Tenets Of The Church Of Pentecost Pdf

[Marcelene Vasconez]

Pentecostalscame out of the Evangelicals; thus, our theology is similar to theirs. However, there are a few significant divergent views, especially when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit and healing. Over the years, The Church of Pentecost, coming from the Apostolic Church has held on to the beliefs of the Pentecostal churches, which began in the early twentieth century, often referred to as classical Pentecostals. However, there are also some minor differences among these Pentecostal churches. As new churches are established, almost daily, and new doctrines keep emerging, it is not uncommon for old churches to lose or adulterate their core doctrines.

The Church of Pentecost deems our tenets or beliefs as one of the most critical aspects of our worship because it forms the basics of the Christian doctrine. Once you get it right, you will be able to grow in the Christian faith.

For this reason, the founding fathers and other leaders of the church have prayerfully and thoughtfully selected 11 doctrinal beliefs of The Church of Pentecost with accompanying Scriptures to facilitate study and understanding. These basic doctrines of The Church of Pentecost, which we jealously guard, are as follows:

We believe in the institution of marriage as a union established and ordained by God for the lifelong, intimate relationship between a man as husband and a woman as wife as biologically defined at birth. We believe that God instituted marriage primarily for mutual help, fellowship and comfort that one ought to have for the other and for the honourable procreation of children, and their training in love, obedience to the Lord and responsible citizenship. (Genesis 2:18, Genesis 21-25; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:1-2).

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.

Title VII defines "religion" very broadly. It includes traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It also includes religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, or only held by a small number of people.

Some practices are religious for one person, but not religious for another person, such as not working on Saturday or on Sunday. One person may not work on Saturday for religious reasons; another person may not work on Saturday for family reasons. Under Title VII, a practice is religious if the employee's reason for the practice is religious.

Applicants and employees may obtain exceptions to rules or policies in order to follow their religious beliefs or practices. Remember that employers may grant these accommodations for religious reasons but still refuse to grant them for secular reasons. Examples of common religious accommodations include:

The EEOC has developed a technical assistance document "Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities" along with a fact sheet explaining these issues due to the frequency of their occurrence.

Examples of burdens on business that are more than minimal (or an "undue hardship") include: violating a seniority system; causing a lack of necessary staffing; jeopardizing security or health; or costing the employer more than a minimal amount.

If a schedule change would impose an undue hardship, the employer must allow co-workers to voluntarily substitute or swap shifts to accommodate the employee's religious belief or practice. If an employee cannot be accommodated in his current position, transfer to a vacant position may be possible.

Infrequent payment of overtime to employees who substitute shifts is not considered an undue hardship. Customer preference or co-worker disgruntlement does not justify denying a religious accommodation.

At the same time, many see that there is more going on in the lives of their students than the tenets of M.T.D. While this may be how they articulate what they believe, their behavior sometimes hints at something a bit deeper.

I suspect that people who do not have much time for church otherwise are drawn on these days precisely because these are the celebrations that most thoroughly challenge the sufficiency of M.T.D. as a framework of meaning. On these days, the church offers something that M.T.D. cannot give: a story of divine nearness, of betrayal and redemption, of final victory over death. It is this story for which the world hungers.

So rather than scowl at the crowds of C.A.P.E. Catholics who fill our pews four days a year (as we every-Sunday Catholics can tend to do), perhaps we need to learn what they have to teach us about the power of the Gospel, even if what they have to teach us is something that they themselves are not fully aware of.

We live in such a bright and sunny culture, with all dark realities airbrushed out. At some level people know they are there in life, however, and need to be acknowledged. And that this is where the felt need for God arises.

Worship is not an intellectual exercise where we seek to understand God; it is an event where we come to experience God. On far too many ordinary Sundays, worship tends toward teaching. On CAPE, worship is truly an experience that engages the whole person.

"Pre-tribulation," "post-tribulation," "millennial," and "dispensationalist" are all terms that I've heard used to describe certain eschatological beliefs held by groups of mainstream Evangelicals (among other denominations). The problem is, I don't know what most of these terms mean, or how those who name, develop, or study them categorize these different beliefs about the end-times.

Having grown up in Evangelicalism, I am more than a little familiar with the various eschatological schemes embraced and taught by more-conservative Evangelicals. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, Dispensational theology was taken for granted among the Plymouth Brethren, a movement of anti-Church-of-England Christians in the British Isles in the early 19th century. (The Plymouth Brethren, by the way, is the "non-denominational" denomination with which I identify.)

One of the early leaders of my denomination was John Nelson Darby. He is credited with making Dispensationalism the go-to eschatology of the Plymouth Brethren. I guess you could say that dispensational theology birthed a renewed interest in eschatology in the last 200 years and made such terms as rapture, millennium, the Great Tribulation, pre-trib, post-trib (even mid-trib!) and the Day of the Lord important buzzwords in any discussion of eschatology in many conservative Evangelical churches around the world.

Brilliant, gifted, and with all the right connections, Darby had been groomed for and was practically assured a successful career in law. But a deep spiritual struggle gripped the budding young barrister in his eighteenth year and caused him to abandon that profession after only one year of practice between 1822 and 1823. Darby's spiritual odyssey lasted until 1825 when he received ordination as deacon in the Church of England. The following year, he was elevated to the priesthood and assigned a curacy in remote County Wicklow, Ireland.

Darby was a brilliant linguist, and his eponymous version of the Bible (viz., The Darby Translation) is universally respected to this day (the complete Bible being published in 1890, eight years after his death). Darby also was a respected leader and pastor who planted churches in Germany and France. He influenced the theology of many American churchmen, whose names are perhaps more familiar to Evangelicals than Darby! Men such as James Hall Brookes, Adoniram Judson Gordon (namesake of Gordon College and Gordon Conwell Seminary) Arno C. Gaebelein, William E. Blackstone, Cyrus I. Scofield (to whom Blackstone introduced dispensational theology shortly after Scofield was converted). Scofield, of course, is remembered fondly by millions of Christians as the editor of the Scofield Reference Bible. I suggest that virtually every study Bible published ever since Scofield's first came on the scene in 1909 (published by Oxford University Press--citation) owes a debt of gratitude to C. I. Scofield!

Although Darby is credited with being "the father of Dispensationalism," the concept of biblical dispensations (or ages, or eras, or differing economies in the outworking of God's plans and purposes for Planet Earth), goes back to the writings and teachings of some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Turtullian (citation). Moreover, according to Charles C. Ryrie, author of Dispensationalism Today and emeritus professor of theology at a bastion of dispensational thought, Dallas Theological Seminary, in the approximately 150 years before Darby came on the scene,

The key terms pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, rapture, millennium, pre-mil, post-mil, not to mention the names for the seven dispensations into which salvation history is divided within the dispensational scheme (e.g., Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, and Law) and the interpretation (often labeled pejoratively--and unfairly--"literal" interpretation) of the Bible's doctrine of eschatology (i.e., the study of future things, such as the return of Christ, both "in the air" and "to the earth") are part and parcel of the dispensational mode of "rightly dividing [or accurately handling] the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

Let's pause here to address a heart-felt concern of mine and--I hope--many other believers worldwide. Some Christians today ridicule the dispensational approach to Scripture. They find the notion of a "secret rapture" risible, and they slough it off as if it came from a fairy tale. I find this sort of behavior troubling and inappropriate. Just because some of our brothers and sisters in Christ happen not to espouse all the tenets of covenant theology and of the Reformed Christian faith does not automatically make them dummkopfs. I've read articles online, written by Christians, which could fairly be labeled invective. These diatribes include strident railing against such defenders of the faith as C. I. Scofield! Clearly, these things ought not to be! Since when are ad hominem arguments and cheap shots appropriate when discussing other Christians' heartfelt beliefs or comparing their beliefs to yours?

3a8082e126