church or your Spirituality. |
