PDA

View Full Version : E. L. Holley - A Reminisce


timlan2057
03-19-2008, 06:40 AM
This is not a comprehensive biography ... just reminisces about aspects of this man's life I remember here this morning before I drink my coffee.


E. L. Holley

I think of him as the last of the "Great Populists" in the UPC. I mean that he rose from the ranks of the "little preachers", having pastored in such tiny places as Electra, Texas. He followed the pattern here of another longtime Texas District Superintendent, V. A. Guidroz.

The Texas District of the late sixties through the mid eighties was chock full of powerful preachers and personalities of all stripes and spectrums - not an easy district to lead. Holley's strength, as one pastor told me was: "he's for the little preacher." And the little preachers were his strength. The Texas District in its prime always had a bit of class warfare. The aristocratic preachers and churches - those in the big cities like Houston - were not really big Holley fans.

I remember O. R. Fauss preaching Louisiana Campmeeting around 1982. Governor Edwin Edwards spoke that night and Fauss said: "I wish the governor of Texas would come to MY campmeeting" - no doubt a direct shot at Holley, who as DS forbade politicians from speaking at Lufkin.

But those pastors of small churches in the piney woods and on the central plains kept Holley in office. One writer said of Richard Nixon's enduring prominence despite his faults and fobiles: "He was one of us."

The "little preachers" in the vast Texas District felt the same way about Holley.

I found Holley fascinating in the same sense I found Murray Burr fascinating; he was a poetic soul trapped in a country preacher's personna and he was quite scholarly. Though he was not the literary master that Burr was, he had a poet's soul trapped in a close-minded "ole time preacher's" persona.

I mean, how much more literary can you get by proposing to your wife thus: "Will you marry me, and live under my wings so happily?"

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

Holley at least came across as more literary and for that I give him credit.

Yes, Holley was a petty man, like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw. Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.

And of course, Holley and Westberg became the leaders of the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" with the 1992 resolution that, in my opinion, forever tore the heart and soul from the UPC and changed it for good and forever for the worst.

Holley was aiming at "liberals" like Kershaw just as Westberg had it in for Marrell Cornwell.

Kershaw and Cornwell, along with Richard Gazowsky, came through the bloodbath with their fellowship cards in their pockets. Yet the resolution cost the UPC many of its best and brightest. This will forever be part of Holley's legacy.

His leadership style was pretty much: "My way or the highway." In that sense, he only followed the pattern set by Weeks and Guidroz, other strong superintendents of Louisiana and Texas, the UPC's strongest districts.

But just as Earl Long was the last of the great populists in Louisiana politics, so Holley probably was in UPC politics. He made no pretense to being liberal and was not a master politician like T. F. Tenney. (As Tenney's close friend, George Glass Jr. said to me about him: "Tom Fred could talk to a radical conservative or an ultra-liberal and make that man think he believed just like him.")

That wasn't Holley's style. He alternated superintendencies with O. W. Williams - another of the "aristocrats."

Kevin Cox, present day Louisiana District Superintendent, could learn from Holley.

I was in a campmeeting service last year where Cox did not speak at all but let Anthony Mangun emcee.

Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 07:01 AM
Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best.
Thanks, Tim. This was the only side of E.L. Holley that I knew. He helped our church through a horrendous church split and was the most gentle and anointed man! I was so proud of how God used him to settle things down and see us through it all.

freeatlast
03-19-2008, 07:42 AM
Thanks for the history lesson Tim. Very interesting reading.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 08:15 AM
E. L. Holley was a great, great man.

I found many of the things said here about him to be belittling and insulting.

Thank God for good men for the country, who know the truth and are not going to sell out.

Brother Holley early morning bible studies where the best. I have been going to camp meeting for over32 years and no one even compared to him. His wisdom and ability to teach were great.


Some one said he was a velvet covered brick.


If the UPC had more like him it wouldn't be in the mess it is.

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 08:16 AM
Tim, I don't know the people you mention but I found your insights interesting.

You ended with this statement: But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.

Why do you think a higher education necessarily gives one an ability to think critical and prepares one to be a long-term visionary? Are leaders born or made? What is your assessment of Peter and Paul. One was considered unlearned and ignorant and the other sat at the feet of Gameliel. Acts 22:3

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 08:20 AM
E. L. Holley was a great, great man.

I found many of the things said here about him to be belittling and insulting.

Thank God for good men for the country, who know the truth and are not going to sell out.

Brother Holley early morning bible studies where the best. I have been going to camp meeting for over32 years and no one even compared to him. His wisdom and ability to teach were great.


Some one said he was a velvet covered brick.


If the UPC had more like him it wouldn't be in the mess it is.


Some one said he was a velvet covered brick.

I just had to highlight that. Love the analogy. I thought of him as such!

I heard grumblings about him, but never saw what I heard!

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 08:22 AM
I guess many of the disciples could not be a critical thinker or a long term visionary, they were uneducated.






Some today have educated themselves right out of the truth and into false doctrine.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:25 AM
The "lack of education" comment is true, but smacks of elitism.

freeatlast
03-19-2008, 08:27 AM
I guess many of the disciples could be a critical thinker or a long term visionary, they were uneducated.






Some today have educated themselves right out of the truth and into false doctrine.

And many have done just the oposite. Out of darkness into the light.

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:30 AM
Paul had an education ... an had the most impact, IMO.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 08:33 AM
Peter had the keys to the kingdom, just an uneducated fisherman.

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:34 AM
Paul had an education ... an had the most impact, IMO.

This being said the difference maker was always their empowerment of the Spirit from above ... In Acts 4 we find the Peter, John and the apostles re-endued w/ a special anointing of BOLDNESS. It was this BOLDNESS that helped bring about the revival of the 1st century.

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:35 AM
Peter had the keys to the kingdom, just an uneducated fisherman.
Sorry I don't accept the papist view of Peter being the sole possessor of the keys of the kingdom.

The keys he received was based on a revelation of who Jesus Christ is ... not Acts 2:38.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:38 AM
Hopefully, no one will disagree that education opens doors of opportunity. But education isn't everything. It sounds like Brother Holley impacted his world, in a mighty way, with the tools available to him.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 08:40 AM
E. L. Holley was a great, great man.

I found many of the things said here about him to be belittling and insulting.

Thank God for good men for the country, who know the truth and are not going to sell out.

Brother Holley early morning bible studies where the best. I have been going to camp meeting for over32 years and no one even compared to him. His wisdom and ability to teach were great.


Some one said he was a velvet covered brick.


If the UPC had more like him it wouldn't be in the mess it is.

What did you find insulting?

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 08:40 AM
Hopefully, no one will disagree that education opens doors of opportunity. But education isn't everything. It sounds like Brother Holley impacted his world, in a mighty way, with the tools available to him.

Amen! That will preach!!!

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:43 AM
Michael Phelps, I think this is what some may find insulting. It's the idea that because Holley did not kosher with Tim's new theology he was somehow ignorant and devoid of the ability to critically think.

"E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary."

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:45 AM
Michael Phelps, I think this is what some may find insulting. It's the idea that because Holley did not kosher with Tim's new theology he was somehow ignorant and devoid of the ability to critically think.

In other words, Holley's lack of formal education enslaved him to "old-time Pentecostal" conservatism.

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:46 AM
Michael Phelps, I think this is what some may find insulting. It's the idea that because Holley did not kosher with Tim's new theology he was somehow ignorant and devoid of the ability to critically think.

I don't think that's what TimLan implied ... but rather what some's sensitivities inferred. If someone who did not know Timlan's view read this they would walk away w/ what he said explicitly .... that he feels that it was a lack of education that limited a great man.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 08:46 AM
In other words, Holley's lack of formal education enslaved him to "old-time Pentecostal" conservatism.

I was rather curious to hear WH's response, but he never responds to me, lol. He may have me on ignore......

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 08:46 AM
In other words, Holley's lack of formal education enslaved him to "old-time Pentecostal" conservatism.

Well, with stammering lips he taught morning Bible studies at Camp Meeting. I loved him!!!

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:47 AM
Notice he called him a genius in some respects also ... Balance should not be replaced by hysterics.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:48 AM
I don't think that's what TimLan implied ... but rather what some's sensitivities inferred. If someone who did not know Timlan's view read this they would walk away w/ what he said explicitly .... that he feels that it was a lack of education that limited a great man.

I don't think we can make that assumption, because we DO know Tim - and his ideology. I wish Tim would log back on and clarify what he meant by the "lack of critical thinking" statement.

By the way, I agree with most of Tim's ideology. I just think his last statement was way harsh and elitist.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:50 AM
Notice he called him a genius in some respects also ... Balance should not be replaced by hysterics.

What in the world are you talking about?

Who is hysterical?

Why do you always do that, Dan?

It's so frustrating.

sheesh

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:50 AM
I don't think we can make that assumption because we DO know Tim, and his ideology. I wish Tim would log back on and clarify what he meant by the "lack of critical thinking" statement.

By the way, I agree with most of Tim's ideology. I just think his last statement was way harsh and elitist.

And quite frankly that's a matter of your perception ... I take people's words on face value ... not perceived or imagined agendas.

I'm sure Timlan would find many of the country preachers to be spiritual elitists themselves

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:50 AM
What in the world are you talking about?

Who is hysterical?

Why do you always do that, Dan?

It's so frustrating.

sheesh


Nor did I place the hysterics on you, AE.

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 08:52 AM
Nor did I place the hysterics on you, AE.

I'M NOT HYSTERICAL EITHER, DAN!!!!!!!!!!! :smack

:party

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 08:54 AM
In other words, Holley's lack of formal education enslaved him to "old-time Pentecostal" conservatism.

This is one of the things I though was a slap in the face of the late bro. Holley,

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:56 AM
This is one of the things I though was a slap in the face of the late bro. Holley,

Which of those two things do you disagree w/ WH ...

that he indeed had a lack of a formal education

or that he was entrenched in Old time conservatism?

... although those are AE's words you are opining to.

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 08:58 AM
Notice he called him a genius in some respects also ... Balance should not be replaced by hysterics.

Dan,

I hope you don't think I was being hysterical. I know a people who are book smart with a few college degrees and lack common sense. I'm curious as to what Timlan meant.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 08:58 AM
Nor did I place the hysterics on you, AE.

You have yet to learn that words DO matter, Dan. I love you, but it's true.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.


Look, again, at the statement above and realize that:

1. I am not a conservative.
2. I agree the AS was a horrible and divisive idea.
3. I never knew Elder Holley at all.

You really see no elitism or judgmentalism at all?

Tim is judging events of a generation ago against 2008 knowledge. Holley, in my opinion, was wrong but it is obvious he had the ability to critically think. Apparently, he - along with Westberg - pushed through the most meaningful legislation in the history of the United Pentecostal Church.

Long-term visionary? Check.

Critical thinker? Check.



Do I disagree with Holley's agenda and conclusions? Absolutely. But let's not engage in character assassinations postmortem.

rgcraig
03-19-2008, 08:58 AM
What in the world are you talking about?

Who is hysterical?

Why do you always do that, Dan?

It's so frustrating.

sheesh

Nor did I place the hysterics on you, AE.

You two are funny!

SDG
03-19-2008, 08:59 AM
Timlan's words:

"E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary."


AE's interpretation:


In other words, Holley's lack of formal education enslaved him to "old-time Pentecostal" conservatism.

rgcraig
03-19-2008, 09:00 AM
Timlan's words:




AE's interpretation:

Big difference in the two.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 09:00 AM
This is not a comprehensive biography ... just reminisces about aspects of this man's life I remember here this morning before I drink my coffee.


E. L. Holley

I think of him as the last of the "Great Populists" in the UPC. I mean that he rose from the ranks of the "little preachers", having pastored in such tiny places as Electra, Texas. He followed the pattern here of another longtime Texas District Superintendent, V. A. Guidroz.

The Texas District of the late sixties through the mid eighties was chock full of powerful preachers and personalities of all stripes and spectrums - not an easy district to lead. Holley's strength, as one pastor told me was: "he's for the little preacher." And the little preachers were his strength. The Texas District in its prime always had a bit of class warfare. The aristocratic preachers and churches - those in the big cities like Houston - were not really big Holley fans.

I remember O. R. Fauss preaching Louisiana Campmeeting around 1982. Governor Edwin Edwards spoke that night and Fauss said: "I wish the governor of Texas would come to MY campmeeting" - no doubt a direct shot at Holley, who as DS forbade politicians from speaking at Lufkin.

But those pastors of small churches in the piney woods and on the central plains kept Holley in office. One writer said of Richard Nixon's enduring prominence despite his faults and fobiles: "He was one of us."

The "little preachers" in the vast Texas District felt the same way about Holley.

I found Holley fascinating in the same sense I found Murray Burr fascinating; he was a poetic soul trapped in a country preacher's personna
and just what is wrong with being country?
and he was quite scholarly. Though he was not the literary master that Burr was, he had a poet's soul trapped in a close-minded "ole time preacher's" persona.insulting

I mean, how much more literary can you get by proposing to your wife thus: "Will you marry me, and live under my wings so happily?"

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

Holley at least came across as more literary and for that I give him credit.

Yes, Holley was a petty man,I guess this is a complment
like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw. Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.a put down

And of course, Holley and Westberg became the leaders of the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" with the 1992 resolution that, in my opinion, forever tore the heart and soul from the UPC and changed it for good and forever for the worst.

Holley was aiming at "liberals" like Kershaw just as Westberg had it in for Marrell Cornwell.

Kershaw and Cornwell, along with Richard Gazowsky, came through the bloodbath with their fellowship cards in their pockets. Yet the resolution cost the UPC many of its best and brightest. This will forever be part of Holley's legacy.

His leadership style was pretty much: "My way or the highway." In that sense, he only followed the pattern set by Weeks and Guidroz, other strong superintendents of Louisiana and Texas, the UPC's strongest districts.

But just as Earl Long was the last of the great populists in Louisiana politics, so Holley probably was in UPC politics. He made no pretense to being liberal and was not a master politician like T. F. Tenney. (As Tenney's close friend, George Glass Jr. said to me about him: "Tom Fred could talk to a radical conservative or an ultra-liberal and make that man think he believed just like him.")

That wasn't Holley's style. He alternated superintendencies with O. W. Williams - another of the "aristocrats."

Kevin Cox, present day Louisiana District Superintendent, could learn from Holley.

I was in a campmeeting service last year where Cox did not speak at all but let Anthony Mangun emcee.

Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.


I find these thing to be an insult to a great man of God.

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 09:01 AM
I'M NOT HYSTERICAL EITHER, DAN!!!!!!!!!!! :smack

:party

LOL, I second that! :thwak

Digging4Truth
03-19-2008, 09:01 AM
I made it to one EL Holley camp meeting morning teaching in my lifetime.

That was probably close to 30 years ago.

I remember one word. LOL

Lasciviousness.

He was reading and explained what Lasciviousness meant.

I don't even remember how he explained it (I was in my early teens) but I remember him reading that word.

It is funny how one moment in time will stick with you. :)

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:01 AM
You have yet to learn that words DO matter, Dan. I love you, but it's true.




Look, again, at the statement above and realize that:

1. I am not a conservative.
2. I agree the AS was a horrible and divisive idea.
3. I never knew Elder Holley at all.

You really see no elitism or judgmentalism at all?

Tim is judging events of a generation ago against 2008 knowledge. Holley, in my opinion, was wrong but it is obvious he had the ability to critically think. Apparently, he - along with Westberg - pushed through the most meaningful legislation in the history of the United Pentecostal Church.

Long-term visionary? Check.

Critical thinker? Check.



Do I disagree with Holley's agenda and conclusions absolutely. But let's not engage in character assassinations postmortem.

Biographers give their opinions throughout their works of non-fiction. It's done by them all ... including Oneness theologians like J.L. Halll ...

this includes assessments as to what they feel limited their subject's successes ...

to compare this to character assassination is AN EXTREME EXAGGERATION

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:02 AM
Timlan's words:




AE's interpretation:

Big difference in the two.
No, I don't think so.

Would the two of you please tell me (since Tim has left the building) what criteria Tim is using to conclude Holley lacked the ability to critically think?

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:04 AM
Big difference in the two.

Of course there is a big difference ... and not being able to differentiate is where this always gets messy. :bored

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:05 AM
Biographers give their opinions throughout their works of non-fiction. It's done by them all ... including Oneness theologians like J.L. Halll ...

this includes assessments as to what they feel limited their successes ...

to compare this to character assassination is AN EXTREME EXAGGERATION

So you are saying that the biases of the biographer should not come into play at all? Tim has concluded Holley lacked the ability to critically think. Does Tim, in this little sketch, tell us why he believes this?

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:07 AM
So you are saying that the biases of the biographer should not come into play at all? Tim has concluded Holley lacked the ability to critically think. Does Tim, in this little sketch, tell us why he believes this?

The need for clarification may be warranted ... but I will need put words in his mouth.

And of course an essential reading skill .... As a good reader you should be able to distinguish fact from opinion ...

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 09:07 AM
I was rather curious to hear WH's response, but he never responds to me, lol. He may have me on ignore......

No ignoring you

I teach my daughter, we home school with ABEKA curriculum. So while she is reading or whatever I play around on the computer. That means I here and gone and then back later.

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 09:07 AM
I made it to one EL Holley camp meeting morning teaching in my lifetime.

That was probably close to 30 years ago.

I remember one word. LOL

Lasciviousness.

He was reading and explained what Lasciviousness meant.

I don't even remember how he explained it (I was in my early teens) but I remember him reading that word.

It is funny how one moment in time will stick with you. :)
It's probably the one God wanted you to watch our for. :killinme

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:08 AM
Biographers give their opinions throughout their works of non-fiction. It's done by them all ... including Oneness theologians like J.L. Halll ...

this includes assessments as to what they feel limited their subject's successes ...

to compare this to character assassination is AN EXTREME EXAGGERATION

And, are you saying that the reams of documentation that Hall has compiled over the years lack bias? Should we, when reading such revisionist history, overlook the ideology and agenda of the biographer?

Where does truth lie?

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 09:08 AM
No ignoring you

I teach my daughter, we home school with ABEKA curriculum. So while she is reading or whatever I play around on the computer. That means I here and gone and then back later.

Good for you! ABEKA is a great company!!!

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:09 AM
And, are you saying that the reams of documentation that Hall has compiled over the years lack bias? Should we, when reading such revisionist history, overlook the ideology and agenda of the biographer?

Where does truth lie?

Absolutely ... but what's interesting about some in the Oneness crowd is that they are always on the attack but cry when attacked... the same reactions were prevalent from Norris and Bernard as they tried to pick apart the Fudge book ... but forget the revisionism their works are filled w/.

Just asking for balance.

Digging4Truth
03-19-2008, 09:09 AM
It's probably the one God wanted you to watch our for. :killinme

1) unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence

Oh my... well let's hope it worked. :)

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 09:12 AM
No ignoring you

I teach my daughter, we home school with ABEKA curriculum. So while she is reading or whatever I play around on the computer. That means I here and gone and then back later.

Oh ok, I was curious as to whether it was the remark about ELH's education, or the reference to personal vendettas that you found offensive.

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 09:12 AM
1) unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence

Oh my... well let's hope it worked. :)
Don't worry, if anyone hears about it they'll start a thread.

:ursofunny

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:13 AM
The need for clarification may be warranted ... but I will need put words in his mouth.

And of course an essential reading skill .... As a good reader you should be able to distinguish fact from opinion ...


Exactly!

And it is Tim's biased opinion that Holley lacked the ability to critically think.

It is his opinion that Holley lacked that ability because he lacked the influence of formal education.

Tim's experiences inform his ideology. He is no different than every other writer in that regard.

I simply disagree with Tim's conclusion. I disagree with his opinion.


Holley, apparently, was a leader of men. He pushed our movement in a more legalistic direction (if he was as involved with the AS as Tim believes). How can we possibly conclude that he wasn't a visionary or critical thinker?

That conlcusion, in my opinion, is illogical.

Especially when a huge body of posters on this very forum are no longer UPC due to the very policies Holley helped create?

He influences your life Dan. And mine.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:15 AM
Absolutely ... but what's interesting about some in the Oneness crowd is that they are always on the attack but cry when attacked... the same reactions were prevalent from Norris and Bernard as they tried to pick apart the Fudge book ... but forget the revisionism their works are filled w/.

Just asking for balance.

I totally agree.

I was only commenting on this particular blog.

Now, if you want to post about Hall and others I will be happy to tag-team.:friend

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:21 AM
And quite frankly that's a matter of your perception ... I take people's words on face value ... not perceived or imagined agendas.

I'm sure Timlan would find many of the country preachers to be spiritual elitists themselves
So....to clarify...you do not take everyone's words at face value?

I mean there is Hall...and Bernard...and others...

When you read their works you do realize there is a certain bias present?

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:28 AM
So....to clarify...you do not take everyone's words at face value?

I mean there is Hall...and Bernard...and others...

When you read their works you do realize there is a certain bias present?

When I speak about face value ...

I don't want to add to it ... like .... he could not think critically because he was enslaved to conservatism ....

(AE's intitial emotional reading between the lines ... not Timlan's words)

but I am heartened to see you've come to the light now that you now agree the cause and effect statement he made was ... little education >> inablility to think critically.

It is his opinion that Holley lacked that ability because he lacked the influence of formal education.



Just keeping you sharp, AE, and consistent.

BTW ... all opinions are biased *wink*

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 09:32 AM
but I am heartened to see you've come to the light now that you now agree the cause and effect statement he made was ... little education >> inablility to think critically.

I think AE came to your conclusion long ago but I don't think he agrees with it.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 09:34 AM
Thank God for men like E. L. Holley.

Ferd
03-19-2008, 09:36 AM
Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.



would this be the best thing for Louisiana or the best thing for KC?

Ferd
03-19-2008, 09:40 AM
Sorry I don't accept the papist view of Peter being the sole possessor of the keys of the kingdom.

The keys he received was based on a revelation of who Jesus Christ is ... not Acts 2:38.

Thats right Dan. Peter was wrong. the bible is wrong and I am the popes altar boy.

But Dan is more apostolic than all the rest.



I need Coonskinners Toro award. what a load of junk. I am not a papist but you are certainly a baptist.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:44 AM
When I speak about face value ...

I don't want to add to it ... like .... he could not think critically because he was enslaved to conservatism ....

(AE's intitial emotional reading between the lines ... not Timlan's words)

but I am heartened to see you've come to the light now that you now agree the cause and effect statement he made was ... little education >> inablility to think critically.

Just keeping you sharp, AE, and consistent.

BTW ... all opinions are biased *wink*

Danny, my little student, please listen carefully one more time.

I have no investment in either conservatism or Holley. I really don't give a flyin' fajita about the whole sordid history of the District in question.

What I do care about is truth. And when the resident gun-slinger comes around shootin', I would really like to make sure he's shootin' straight.

My intepretation of Tim's last paragraph is dead on.

Ideology is everything.

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:44 AM
Thats right Dan. Peter was wrong. the bible is wrong and I am the popes alster boy.

But Dan is more apostolic than all the rest.



I need Coonskinners Toro award. what a load of junk. I am not a papist but you are certainly a baptist.

Sorry if you thought this was directed at the W&S crowd Ferd ... although I can see how you made the connection ...

My take on those who take Peter as the sole possessor of the keys is based on papal doctrine as to his being the first pope .... and holder of the keys to salvation.

I think many W&S adherants would agree w/ me on this one ... not all them hold this view of Peter.

SDG
03-19-2008, 09:46 AM
What I do care about is truth. And when the resident gun-slinger comes around shootin', I would really like to make sure he's shootin' straight.

My intepretation of Tim's last paragrpah is dead on.
.

Glad to know someone is holding the fort w/ the Posse obviously on geriatric leave.

And if you believe YOUR INTERPRETATION IS DEAD ON ... then more power to you Senor Gunsmoke.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:47 AM
When I speak about face value ...

I don't want to add to it ... like .... he could not think critically because he was enslaved to conservatism ....

(AE's intitial emotional reading between the lines ... not Timlan's words)

but I am heartened to see you've come to the light now that you now agree the cause and effect statement he made was ... little education >> inablility to think critically.



Just keeping you sharp, AE, and consistent.

BTW ... all opinions are biased *wink*


little education >> inablility to think critically >> enslaved to conservatism.


That is really my opinion about the author's conclusion.

Nice try, though.:laffatu

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:49 AM
Glad to know someone is holding the fort w/ the Posse obviously on geriatric leave.

And if you believe YOUR INTERPRETATION IS DEAD ON ... then more power to you Senor Gunsmoke.


Wow, your missing that little swirly emblem above the n in Senor.

By the way, I kind-o-like that title.....Senor Gunsmoke.....catchy that.:gaga

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 09:57 AM
Yes, Holley was a petty man, like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw. Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.

I see this happen a lot. Men who want the higher positions of leadership so they can exact retribution on religious, political opponents.

It's the part of organized religion that makes me want to puke.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 10:00 AM
I see this happen a lot. Men who want the higher positions of leadership so they can exact retribution on religious, political opponents.

It's the part of organized religion that makes me want to puke.

In many ways, organized religion is just like the Mafia.

The leaders of the "families" get together, have conferences, eat together, pretend to have a united front, but behind the scenes, they look out for those who might "encroach" on their territory, and then they "rub them out".

There are written rules, and unwritten rules, and God help the ones who violate either.

Now, notice I didn't say the UPC, I said organized religion.

Now, let the feeding frenzy begin, lol.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 10:05 AM
In many ways, organized religion is just like the Mafia.

The leaders of the "families" get together, have conferences, eat together, pretend to have a united front, but behind the scenes, they look out for those who might "encroach" on their territory, and then they "rub them out".

There are written rules, and unwritten rules, and God help the ones who violate either.

Now, notice I didn't say the UPC, I said organized religion.

Now, let the feeding frenzy begin, lol.

I watched Robert Martin (New ALJC Superintendent) preach a sermon titled "I Will Not Fight My Brother" on the www.aljc.org website a couple of days ago.

Seems they have the same problem and he was preaching at them straight and hard.

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 10:06 AM
In many ways, organized religion is just like the Mafia.

The leaders of the "families" get together, have conferences, eat together, pretend to have a united front, but behind the scenes, they look out for those who might "encroach" on their territory, and then they "rub them out".

There are written rules, and unwritten rules, and God help the ones who violate either.

Now, notice I didn't say the UPC, I said organized religion.

Now, let the feeding frenzy begin, lol.

I wish you had written that with your former avatar in place! :ursofunny

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 10:07 AM
I wish you had written that with your former avatar! :ursofunny

I'm in hiding at the moment. RICO and all that, you know........

Ferd
03-19-2008, 10:16 AM
Sorry if you thought this was directed at the W&S crowd Ferd ... although I can see how you made the connection ...

My take on those who take Peter as the sole possessor of the keys is based on papal doctrine as to his being the first pope .... and holder of the keys to salvation.

I think many W&S adherants would agree w/ me on this one ... not all them hold this view of Peter.

your view makes as much sense as a football bat and is no less offensive to me than it was 6 months ago when you started that line of idiocy.

I dont ask you to stop. that would be like asking an oak tree to explain the theory of relitivitiy.

just expect me to reply in kind when i see it.

Jehoram
03-19-2008, 10:19 AM
your view makes as much sense as a football bat and is no less offensive to me than it was 6 months ago when you started that line of idiocy.

I dont ask you to stop. that would be like asking an oak tree to explain the theory of relitivitiy.

just expect me to reply in kind when i see it.

Ferdalicious.

You okay buddy?

Ferd
03-19-2008, 10:40 AM
Ferdalicious.

You okay buddy?

right up till i see that word papist.

then I get mad. the kind of made Jesus had when he sat down and built a bull whip.

that kind of mad.

after first seeing it, I went away. I didnt want to say something that I didnt mean, or say something that didnt clearly express my view.

express anger? absolutly. be direct and forceful? without question. but i want to be clear and not just mad.

Dan is a nice guy. I have friends that think the world of him. He cant be all that bad. But I also believe Dan is on a mission put people who believe as I do in a closet labled Heritic.

I will not stand for it, and I will challenge it with a very clear and even pointed voice.

Nice to see you AE.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 10:43 AM
right up till i see that word papist.

then I get mad. the kind of made Jesus had when he sat down and built a bull whip.

that kind of mad.

after first seeing it, I went away. I didnt want to say something that I didnt mean, or say something that didnt clearly express my view.

express anger? absolutly. be direct and forceful? without question. but i want to be clear and not just mad.

Dan is a nice guy. I have friends that think the world of him. He cant be all that bad. But I also believe Dan is on a mission put people who believe as I do in a closet labled Heritic.

I will not stand for it, and I will challenge it with a very clear and even pointed voice.

Nice to see you AE.

When did Jesus sit down and build a bull whip????????? I never heard that story in Sunday School............

SDG
03-19-2008, 11:22 AM
Here is more praise from TimLan for Holley ... although Dees gets a lashing ... as do the masses of pentecostals.

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

SDG
03-19-2008, 11:32 AM
right up till i see that word papist.

then I get mad. the kind of made Jesus had when he sat down and built a bull whip.

that kind of mad.

after first seeing it, I went away. I didnt want to say something that I didnt mean, or say something that didnt clearly express my view.

express anger? absolutly. be direct and forceful? without question. but i want to be clear and not just mad.

Dan is a nice guy. I have friends that think the world of him. He cant be all that bad. But I also believe Dan is on a mission put people who believe as I do in a closet labled Heritic.

I will not stand for it, and I will challenge it with a very clear and even pointed voice.

Nice to see you AE.

Hoping that was cathartic, Ferdmeister. Apparently, it's a sore spot that you might need to work out.

Kudos on your fire.

Although .... it was not directed at your soteriological position unless you believe in the supremacy of the pope ... or Peter being the key holder of the Apostolic church.

Is this your position?

RevDWW
03-19-2008, 11:40 AM
Sorry I don't accept the papist view of Peter being the sole possessor of the keys of the kingdom.

The keys he received was based on a revelation of who Jesus Christ is ... not Acts 2:38.

Acts 2:38 would have been pointless and powerless, even non-existant without Peter's revelation of the Deity of Jesus Christ. In fact Acts2:38's power is the revelation that Jesus was who He said He was and that He rose from the dead and sent back the Power He promised. Know that htere was no other aven of salvation then through the Name of Jesus (Act 2 & 4)

No Jesus, No infilling, no power.

SDG
03-19-2008, 11:48 AM
Acts 2:38 would have been pointless and powerless, even non-existant without Peter's revelation of the Deity of Jesus Christ. In fact Acts2:38's power is the revelation that Jesus was who He said He was and that He rose from the dead and sent back the Power He promised. Know that htere was no other aven of salvation then through the Name of Jesus (Act 2 & 4)

No Jesus, No infilling, no power.

I agree that Peter's revelation of the Deity of Jesus Christ is exactly why Jesus gave him "the keys" to the Kingdom. It is this revelation that Jesus is our salvation ... that he is the anointed Lamb of God that saves us ...

I grow weary of how Acts 4 is misquoted by the W&S crowd ... the salvation we have in not THRU the verbalization by a third party of the name Jesus over a believer ... but who He is ... the name represents EVERYTHING HE IS ... his personhood ... and his power and authority to save us through his sacrifice and resurrection

it reads from the Greek as the NASB translates it:


12"And there is salvation in (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204;&version=49;#cen-NASB-27035R))no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Luke's first and only premise is that salvation is in Jesus ... not a properly administered baptism.

This interpretation harmonizes w/

Matthew 1:21:

21"She will bear a Son; and (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-23166A))you shall call His name Jesus, for He (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-23166B))will save His people from their sins."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Peter's sermon in Acts 10:

43"Of Him (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-27303A))all the prophets bear witness that through (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-27303B))His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

---------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 2:5

5For there is (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-29722A))one God, and (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-29722B))one mediator also between God and men, the (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-29722C))man Christ Jesus,

Peter is not the only one who already had this revelation of who Jesus is and he solely being our salvation, btw, on the day of Pentecost ...

Ron
03-19-2008, 11:56 AM
I didn't know him personally, but I remember hearing a 1985 GC message by him.
It was a "GEM"!

A great man? For sure!:thumbsup

RevDWW
03-19-2008, 12:04 PM
I agree that Peter's revelation of the Deity of Jesus Christ is exactly why Jesus gave him "the keys". It is this revelation that Jesus is our salvation ... that he is the anointed Lamb of God that saves us ...

I grow weary of how Acts 4 is misquoted by the W&S crowd ... the salvation we have in not THRU the verbalization by a third party of the name Jesus ... but who He is ... the name represents EVERYTHING HE IS ... his personhood

it reads from the Greek as the NASB translates it:


12"And there is salvation in (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204;&version=49;#cen-NASB-27035R))no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

Luke's first and only premise is that salvation is in Jesus ... not a properly administered baptism.

Peter is not the only one who had this revelation ...

Folks might want to look at water baptism in light of a fulfilling of a covenant, like circumcision. You could have been born in Israel to Israelite parents and not be part of the Abraham's covenant without being circumcised. You can be born of the Spirit but not have all the promises of Jesus covenant without the act of water baptism in which God circumcises the heart.

Balaam's story is a cautionary tale of having a relationship with God, having the miraculous and speaking a revelation of the Coming Messiah but not entering into the Covenant.

mizpeh
03-19-2008, 12:09 PM
Peters sermon in Acts 10:

43"Of Him (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-27303A))all the prophets bear witness that through (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt 1:21; Acts 10:43; 1 Tim 2:5&version=49#cen-NASB-27303B))His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."


Dan, It is through his name believers receive forgiveness of sins. Without the name there is no remission. Acts 2:38 indicates the name of the Lord and forgiveness are both found at water baptism. :bored

SDG
03-19-2008, 12:18 PM
Dan, It is through his name believers receive forgiveness of sins. Without the name there is no remission. Acts 2:38 indicates the name of the Lord and forgiveness are both found at water baptism. :bored

Yes through Jesus Christ .... not the thousands of other Yeshuas of the time .... The OP PAJC crowd has confused the biblical principle of calling on name of the Lord with the verbalization/incantation of a proper name ...

None of these verses ... nor will you find one .... explicitly tell us that a baptism must be properly verbalized .....

One would think that if salvation hung on your baptismal formula ... the Apostles would have painstakenly made efforts to delineate at this carefully and w/ more clarity ... but as always a decoder ring must be used to reach your soteriological conclusions ....

Peter and Luke said salvation and forgiveness is in Him and those who believe in Him ... can't be any more clear.

Heaven will reveal this .....

Ferd
03-19-2008, 12:28 PM
Hoping that was cathartic, Ferdmeister. Apparently, it's a sore spot that you might need to work out.

Kudos on your fire.

Although .... it was not directed at your soteriological position unless you believe in the supremacy of the pope ... or Peter being the key holder of the Apostolic church.

Is this your position?

Daniel it is well within the doctrinal position of tradidtional OPs that Peter in deed did, recieve the Keys from Christ (because it is in the bible), then used them on the day of pentecost.


No it was not cathartic. I honestly dont care if what you think beyond the fact that you do this in an attempt to belittle a very large part of the Apostolic faith.

it sickens me when you do it. it is out of line, and beyond the pale and you do it to cause contention. what ever good you may do Daniel, what every love you have for Christ, does not undo the contention you purposely cause, nor the clear attempt to sway others to believe in your exclusive and ************ing gospel.

Falla39
03-19-2008, 12:38 PM
Found some good scripture reading this morning and thought it would be good to
share with some of the great people on AFF. Not in anyway to be offensive regarding
this thread. Sometimes it is just good to read our Bibles. It will build up those who
need encouraging and will let a little air out of those who could get a bit puffed up!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instuction in righteousness; That the man of God might be perfect
(complete), throughly furnished unto all good works. (2Tim.3:16,17)


1 Corinthians 1: 18-31

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.


20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Also:

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth…" (1 Cor. 2:11-12).

"For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say" (Luke 12:12, See also 1 Cor. 2:10, 13; John 14:26).

And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. — Isaiah 54:13

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
John 6:45

Blessings,

Falla39

SDG
03-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Daniel it is well within the doctrinal position of tradidtional OPs that Peter in deed did, recieve the Keys from Christ (because it is in the bible), then used them on the day of pentecost.
.


Ferd,

you're entitled to fervently hold your position .. and once again I applaud your conviction ....

However ... having grown up in the 3 step position ... I don't ever recall the Peter holding the keys doctrine as explained by some here on this forum. This was never taught in Dad's church. I don't think all W&S folks hold this view ... maybe Southern thing?

I've heard it to the extreme where the apostles could remit sin and that the preaching of the Gospel hung on Peter exercising the keys to the Jews first ... then Samaria (although it seems he had help there) ... and then the Gentiles ....
spoken w/ passion here on AFF as if it's salvational doctrine.

I spoke to an Elder (raised in the West Coast) today who has 50 years in this and he doesn't recall hearing this teaching either in his years of vast experience ....

The keys he received are and will always be linked to the revelation of the deity of Christ ... as it reads in the Gospels. Anything else is a stretch ... and smacks closely to the Catholic view of Peter's papal supremacy ...

that's my position and this oak tree will remain w/ it.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 02:32 PM
It seems funny to me that one had better not dare say anything negative about a Charismatic leader or even Billy Graham, but they will trash a good godly man like E. L . Holley.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 02:34 PM
It seems funny to me that one had better not dare say anything negative about a Charismatic leader or even Billy Graham, but they will trash a good godly man like E. L . Holley.

Are you kidding? Have you seen the way the UC's talk about Joel Osteen and TD Jakes????????

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 02:36 PM
Daniel it is well within the doctrinal position of tradidtional OPs that Peter in deed did, recieve the Keys from Christ (because it is in the bible), then used them on the day of pentecost.

AMEN
No it was not cathartic. I honestly dont care if what you think beyond the fact that you do this in an attempt to belittle a very large part of the Apostolic faith.

it sickens me when you do it. it is out of line, and beyond the pale and you do it to cause contention. what ever good you may do Daniel, what every love you have for Christ, does not undo the contention you purposely cause, nor the clear attempt to sway others to believe in your exclusive and ************ing gospel.

:highfive

Ferd
03-19-2008, 02:38 PM
Are you kidding? Have you seen the way the UC's talk about Joel Osteen and TD Jakes????????

well I am a moderate and I speak pretty negativly about Joel Osteen.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 02:39 PM
well I am a moderate and I speak pretty negativly about Joel Osteen.

I won't rehash that conversation. I'm too tired today.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 02:40 PM
Are you kidding? Have you seen the way the UC's talk about Joel Osteen and TD Jakes????????

This forum says its an Apostolic one. Jakes and Osteen are not. Elder Holley was Apostolic to the bone. Jaked and Osteen are false teachers and preachers who are leading thousand to hell.

Ferd
03-19-2008, 02:41 PM
Ferd,

you're entitled to fervently hold your position .. and once again I applaud your conviction ....

However ... having grown up in the 3 step position ... I don't ever recall the Peter holding the keys doctrine as explained by some here on this forum. This was never taught in Dad's church. I don't think all W&S folks hold this view ... maybe Southern thing?

I've heard it to the extreme where the apostles could remit sin and that the preaching of the Gospel hung on Peter exercising the keys to the Jews first ... then Samaria (although it seems he had help there) ... and then the Gentiles ....
spoken w/ passion here on AFF as if it's salvational doctrine.

I spoke to an Elder (raised in the West Coast) today who has 50 years in this and he doesn't recall hearing this teaching either in his years of vast experience ....

The keys he received are and will always be linked to the revelation of the deity of Christ ... as it reads in the Gospels. Anything else is a stretch ... and smacks closely to the Catholic view of Peter's papal supremacy ...

that's my position and this oak tree will remain w/ it.

good for you dan. we all get your view and what you know and how much more apostolic you are than us.

we get what you want everyone to know. I for one am simply not having any part of your catholic rant.

it is pethetic. i am sorry for you.

Ferd
03-19-2008, 02:42 PM
I won't rehash that conversation. I'm too tired today.

sorry. on another note, I thought it was pretty cool when I saw TD Jakes baptize several Dallas Cowboys in Jesus' name on the local ABC news about a decade ago.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 02:44 PM
This forum says its an Apostolic one. Jakes and Osteen are not. Elder Holley was Apostolic to the bone. Jaked and Osteen are false teachers and preachers who are leading thousand to hell.

I gotcha, that's a valid point. However, I don't really think Tim "trashed" Bro. Holley, he had some very good things to say about him.

Sometimes mentioning certain characteristics of a human may be construed as insulting, but in fact, it's just a realilty.

As far as the issue of EL's education hindering his forward thinking, I can't speak to that, I did not know the man.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 02:52 PM
This is not a comprehensive biography ... just reminisces about aspects of this man's life I remember here this morning before I drink my coffee.


E. L. Holley

I think of him as the last of the "Great Populists" in the UPC. I mean that he rose from the ranks of the "little preachers", having pastored in such tiny places as Electra, Texas. He followed the pattern here of another longtime Texas District Superintendent, V. A. Guidroz.

The Texas District of the late sixties through the mid eighties was chock full of powerful preachers and personalities of all stripes and spectrums - not an easy district to lead. Holley's strength, as one pastor told me was: "he's for the little preacher." And the little preachers were his strength. The Texas District in its prime always had a bit of class warfare. The aristocratic preachers and churches - those in the big cities like Houston - were not really big Holley fans.

I remember O. R. Fauss preaching Louisiana Campmeeting around 1982. Governor Edwin Edwards spoke that night and Fauss said: "I wish the governor of Texas would come to MY campmeeting" - no doubt a direct shot at Holley, who as DS forbade politicians from speaking at Lufkin.

But those pastors of small churches in the piney woods and on the central plains kept Holley in office. One writer said of Richard Nixon's enduring prominence despite his faults and fobiles: "He was one of us."

The "little preachers" in the vast Texas District felt the same way about Holley.

I found Holley fascinating in the same sense I found Murray Burr fascinating; he was a poetic soul trapped in a country preacher's personna and he was quite scholarly. Though he was not the literary master that Burr was, he had a poet's soul trapped in a close-minded "ole time preacher's" persona.

I mean, how much more literary can you get by proposing to your wife thus: "Will you marry me, and live under my wings so happily?"

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

Holley at least came across as more literary and for that I give him credit.

Yes, Holley was a petty man, like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw.
Totally untrue
Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.

And of course, Holley and Westberg became the leaders of the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" with the 1992 resolution that, in my opinion, forever tore the heart and soul from the UPC and changed it for good and forever for the worst.

Holley was aiming at "liberals" like Kershaw just as Westberg had it in for Marrell Cornwell.

Kershaw and Cornwell, along with Richard Gazowsky, came through the bloodbath with their fellowship cards in their pockets. Yet the resolution cost the UPC many of its best and brightest. This will forever be part of Holley's legacy.

His leadership style was pretty much: "My way or the highway." In that sense, he only followed the pattern set by Weeks and Guidroz, other strong superintendents of Louisiana and Texas, the UPC's strongest districts.

But just as Earl Long was the last of the great populists in Louisiana politics, so Holley probably was in UPC politics. He made no pretense to being liberal and was not a master politician like T. F. Tenney. (As Tenney's close friend, George Glass Jr. said to me about him: "Tom Fred could talk to a radical conservative or an ultra-liberal and make that man think he believed just like him.")

That wasn't Holley's style. He alternated superintendencies with O. W. Williams - another of the "aristocrats."

Kevin Cox, present day Louisiana District Superintendent, could learn from Holley.

I was in a campmeeting service last year where Cox did not speak at all but let Anthony Mangun emcee.

Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.

This saying that the elder was trying to get someone is trying to tarnish his reputation.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 02:54 PM
This saying that the elder was trying to get someone is trying to tarnish his reputation.

On this point, I can't argue with Tim. I don't know EL Holley, but I do know of several preachers who make it their goal to "get" those who don't live by the club rules.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Pressing-On
03-19-2008, 02:57 PM
On this point, I can't argue with Tim. I don't know EL Holley, but I do know of several preachers who make it their goal to "get" those who don't live by the club rules.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

As far as I remember, most if not all, the Texas churches were talking about Kershaw going Charismatic. Anything else could have just been rumor regarding E.L. Holley, although what you said above does and has happened.

Whole Hearted
03-19-2008, 03:00 PM
On this point, I can't argue with Tim. I don't know EL Holley, but I do know of several preachers who make it their goal to "get" those who don't live by the club rules.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Has nothing to do with club rules but the Word of God and sound docrtine.

Ferd
03-19-2008, 03:05 PM
I knew a fellow was a texas presbytor before 1992. His view of brother Holley leaves me with an impression that Tims outline is not far off.

I honestly dont know if Brother Holley had it in for JK. I do know that their directions were diametrically opposed. Brother Holley was certainly a hard man on certain issues.

Michael Phelps
03-19-2008, 03:05 PM
Has nothing to do with club rules but the Word of God and sound docrtine.

I appreciate your idealism, WH, and in a perfect world, that's how it would happen. But, we don't live in a perfect world.

That which is born of flesh is flesh.....and I don't care how godly a person is, sometimes the flesh enters in. Doesn't make them an inherently bad person, but sometimes human thinking trumps godly ideals.

To point that out doesn't diminish a man's character, it just makes him transparent, which is what we all should be.

Didn't Paul say of himself, "The things I should do I don't, and the things I shouldn't do, I do"?

Didn't he confess to being weak in the flesh, even though his spirit was strong?

Let's not idolize people....

Sam
03-19-2008, 09:49 PM
Folks might want to look at water baptism in light of a fulfilling of a covenant, like circumcision. You could have been born in Israel to Israelite parents and not be part of the Abraham's covenant without being circumcised. You can be born of the Spirit but not have all the promises of Jesus covenant without the act of water baptism in which God circumcises the heart.

Balaam's story is a cautionary tale of having a relationship with God, having the miraculous and speaking a revelation of the Coming Messiah but not entering into the Covenant.

Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and did not practice circumcision. see Joshua 5:2-12

Sam
03-19-2008, 09:58 PM
This forum says its an Apostolic one. Jakes and Osteen are not. Elder Holley was Apostolic to the bone. Jaked and Osteen are false teachers and preachers who are leading thousand to hell.

I don't completely agree with this statement.

I have no idea what (if any) organization Joel Osteen belongs to. I don't know how he baptizes in water. His Dad was a Baptist and received the Holy Ghost Baptism. He started preaching on the Holy Ghost Baptism and on the gifts of the Spirit like healing and had to give up the pastorship of a Baptist Church.

T.D. Jakes was (and may still be) a member of an Apostolic organization. He believes in and teaches the Holy Ghost Baptism. Water baptism in the church he pastors is done in Jesus' name.

timlan2057
03-20-2008, 06:27 AM
E. L. Holley was a great, great man.

I found many of the things said here about him to be belittling and insulting.

Thank God for good men for the country, who know the truth and are not going to sell out.

Brother Holley early morning bible studies where the best. I have been going to camp meeting for over32 years and no one even compared to him. His wisdom and ability to teach were great.


Some one said he was a velvet covered brick.


If the UPC had more like him it wouldn't be in the mess it is.


I'm pleasantly surprised.

I figured with the sense of history most ole time pentecostal folks have, Holley wouldn't rate five posts and here this thread is approaching one hundred.

Of course, then my ego gets deflated to find most of that is sparring between DA and AE.

Ego, I like to post reminisces and I don't much care who agrees or disagrees. The feedback alone is fine with me.

Two pertinent points.

I'm NOT "looking at it from a 2008" perspective ... I'm looking at it from a "1982-1987 when I evangelized in east Texas and preached revivals in probably 80 percent of the churches in east Texas between Bon Wier and Tyler" ... perspective.

Ya think that might lend me a LITTLE credibility?

You said "I didn't know Holley."

Uh ... I DID.

So allow an old man to reminisce. It DOES seem that any unvarnished recollection makes "ole time pentecostals" , even those of the liberal stripe, like Alter Ego, uncomfortable.

It illustrates the sect's lack of maturity as a movement.

And if you want to spend 100 posts attempting to expostulate that I "worship" higher education, then go ahead.

And before you start screaming here, my rhetoric is no more overblown than yours.

Sigh.

No.

I DON'T believe a college education makes one a critical thinker, but a movement-wide LACK of it for 50 years sure makes critical thinking an almost unheard-of comodity.

Here is a short definition of the term:

A cognitive process based on reflective thought and a tolerance for ambiguity . . .



"Tolerance for ambiguity" ... does not mean muddleheaded thinking that doesn't recognize facts in front of its nose.

But a TRULY educated man finds more questions than answers.

This PSEUDO-intellectualism among "ole time pentecost" preachers and leaders just produces a bunch of robotic thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

Holley to me was a perfect example.

Let me reminisce one more time.

In 1977, back at least when television advertising made sense as a critical issue, Holley was the first one to speak at the business meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana - the conference where Urshan was elected GS, by the way.

And remember, Holley was a highly intelligent man.

His main argument against the use of TV?

He said "It's offensive."

In his mind ... "Holley spoke. People should just accept that."

So anyway, a little elaboration on how I feel.

Carry on.

Ferd
03-20-2008, 07:47 AM
Fine then Tim, I ask you a serious question and you just want to dress down AE and WH?


I am hurt.

SDG
03-20-2008, 07:56 AM
I DON'T believe a college education makes one a critical thinker, but a movement-wide LACK of it for 50 years sure makes critical thinking an almost unheard-of comodity.

Here is a short definition of the term:

A cognitive process based on reflective thought and a tolerance for ambiguity . . .



"Tolerance for ambiguity" ... does not mean muddleheaded thinking that doesn't recognize facts in front of its nose.

But a TRULY educated man finds more questions than answers.

This PSEUDO-intellectualism among "ole time pentecost" preachers and leaders just produces a bunch of robotic thinkers who think they have it all figured out.


Classic quote.

SDG
03-20-2008, 07:59 AM
Fine then Tim, I ask you a serious question and you just want to dress down AE and WH?


I am hurt.

Down to their Fruit of the Loom if you ask me.
Simply an icon. *grin*

Whole Hearted
03-20-2008, 08:15 AM
I have no desire to dialog with those who have left the turth.

Pressing-On
03-20-2008, 08:16 AM
Down to their Fruit of the Loom if you ask me.
Simply an icon. *grin*

:ursofunny:ursofunny:ursofunny

Tim is very good at undressing you with his words and then giving the good spank down!

SDG
03-20-2008, 08:16 AM
I have no desire to dialog with those who have left the turth.

When and how does one leave turth?

Pressing-On
03-20-2008, 08:18 AM
When and how does one leave turth?
I can't seem to turn my head when you post!!!

:ursofunny:ursofunny

freeatlast
03-20-2008, 08:26 AM
I have no desire to dialog with those who have left the turth.

Ya know , i always was suspect that you , WH, were in fact the same guy as Old Time Preacher that rebuked us all and swore he would never come back to this den of sin.

You even spell like OTP :laffatu

But then I just figured if a guy who claims such superior holiness just could not be a liar.

Please settle this controversy and tell me, a brother who has not left the truth. Did you ever post on this or another forum using the nick name Old Time Preacher ??


Thank you brother, for your honest reply.

SDG
03-20-2008, 08:41 AM
Ya know , i always was suspect that you , WH, were in fact the same guy as Old Time Preacher that rebuked us all and swore he would never come back to this den of sin.

You even spell like OTP :laffatu

But then I just figured if a guy who claims such superior holiness just could not be a liar.

Please settle this controversy and tell me, a brother who has not left the truth. Did you ever post on this or another forum using the nick name Old Time Preacher ??


Thank you brother, for your honest reply.

Just checked w/ Vegas ....

50 to 1 odds this WILL NOT BE ANSWERED ....

freeatlast
03-20-2008, 08:48 AM
Just checked w/ Vegas ....

50 to 1 odds this WILL NOT BE ANSWERED ....


:reaction


No Daniel...Wholehearted is a man of great character. I truely believe he will be forthcoming with an answer to the question I posed.

I do not believe he would take the same road that politicians (both democrats and republicans) take and just ignore or sidestep the question.

timlan2057
03-20-2008, 09:18 AM
Fine then Tim, I ask you a serious question and you just want to dress down AE and WH?


I am hurt.

Hey, you know how it is, Ferdinand.

I treat everyone from Beauregard Parish (except my mother) like stepchildren.

Bad memories there, ya know. :gaga

Okay, I looked up your question.

My answer: I would think what would be good for Kevin Cox would be what is good for Louisiana.

Jehoram
03-20-2008, 09:44 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised.

I figured with the sense of history most ole time pentecostal folks have, Holley wouldn't rate five posts and here this thread is approaching one hundred.

Of course, then my ego gets deflated to find most of that is sparring between DA and AE.

Ego, I like to post reminisces and I don't much care who agrees or disagrees. The feedback alone is fine with me.

Two pertinent points.

I'm NOT "looking at it from a 2008" perspective ... I'm looking at it from a "1982-1987 when I evangelized in east Texas and preached revivals in probably 80 percent of the churches in east Texas between Bon Wier and Tyler" ... perspective.

Ya think that might lend me a LITTLE credibility?

You said "I didn't know Holley."

Uh ... I DID.

So allow an old man to reminisce. It DOES seem that any unvarnished recollection makes "ole time pentecostals" , even those of the liberal stripe, like Alter Ego, uncomfortable.

It illustrates the sect's lack of maturity as a movement.

And if you want to spend 100 posts attempting to expostulate that I "worship" higher education, then go ahead.

And before you start screaming here, my rhetoric is no more overblown than yours.

Sigh.

No.

I DON'T believe a college education makes one a critical thinker, but a movement-wide LACK of it for 50 years sure makes critical thinking an almost unheard-of comodity.

Here is a short definition of the term:

A cognitive process based on reflective thought and a tolerance for ambiguity . . .



"Tolerance for ambiguity" ... does not mean muddleheaded thinking that doesn't recognize facts in front of its nose.

But a TRULY educated man finds more questions than answers.

This PSEUDO-intellectualism among "ole time pentecost" preachers and leaders just produces a bunch of robotic thinkers who think they have it all figured out.

Holley to me was a perfect example.

Let me reminisce one more time.

In 1977, back at least when television advertising made sense as a critical issue, Holley was the first one to speak at the business meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana - the conference where Urshan was elected GS, by the way.

And remember, Holley was a highly intelligent man.

His main argument against the use of TV?

He said "It's offensive."

In his mind ... "Holley spoke. People should just accept that."

So anyway, a little elaboration on how I feel.

Carry on.

Tim,

I enjoy pretty much anything you post.

I agree with your ideology most of the time.

But when you say a man, whom apparently many loved and respected, lacked vision - and the ability to think critically - it is in me to ask for specific examples.

Of course, you are under no obligation to cite such examples. But it sure would create a lot more conversation about a man you cared about.

Peace out Bro.

Jehoram
03-20-2008, 09:47 AM
So allow an old man to reminisce. It DOES seem that any unvarnished recollection makes "ole time pentecostals" , even those of the liberal stripe, like Alter Ego, uncomfortable.

Comical.

Ferd
03-20-2008, 09:48 AM
Hey, you know how it is, Ferdinand.

I treat everyone from Beauregard Parish (except my mother) like stepchildren.

Bad memories there, ya know. :gaga

Okay, I looked up your question.

My answer: I would think what would be good for Kevin Cox would be what is good for Louisiana.

LOL! thanks. I really was interested in your take on that.

The only problem I have with it, would be that if KC did as you suggest, he has to move to the right by a pretty good margine.

I dont think that would be the best thing for La.

Now if he were to do some things to streghten the small churches (picking the ones that can grow and are progressive)...well then... yea, that would be a stroke of genious.

Jehoram
03-20-2008, 09:49 AM
Down to their Fruit of the Loom if you ask me.
Simply an icon. *grin*

More commentary from Sideshow Bob.

Sad to always be in the shadow of Bart isn't it?

timlan2057
03-20-2008, 10:06 AM
Tim,

I enjoy pretty much anything you post.

I agree with your ideology most of the time.

But when you say a man, whom apparently many loved and respected, lacked vision - and the ability to think critically - it is in me to ask for specific examples.

Of course, you are under no obligation to cite such examples. But it sure would create a lot more conversation about a man you cared about.

Peace out Bro.

In 1977, back at least when television advertising made sense as a critical issue, Holley was the first one to speak at the business meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana - the conference where Urshan was elected GS, by the way.

And remember, Holley was a highly intelligent man.

His main argument against the use of TV?

He said "It's offensive."

In his mind ... "Holley spoke. People should just accept that."

So anyway, a little elaboration on how I feel.

Carry on.

Uh ... the above ain't a specific example?

And no ... this wasn't secondhand information.

I was there and heard it.

CC1 was too.

He doesn't have as good a memory as me though.

timlan2057
03-20-2008, 10:08 AM
Comical.

I may be "biased" according to you, but hey, I can do better than lame one-word answers that anyone with half-a-lick of sense can see just amount to whistling Dixie in the graveyard at midnight.

Jehoram
03-20-2008, 10:10 AM
Uh ... the above ain't a specific example?

And no ... this wasn't secondhand information.

I was there and heard it.

CC1 was too.

He doesn't have as good a memory as me though.

Of course it is. Thank you for expanding on your original post.

Jehoram
03-20-2008, 10:11 AM
I may be "biased" according to you, but hey, I can do better than lame one-word answers that anyone with half-a-lick of sense can see just amount to whistling Dixie in the graveyard at midnight.


Bless you my son.

It is comical that you think I am anything resembling Old-Time Pennycost."

timlan2057
03-20-2008, 10:11 AM
LOL! thanks. I really was interested in your take on that.

The only problem I have with it, would be that if KC did as you suggest, he has to move to the right by a pretty good margine.

I dont think that would be the best thing for La.

Now if he were to do some things to streghten the small churches (picking the ones that can grow and are progressive)...well then... yea, that would be a stroke of genious.

T. F. Tenney did it and the district didn't become radical.

Of course as our friend George L. Junior said: "Tom Fred could speak to a radical or a liberal and make them think he believed just like they did."

Kevin probably doesn't have that same gift.

He COULD, however, emulate Holley and have the "little preachers" say: He's "one of us."

Most of the time, Class Warfare takes precedence over ideology.

That's not QUITE as true among UPC churches and pastors, but still somewhat true.

timlan2057
03-21-2008, 05:06 AM
http://obispo.typepad.com/about.html

Oh. Here's an interesting blog by Greg Holley, E. L. Holley's son.

Coonskinner
03-21-2008, 06:07 AM
This is not a comprehensive biography ... just reminisces about aspects of this man's life I remember here this morning before I drink my coffee.


E. L. Holley

I think of him as the last of the "Great Populists" in the UPC. I mean that he rose from the ranks of the "little preachers", having pastored in such tiny places as Electra, Texas. He followed the pattern here of another longtime Texas District Superintendent, V. A. Guidroz.

The Texas District of the late sixties through the mid eighties was chock full of powerful preachers and personalities of all stripes and spectrums - not an easy district to lead. Holley's strength, as one pastor told me was: "he's for the little preacher." And the little preachers were his strength. The Texas District in its prime always had a bit of class warfare. The aristocratic preachers and churches - those in the big cities like Houston - were not really big Holley fans.

I remember O. R. Fauss preaching Louisiana Campmeeting around 1982. Governor Edwin Edwards spoke that night and Fauss said: "I wish the governor of Texas would come to MY campmeeting" - no doubt a direct shot at Holley, who as DS forbade politicians from speaking at Lufkin.

But those pastors of small churches in the piney woods and on the central plains kept Holley in office. One writer said of Richard Nixon's enduring prominence despite his faults and fobiles: "He was one of us."

The "little preachers" in the vast Texas District felt the same way about Holley.

I found Holley fascinating in the same sense I found Murray Burr fascinating; he was a poetic soul trapped in a country preacher's personna and he was quite scholarly. Though he was not the literary master that Burr was, he had a poet's soul trapped in a close-minded "ole time preacher's" persona.

I mean, how much more literary can you get by proposing to your wife thus: "Will you marry me, and live under my wings so happily?"

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

Holley at least came across as more literary and for that I give him credit.

Yes, Holley was a petty man, like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw. Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.

And of course, Holley and Westberg became the leaders of the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" with the 1992 resolution that, in my opinion, forever tore the heart and soul from the UPC and changed it for good and forever for the worst.

Holley was aiming at "liberals" like Kershaw just as Westberg had it in for Marrell Cornwell.

Kershaw and Cornwell, along with Richard Gazowsky, came through the bloodbath with their fellowship cards in their pockets. Yet the resolution cost the UPC many of its best and brightest. This will forever be part of Holley's legacy.

His leadership style was pretty much: "My way or the highway." In that sense, he only followed the pattern set by Weeks and Guidroz, other strong superintendents of Louisiana and Texas, the UPC's strongest districts.

But just as Earl Long was the last of the great populists in Louisiana politics, so Holley probably was in UPC politics. He made no pretense to being liberal and was not a master politician like T. F. Tenney. (As Tenney's close friend, George Glass Jr. said to me about him: "Tom Fred could talk to a radical conservative or an ultra-liberal and make that man think he believed just like him.")

That wasn't Holley's style. He alternated superintendencies with O. W. Williams - another of the "aristocrats."

Kevin Cox, present day Louisiana District Superintendent, could learn from Holley.

I was in a campmeeting service last year where Cox did not speak at all but let Anthony Mangun emcee.

Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.

This thread caught my attention, since E.L. Holley was a friend of my pastor's, and one of my all time favorite Bible teachers.

I disagree with Tim's assertion that Elder Holley wasn't a visionary; I believe he was. It was just a different vision than some see.

One thing I did want to point out...

Tim, you lumped Marrell Cornwell in with Brothers Kershaw and Gazowski, and he doesn't belong in that crew.

Brother Cornwell and Brother Westburg's conflict was not about doctrine or holiness, regardless of how some tried to spin it that way. Brother Cornwell is a conservative man, really, and is dead solid on the New Birth. His church is NOT liberal by any stretch.

Their conflict was one of personality rather than ideology.

I think your assessment of his "populist appeal" as the champion of the "little preacher" is dead on.

Your stuff is always interesting, even when I don't always like some of it. :)

mizpeh
03-21-2008, 07:48 AM
In 1977, back at least when television advertising made sense as a critical issue, Holley was the first one to speak at the business meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana - the conference where Urshan was elected GS, by the way.

And remember, Holley was a highly intelligent man.

His main argument against the use of TV?

He said "It's offensive."

In his mind ... "Holley spoke. People should just accept that."

So anyway, a little elaboration on how I feel.

Carry on. Timlan, Did Holley sway anyone with his argument "it's offensive"? Was there any give and take in discussion? Did Holley go on to explain his position further? And was he challenged?

Maybe I've been on these discussion boards too long where every opinion is challenged. It seems so strange that one man could say two words and expect there to be agreement. That's an quite a mindset!

freeatlast
03-21-2008, 08:05 AM
:reaction


No Daniel...Wholehearted is a man of great character. I truely believe he will be forthcoming with an answer to the question I posed.

I do not believe he would take the same road that politicians (both democrats and republicans) take and just ignore or sidestep the question.

BUMP......for WhoeHearted

freeatlast
03-21-2008, 08:23 AM
Ya know , i always was suspect that you , WH, were in fact the same guy as Old Time Preacher that rebuked us all and swore he would never come back to this den of sin.

You even spell like OTP :laffatu

But then I just figured if a guy who claims such superior holiness just could not be a liar.

Please settle this controversy and tell me, a brother who has not left the truth. Did you ever post on this or another forum using the nick name Old Time Preacher ??


Thank you brother, for your honest reply.


I thought an HONEST reply should be easy.

What is it that makes answering so difficult WholeHearted???


I'm sure you've preached on honesty and integrity many times.

Honesty is always the best policy....even liberals know that WH.

....and I know you were just on this thread :kickcan

mizpeh
03-21-2008, 08:39 AM
http://obispo.typepad.com/about.html

Oh. Here's an interesting blog by Greg Holley, E. L. Holley's son.

Thanks for the link, Timlan. I found this example of E. L. Holley's critical thinking skills. It makes me wonder how someone can have the clarity and astuteness of mind to write something like this and give an argument like "it's offensive" as a reason to be against television? I'm thinking that maybe politics and personal preference throws reason out the window. Maybe a desire to hold onto tradition. I don't know. But surely he could have come up with something more convincing than " it's offensive" if he was able to write the comments he did below.


Clear Thinking by E.L. Holley

In no small way, your eternal destiny depends upon it! Therefore, we understand why Jesus demanded logical, clear thinking on the part of His hearers (Matthew 18:12). As it was then, so it is now. We cannot afford, in this crucial hour, to allow Satan to muddy the waters of clear thinking. If we do, he will drag our thoughts into a quagmire of fallacious reasoning from which escape is virtually impossible.

Consider a couple of the more dangerous fallacies of our day.

One can become as foolish as the rooster who observed that after he crowed each morning the sun comes up. Therefore, he reasoned, his crowing caused the sun to rise! Needless to say, this "bright" conclusion gave the little rooster quite a feeling of importance, but it was all out of touch with reality.

God has seen fit to bless the efforts of some who immediately assumed it was their "crowing" that brought about the move of God. Then, they "crowed" all the more until they were exposed for the self styled "cocks of the walk" they really were. All of this could have been avoided had they kept thinks in their proper perspective. But, alas, such is the tendency of the carnal minded: self-aggrandizement lures them to their fall.

Since nothing seems to deter such people in their craving for glory, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of us to recognize the fallacy of their exorbitant claims. When someone points out that he went to this or that place and had " a great revival" when for years and years the place had been dead as a dry corn shuck, ask yourself what he is trying to prove. When men say, " I laid my hands on them and I prayed the prayer of faith., then...etc.,etc.," again ask yourself if perhaps the rooster hasn't decided his crowing caused the sun to rise.

We will do well to remember what Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, wrote on this point. He said, "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." And , it follows that he will also deceive all who are captivated by his egotistical brags. We had better keep our eyes on Jesus. He will never fail!

The second fallacy is illustrated in the story told of a man who decided to drive to the North Pole. Being a 'thoughtful' person, he decided to conduct a study to determine whether there would be adequate fuel along the way. So, he drove several miles north on the Montreal Highway in Vermont and counted service stations. From his figures he concludes that since there is an average of three stations per mile, he would have no worries about fuel! There would be plenty of gas to drive all the way to the North Pole!

He chartered two or three points, drew a curve through them and extended it indefinitely. His "facts" were limited and selected! Therefore, his prognostications about the unknown future simply reflected what he wanted them to reflect! Foolish, isn't it? But, consider a similarity in the spiritual realm.

One can select his evidence, limit it with his own guidelines, draw a curve and extend that line of thought in his pre-chosen direction to infinity. Of course, that line leads one to his own destruction more often than not!

For example, the man who doesn't love God enough to tithe his income is prone to look around in search of fellow-slackers. If he is able to locate one or two in a congregation, he pinpoints them as evidence. Then, from his limited 'facts' he draws a line which he labels "trend." The conclusion is that soon no one will be tithing, then, it would be foolish to tithe when "nobody" else does it.

Or, there is a fellow who visits a couple of churches in a certain area and observes what appears to him as "a trend toward worldliness." Then, he sets them forth as proof, draws his curve and extends it into all the regions of hell. The grand conclusion is that all churches in that area are worldly and soon all churches everywhere will be in that "deplorable condition."

Time and space won't permit further development of these fallacies and their devilish results. But, thinking people will ask for all the factors involved in the prognostications of those who specialize in observing and analyzing trends in the church.

http://obispo.typepad.com/my_weblog/el_holley/index.html

Michael Phelps
03-21-2008, 12:04 PM
http://obispo.typepad.com/about.html

Oh. Here's an interesting blog by Greg Holley, E. L. Holley's son.

I had an interesting "run in" with Greg several years ago while I was still in Bible College. It's colored my thinking of him ever since, even though I try to be objective.

jrLA
03-21-2008, 01:10 PM
This is not a comprehensive biography ... just reminisces about aspects of this man's life I remember here this morning before I drink my coffee.


E. L. Holley

I think of him as the last of the "Great Populists" in the UPC. I mean that he rose from the ranks of the "little preachers", having pastored in such tiny places as Electra, Texas. He followed the pattern here of another longtime Texas District Superintendent, V. A. Guidroz.

The Texas District of the late sixties through the mid eighties was chock full of powerful preachers and personalities of all stripes and spectrums - not an easy district to lead. Holley's strength, as one pastor told me was: "he's for the little preacher." And the little preachers were his strength. The Texas District in its prime always had a bit of class warfare. The aristocratic preachers and churches - those in the big cities like Houston - were not really big Holley fans.

I remember O. R. Fauss preaching Louisiana Campmeeting around 1982. Governor Edwin Edwards spoke that night and Fauss said: "I wish the governor of Texas would come to MY campmeeting" - no doubt a direct shot at Holley, who as DS forbade politicians from speaking at Lufkin.

But those pastors of small churches in the piney woods and on the central plains kept Holley in office. One writer said of Richard Nixon's enduring prominence despite his faults and fobiles: "He was one of us."

The "little preachers" in the vast Texas District felt the same way about Holley.

I found Holley fascinating in the same sense I found Murray Burr fascinating; he was a poetic soul trapped in a country preacher's personna and he was quite scholarly. Though he was not the literary master that Burr was, he had a poet's soul trapped in a close-minded "ole time preacher's" persona.

I mean, how much more literary can you get by proposing to your wife thus: "Will you marry me, and live under my wings so happily?"

Campmeeting Bible Teaching was an art in itself. It was not easy to hold attention for two hours in a morning session. Holley was a master at it and considered the best. I thought him far superior as a "Bible Teacher" to C. L. Dees, another considered a great one.

In my opinion, Dees was pretentious with his "big words" and full-blown rhetoric. It impressed the masses of pentecostals lacking formal higher education who considered him a genius. But really, a lot of Dees's teaching to me was just a man in love with the sound of his own voice.

Holley at least came across as more literary and for that I give him credit.

Yes, Holley was a petty man, like many UPC leaders of the time. He was a supporter of the Affirmation Resolution in 1992, primarily because he wanted to "get" John Kershaw. Class Warfare may have entered the picture as Kershaw was the epitome of the aristocratic, silver-spoon preacher that was anathema to Holley's turnip-greens, down-home, populist persona.

And of course, Holley and Westberg became the leaders of the "Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" with the 1992 resolution that, in my opinion, forever tore the heart and soul from the UPC and changed it for good and forever for the worst.

Holley was aiming at "liberals" like Kershaw just as Westberg had it in for Marrell Cornwell.

Kershaw and Cornwell, along with Richard Gazowsky, came through the bloodbath with their fellowship cards in their pockets. Yet the resolution cost the UPC many of its best and brightest. This will forever be part of Holley's legacy.

His leadership style was pretty much: "My way or the highway." In that sense, he only followed the pattern set by Weeks and Guidroz, other strong superintendents of Louisiana and Texas, the UPC's strongest districts.

But just as Earl Long was the last of the great populists in Louisiana politics, so Holley probably was in UPC politics. He made no pretense to being liberal and was not a master politician like T. F. Tenney. (As Tenney's close friend, George Glass Jr. said to me about him: "Tom Fred could talk to a radical conservative or an ultra-liberal and make that man think he believed just like him.")

That wasn't Holley's style. He alternated superintendencies with O. W. Williams - another of the "aristocrats."

Kevin Cox, present day Louisiana District Superintendent, could learn from Holley.

I was in a campmeeting service last year where Cox did not speak at all but let Anthony Mangun emcee.

Cox is already perceived as just a figurehead and a compromise candidate - hopelessly mired in the long and imposing shadow of T. F. Tenney.

Cox should rally the troops in the churches under 100 and use his likeable, "aw shucks" personality to be the champion of the "little preacher."

It worked for Holley.

E. L. Holley was another fascinating man like Murray Burr. A genius in some respects - a "self-made" man without a lot of formal higher education. But like many of his contemporaries, that lack of higher education left him bereft of an ability to think critically or be a long-term visionary.


I am not sure that I agree with your assessment that Bro. Cox is a figurehead. I believe he does offer solid leadership for our district. He is not a yes man. I have known Bro. Cox since his tenure in Bogalusa. He pastored the way he felt he should. Made some unpopular decisions at times, but stuck to them no matter who thought what. Yes, man...nahhh! Wrong assessment here!

As far as AM emceeing at Camp Meeting, he has done that since he has moved back to LA from TX. I have been involved with the platform at campmeeting at several different intervals throughout the years and I have seen the inner workings of service planning and such. That is a strong point of AM, he is a good organizer and has done that for LA Camp long before KC ever arrived there. Leading service has been his job for years.

COOPER
03-21-2008, 02:38 PM
when

freeatlast
03-21-2008, 02:49 PM
when

Care to elucidate on that ?

COOPER
03-21-2008, 02:50 PM
Care to elucidate on that ?

why

freeatlast
03-21-2008, 02:54 PM
why

cuz

freeatlast
03-21-2008, 02:54 PM
coop ..you are really being "oneness" today.

Pressing-On
03-21-2008, 05:53 PM
Thanks for the link, Timlan. I found this example of E. L. Holley's critical thinking skills. It makes me wonder how someone can have the clarity and astuteness of mind to write something like this and give an argument like "it's offensive" as a reason to be against television? I'm thinking that maybe politics and personal preference throws reason out the window. Maybe a desire to hold onto tradition. I don't know. But surely he could have come up with something more convincing than " it's offensive" if he was able to write the comments he did below.


Clear Thinking by E.L. Holley

In no small way, your eternal destiny depends upon it! Therefore, we understand why Jesus demanded logical, clear thinking on the part of His hearers (Matthew 18:12). As it was then, so it is now. We cannot afford, in this crucial hour, to allow Satan to muddy the waters of clear thinking. If we do, he will drag our thoughts into a quagmire of fallacious reasoning from which escape is virtually impossible.

Consider a couple of the more dangerous fallacies of our day.

One can become as foolish as the rooster who observed that after he crowed each morning the sun comes up. Therefore, he reasoned, his crowing caused the sun to rise! Needless to say, this "bright" conclusion gave the little rooster quite a feeling of importance, but it was all out of touch with reality.

God has seen fit to bless the efforts of some who immediately assumed it was their "crowing" that brought about the move of God. Then, they "crowed" all the more until they were exposed for the self styled "cocks of the walk" they really were. All of this could have been avoided had they kept thinks in their proper perspective. But, alas, such is the tendency of the carnal minded: self-aggrandizement lures them to their fall.

Since nothing seems to deter such people in their craving for glory, it becomes the responsibility of the rest of us to recognize the fallacy of their exorbitant claims. When someone points out that he went to this or that place and had " a great revival" when for years and years the place had been dead as a dry corn shuck, ask yourself what he is trying to prove. When men say, " I laid my hands on them and I prayed the prayer of faith., then...etc.,etc.," again ask yourself if perhaps the rooster hasn't decided his crowing caused the sun to rise.

We will do well to remember what Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, wrote on this point. He said, "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." And , it follows that he will also deceive all who are captivated by his egotistical brags. We had better keep our eyes on Jesus. He will never fail!

The second fallacy is illustrated in the story told of a man who decided to drive to the North Pole. Being a 'thoughtful' person, he decided to conduct a study to determine whether there would be adequate fuel along the way. So, he drove several miles north on the Montreal Highway in Vermont and counted service stations. From his figures he concludes that since there is an average of three stations per mile, he would have no worries about fuel! There would be plenty of gas to drive all the way to the North Pole!

He chartered two or three points, drew a curve through them and extended it indefinitely. His "facts" were limited and selected! Therefore, his prognostications about the unknown future simply reflected what he wanted them to reflect! Foolish, isn't it? But, consider a similarity in the spiritual realm.

One can select his evidence, limit it with his own guidelines, draw a curve and extend that line of thought in his pre-chosen direction to infinity. Of course, that line leads one to his own destruction more often than not!

For example, the man who doesn't love God enough to tithe his income is prone to look around in search of fellow-slackers. If he is able to locate one or two in a congregation, he pinpoints them as evidence. Then, from his limited 'facts' he draws a line which he labels "trend." The conclusion is that soon no one will be tithing, then, it would be foolish to tithe when "nobody" else does it.

Or, there is a fellow who visits a couple of churches in a certain area and observes what appears to him as "a trend toward worldliness." Then, he sets them forth as proof, draws his curve and extends it into all the regions of hell. The grand conclusion is that all churches in that area are worldly and soon all churches everywhere will be in that "deplorable condition."

Time and space won't permit further development of these fallacies and their devilish results. But, thinking people will ask for all the factors involved in the prognostications of those who specialize in observing and analyzing trends in the church.


http://obispo.typepad.com/my_weblog/el_holley/index.html
Thank you for posting this Mizpeh. This is E.L. Holley as I knew him!!!

We used to have satellite t.v. and ended up getting rid of it after our contract expired. Why? "It was offensive". What else do I need to say? Everyone that heard him already knew what he was talking about. He really didn't have to say much. You already, mostly, knew what he always meant. :D

It was just his way. I loved him!!!

mizpeh
03-21-2008, 06:31 PM
Thank you for posting this Mizpeh. This is E.L. Holley as I knew him!!!

We used to have satellite t.v. and ended up getting rid of it after our contract expired. Why? "It was offensive". What else do I need to say? Everyone that heard him already knew what he was talking about. He really didn't have to say much. You already, mostly, knew what he always meant. :D

It was just his way. I loved him!!!

There are more writings of his on that blog if your interested in reading them.

Obviously he can express his thoughts well and draw pictures and illustrations to get his point across. Why didn't he use his wits to give a convincing argument against TV or did he have that much respect and power that people didn't question his opinion? I'm not sure I like folks having that much sway based on reputation alone. (That's not saying I don't like him because I never knew him. )

Pressing-On
03-21-2008, 06:44 PM
There are more writings of his on that blog if your interested in reading them.

Obviously he can express his thoughts well and draw pictures and illustrations to get his point across. Why didn't he use his wits to give a convincing argument against TV or did he have that much respect and power that people didn't question his opinion? I'm not sure I like folks having that much sway based on reputation alone. (That's not saying I don't like him because I never knew him. )

Mizpeh,
I wasn't there to confirm that he actually and only said, "It's offensive" and now he is dead. I'll leave that alone, I think. ;)

RevDWW
03-24-2008, 10:53 AM
Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and did not practice circumcision. see Joshua 5:2-12

So Josh got the job done that had been left undone, before they entered the promis land?
Joshua 5:9 is interesting........

Sam
03-24-2008, 02:25 PM
So Josh got the job done that had been left undone, before they entered the promis land?
Joshua 5:9 is interesting........

Yes, they renewed their covenant with God at Gilgal.
They received their sign of separation.
But, they were God's people and YHWH had taken care of them all those years in the wilderness even though they had neglected to keep the covenant of circumcision. This time of wandering for 40 years in the wilderness and also the time when Israel was in Babylon for 70 years (ref Jeremiah 29:1-14) they were still the covenant people of God and in His care even though they were not meticulously observing each jot and tittle of the law. In my mind, I think of this as a picture of the "church" as she went through a period of decline and then a period of returning to the Lord and to His truths step by step, here a little and there a little. There may have been years when they were not fully following Him but they still believed in Him and were still serving Him but in a diminished capacity.