church, life April 24, 2019 eDisciples Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post eDisciples with Dr. Anthony W. Adams PentecostalTheology .com Previous articleThe Art of Spiritual Warfare Part 2: The Strategy of the Saints Next articleBruce Metzger on the shorter ending of Mark 19 Comments Reply April 24, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce The largest Pentecostal Denomination in Philippines is divided down the middle, taking each other to the Supreme Court. The HO, the largest Pentecostal Denomination in the USA, stands idly by and does nothing. When will the Pentecostal community threaten their decisive brothers with some form of ex-comunication? …………….Titus 3:10-11 Whereas Titus was to avoid foolish disputes and the like (v 9), Paul commands him to reject a divisive (hairetikos, used only here in the NT) man after the first and second admonition (cf. Rom 16:17; 2 Tim 3:5). Clearly this refers not to false teachers, but to men within the local churches. Titus should reject a man if he did not respond to two admonitions because such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. This rejection might be excommunication, but if so, it certainly is not as clear as 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 1 Tim 1:19-20. Or it might be a form of censure that requires the man to cease being divisive on threat of excommunication. In any case Titus was to be patient, giving a divisive man two opportunities to change his ways. Reply April 24, 2019 Jerome Herrick Weymouth Who is the Ho? Reply April 24, 2019 Varnel Watson The largest Pentecostal Denomination in Philippines is which one? Reply April 24, 2019 Charles Page AOG? Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce Head Office Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson ho ho ho? Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce i didnt name them, but is that your attitude to largest pentecostal denomination allowing their name to be turned into a poison chalice in the supreme court? Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson is it something that has not happened before or that we have not seen in church politics? Why post it in this OP? [G.R. No. 137799. July 5, 1999] PHIL. GENERAL COUNCIL OF ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, INC. vs. ASSEMBLIES OF GOD BETHEL TEMPLE, INC. SECOND DIVISION http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/1999/july/137799.php Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce because the OP mentioned .Titus 3:10-11, so i was giving an illustration. Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson OK – source for your news please Let’s check it out Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce https://pgcag.wordpress.com/ It started here 5 years ago and is now waiting decision of Supreme court, which probably will take another 5 years. Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson like I said – old news which we’ve spoken about before and I will go on a limb to say it is not just avoid foolish disputes a when HO and others get involved it is always about money / property and power Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce exactly Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson On August 12, 2010, Rev. Joseph Suico, General Secretary of the PGCAG wrote Rev. David A. Sobrepena a letter requiring him to explain six (6) issues raised against him, and set the date for meeting on August 20, 2010. On the appointed time, the latter failed to appear. Instead, on September 6, 2010, a letter was sent by Rev. Sobrepena to the executive officers of PGCAG, namely, Revs. Calusay, Suico and Jeremiah Balbuena, and to all District Superintendents explaining his side. In response, a letter was sent to Rev. Sobrepena to appear before the PGCAG’s Executive Presbytery to personally explain the issues raised against him. Sometime in October 2010, Rev. Sobrepena met with the Executive presbytery in PGCAG’s main office in Valenzuela City. On January 4, 2011, the PGCAG Credentials Committee, by unanimous decision, suspended the credentials of Rev. Sobrepena for not less than two (2) years based on the following grounds: violation of Resolution 65-3; causing divisiveness by openly criticizing the leadership of other officers in the Executive Presbytery; for conduct unbecoming of a minister in (a) not paying the services of a contractor-engineer he employed for the construction of part of Word of Hope facilities; (b) engaging in gambling per affidavit of a golf caddy; (c) proclivity to abuse of power by selling a property that the organization he represents does not own (Minutes of Executive Presbytery Meeting held on January 4, 2011, Exh. “A” (TRO) for the plaintiff. http://www.pgc.ag/court-of-appeals-decision/ Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce that was first, court case, but next was in support of DAS, so RC is taking it to Supreme Court as power money and property at stake. Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson serious accusations on power, properties and conduct – whats new This is an old old case which will be resolved Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce should be resolved Biblically, instead of civil courts. Maybe USA Pentecostal community leaders approaching AG HO to start Biblical reconciliation process? Reply April 25, 2019 RichardAnna Boyce It seems no Pentecostal leaders here, in this group, are willing to hold their brother to account Biblically. A typical result is that a 30 year old AG church on top of the hill in a city, is being fought over by both sides. So the city’s most prominent Catholic family, who donated the land, but with no title, have taken their land back, including the large concrete AG church; and are now using it as a mausoleum to house dead members of their family. What kind of witness is this for Pentecostals? Reply April 25, 2019 Varnel Watson iits not just our AG brother If you ask Charles Page and Link Hudson and Robert Borders is in cog too I tried to explain to Steve Maxwell a while back that because of stuff like this there is decrease of AG no just in the USA but now around the globe Now that that stats are out and showing it – what? Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Cancel replyComment Name Email Website This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.