Was it Goss who wrote that plainness of dress didn't come in until the holiness preachers hyj... Um... embraced pentecost?
I think his wife stated something to that effect.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Loren Yadon says in his sermon that she was out of Frank Ewart's church. He was one of the biggest defenders of Olive Haney. If you wanted to find yourself on the outside with him, just attack OH.
This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.
In the final analysis, one must be honest enough to see that yes there were two differing views of when salvation happened at the merger. (what many now refer to as one step or saved at repentance/three step or water spirit) The oneness movement was still a developing movement. All of those early adherents had come from various religious backgrounds which impacted their view on MANY areas of doctrine. As they settled into their new found doctrine it is reasonable that their beliefs would change over time. (No different than a Trinitarian pastor today who would convert.....his/her beliefs would change, even if minimally over time.)
The "till we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was clearly put in the original statement to appease brethren on both sides who felt that the opposing view needed to align themselves with the proper doctrinal view. IMO the merger should have never taken place. Salvation is a HUGE issue and one that I do not believe can be taken lightly. Even if we agree on so many points that we are nearly alike.....if we do not agree on what constitutes salvation there CANNOT be unity for long. To expect such, would require a compromise (on one side or the other) on the foundational doctrine of salvation.
If I truly believe water/spirit (three step) I cannot believe that the saved at repentance (One step) crowd is actually saved until they have also been baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If I truly believe one is saved at repentance, I cannot long fellowship those who I believe are placing a burden on their followers that is not biblical. To do so would bring confusion (which it did.) For there to be enduring unity, both sides would have to come to the understanding that it really doesn't matter either way......not likely to happen IMO.
I knew Brother Yaden. Grew up with his kids. He is a prince of a man. I love and respect him to this day and have nothing but the very finest opinion of him even while not agreeing with him on all points.
I have from the beginning of these forum discussions called the Affirmation Statement the "Infernal document" and have stated that the ripping of the org was wrong.
That being said, it must be sad to live a life so caught up in the past that you live there. Dan and his pals need to get over it and move along. We all get it. Dan hates the UPCI. He despises the doctrine his dad preached and lived. its become an obsession.
others have been "hurt" whatever. Suck it up people. Decide who you are and build what you believe God intends.
You will never build anything so long as you spend your time trying to tare down your neighbors house.
sad small people make demolition the project of their lives.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I disagree. He pointed out the inconsistencies, it wasn't tacky. And behind closed doors the politics are really thick.
IMO it was tacky. It was like putting a finger in the eye of the organization. Politics may be thick behind closed doors, but it's the right place to put forward the suggestions he made, and address the accusations he made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bishoph
This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.
This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.
In the final analysis, one must be honest enough to see that yes there were two differing views of when salvation happened at the merger. (what many now refer to as one step or saved at repentance/three step or water spirit) The oneness movement was still a developing movement. All of those early adherents had come from various religious backgrounds which impacted their view on MANY areas of doctrine. As they settled into their new found doctrine it is reasonable that their beliefs would change over time. (No different than a Trinitarian pastor today who would convert.....his/her beliefs would change, even if minimally over time.)
The "till we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was clearly put in the original statement to appease brethren on both sides who felt that the opposing view needed to align themselves with the proper doctrinal view. IMO the merger should have never taken place. Salvation is a HUGE issue and one that I do not believe can be taken lightly. Even if we agree on so many points that we are nearly alike.....if we do not agree on what constitutes salvation there CANNOT be unity for long. To expect such, would require a compromise (on one side or the other) on the foundational doctrine of salvation.
If I truly believe water/spirit (three step) I cannot believe that the saved at repentance (One step) crowd is actually saved until they have also been baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
If I truly believe one is saved at repentance, I cannot long fellowship those who I believe are placing a burden on their followers that is not biblical. To do so would bring confusion (which it did.) For there to be enduring unity, both sides would have to come to the understanding that it really doesn't matter either way......not likely to happen IMO.
Let me say this about the picture, the Haney's were there the day that was preached, not one of them, not KH not OH, no one raised the objection that she wasn't part of the movement at that time. There is a principle in law that if a person would have spoke up at the time and they didn't, it is evidence that the statement is true. No one, objected at the time.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
I knew Brother Yaden. Grew up with his kids. He is a prince of a man. I love and respect him to this day and have nothing but the very finest opinion of him even while not agreeing with him on all points.
I have from the beginning of these forum discussions called the Affirmation Statement the "Infernal document" and have stated that the ripping of the org was wrong.
That being said, it must be sad to live a life so caught up in the past that you live there. Dan and his pals need to get over it and move along. We all get it. Dan hates the UPCI. He despises the doctrine his dad preached and lived. its become an obsession.
others have been "hurt" whatever. Suck it up people. Decide who you are and build what you believe God intends.
You will never build anything so long as you spend your time trying to tare down your neighbors house.
sad small people make demolition the project of their lives.
This message was a historical landmark (no pun intended) in the life of the UPCI, few messages are remembered 20 years after the fact, I can count the ones I remember on one hand. This was the sermon heard around the organization even though it was quickly cut off and tapes were no longer sold. My own copy was loaned out and "eaten" by a tape player. It took several years of searching and asking to find this historical document again and make it available to the masses.
As a historical event only fools would turn their back on the historical evidence and continue to repeat the same mistakes. It is not about tearing down, it is about setting the record straight, in the face of historical revisionists. This was the history of many of us, and we have an obligation to object to the lies that have been told about our past.
In addition it is a low shot to claim that Dan "Despises the doctrine his dad preached." I don't think that is a judgment that you can make, I am not sure there is anyone Dan places on a higher plane than his Father. Extremely low class remark.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Let me say this about the picture, the Haney's were there the day that was preached, not one of them, not KH not OH, no one raised the objection that she wasn't part of the movement at that time. There is a principle in law that if a person would have spoke up at the time and they didn't, it is evidence that the statement is true. No one, objected at the time.
That may be a principal of law.....but it is a flawed principle. If anyone is willing to believe that KH/OH or anyone for that matter, would have stood up and objected to what was being said in the middle of a sermon being preached with a conference crowd present, I have some ocean front property in Montana for sale. (Besides that we all know of situations where people have NOT spoken up or come forward and their refusal to do so did not mean that the event did/did not happen.)
It really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things.....as I said earlier, the movement was developing and anyone who would deny that is willfully ignorant. Regardless of whether she (OH) was in church at the time or not, at some point the movement as a whole...black/white, UPC/PAW/ALJC/COOLJ....Nearly all oneness organizations, developed a more restrictive doctrine of separation/sanctification from the world and a water/spirit view of salvation.
Linear Mode
