View Full Version : Urshan and Sabin Face the Music or Defend the Truth??: Video
fbYKBjprsiU
THE JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW COMPARES THE BELIEF OF ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY WITH THE BELIEF OF THE UNITED PENTECOSTAL INTERNATIONAL and ONENESS BELIEVERS....
See entire video here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751027547059973965&q=trinitarians&total=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)
Darcie
11-23-2007, 06:27 PM
:couch
Urshan looks pretty lost among these men .... and yes I know he attended Columbia.
Raven
11-23-2007, 09:58 PM
Thanks for posting this, Dan. I had never watched it in its entirety.
Raven
Thanks for posting this, Dan. I had never watched it in its entirety.
Raven
Your thoughts and analysis.
pelathais
11-23-2007, 11:10 PM
Urshan looks pretty lost among these men .... and yes I know he attended Columbia.
I think you've answered your own question there, Dan. Columbia. :wacko
I think you've answered your own question there, Dan. Columbia. :wacko
This whole episode is as tragic .... as your preaching *wink*
pelathais
11-23-2007, 11:16 PM
This whole episode is as tragic .... as your preaching *wink*
I remember watching a video of the program on an approved monitor soon after the airing. It was interesting at the time, but why was the GS involved in that kind of stuff? He's supposed to be above the fray. Bro. Sabin would have done better just on his own, IMO- and I'm not dissing NA- it's just that you need to pick your battles.
RS should have been teamed with some young Turk with a friendly smile.
I remember watching a video of the program on an approved monitor soon after the airing. It was interesting at the time, but why was the GS involved in that kind of stuff? He's supposed to be above the fray. Bro. Sabin would have done better just on his own, IMO- and I'm not dissing NA- it's just that you need to pick your battles.
RS should have been teamed with some young Turk with a friendly smile.
Any thoughts or analysis on it after so many years?
pelathais
11-23-2007, 11:34 PM
The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.
But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.
Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.
I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."
The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.
But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.
Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.
I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."
I must admit the whole "Am I you brother" spiel was at the least .... precarious ... at most EMBARRASSING -- squared.
I remember watching the video and thought who needed who there? Urshan or Sabin?
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 02:39 AM
I have seen the video and heard the debate at the time it was given. I must say that Bro Sabin did an excellent job of defending the truth as we/Oneness Apostolics say we believe it, but Bro. Urshan was lost amoung the more intellectual.
Bro. Urshan was more of an Apostolic politician than scholarly Biblical intellectual. Now his son Nathaniel Paul..I would consider him an intellectual Biblical scholar. He is a bit long-winded but appeals to the more intellectual types.
Mind you, I had good teaching growing up and even the youngest of us could defend the onesness of the Godhead quite well. For this reason I was a bit disappointed in the debate.
Blessings, Rhoni
P.S. This is only my opinion.
pelathais
11-24-2007, 03:08 AM
I have seen the video and heard the debate at the time it was given. I must say that Bro Sabin did an excellent job of defending the truth as we/Oneness Apostolics say we believe it, but Bro. Urshan was lost amoung the more intellectual.
Bro. Urshan was more of an Apostolic politician than scholarly Biblical intellectual. Now his son Nathaniel Paul..I would consider him an intellectual Biblical scholar. He is a bit long-winded but appeals to the more intellectual types.
Mind you, I had good teaching growing up and even the youngest of us could defend the onesness of the Godhead quite well. For this reason I was a bit disappointed in the debate.
Blessings, Rhoni
P.S. This is only my opinion.
You are correct. But also, what we all saw was the end result of the editing process. Ankerberg wasn't in the business to make, or to even allow "heretics" to look good.
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 04:30 AM
You are correct. But also, what we all saw was the end result of the editing process. Ankerberg wasn't in the business to make, or to even allow "heretics" to look good.
Pelathais,
You can blame some of it on 'editting' but not all of it. They didn't edit out many of the very knowledgeable statements of Bro. Sabin. Many of the Trinitarians I know of do not consider 'oneness' people "Heretics" and they are more apt to call us brothers than oneness folks are in the reverse.
Debates are good if done in the right spirit to bring a set of knowledge truths to the table to look at and make consessions when found to be in err. Many Trinitarians, like many of us desire to have and know more truths...it is a process. If we hunger and thirst after righteousness...we will find it.
It is when we close our minds to anything other than what we think or know that we become stagnant. The Bible declares that we all see through a glass darkly. All includes Apostolics as well as Trinitarians. We should be more united in searching truths than in declaring others wrong and going to hell.
Blessings, Rhoni
mizpeh
11-24-2007, 04:34 AM
P
It is when we close our minds to anything other than what we think or know that we become stagnant. The Bible declares that we all see through a glass darkly. All includes Apostolics as well as Trinitarians. We should be more united in searching truths than in declaring others wrong and going to hell.
Good point, Rhoni. :santathumb
I wonder how much this debate weighed on Sabin in reshaping his soteriological position? Would this debate have been different if a PCIer had debated alongside Sabin? Why didn't Urshan say that there were men in his org .... like Goss ... who thought the Baptists were saved?
Why didn't Urshan allow this? Or was being on TV more important?
Raven
11-24-2007, 07:46 AM
Dan
N A U was out of his element so doesn't fare well. No disrespect there, for KH, who is a close friend, wouldn't have done any better. I expected better out of Sabin and it was an off day for him but the results are symptomatic of our isolationism. We preach to the choir and get so many amens when we quote Acts 2:38 that we think our doctrinal approach is insurmountable ..... until we are asked some real questions!! I could think of several names [some on this forum] who would have finished those fellows off, mercilessly!!!
Raven
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 07:49 AM
Dan
N A U was out of his element so doesn't fare well. No disrespect there, for KH, who is a close friend, wouldn't have done any better. I expected better out of Sabin and it was an off day for him but the results are symptomatic of our isolationism. We preach to the choir and get so many amens when we quote Acts 2:38 that we think our doctrinal approach is insurmountable ..... until we are asked some real questions!! I could think of several names [some on this forum] who would have finished those fellows off, mercilessly!!!
Raven
Raven,
I agree with you...to the point of adding many women in the mix who could have done the same:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
Dan
N A U was out of his element so doesn't fare well. No disrespect there, for KH, who is a close friend, wouldn't have done any better. I expected better out of Sabin and it was an off day for him but the results are symptomatic of our isolationism. We preach to the choir and get so many amens when we quote Acts 2:38 that we think our doctrinal approach is insurmountable ..... until we are asked some real questions!! I could think of several names [some on this forum] who would have finished those fellows off, mercilessly!!!
Raven
Sometimes as OPs we think our one liners will stump the "other side" ...
I can think of two instances in which NA looked like a deer in headlights ...
Once when he says "Have you obeyed Acts 2:38?"
the other when he asked if they believed if "Jesus is Jehovha?"
To both questions he got a "YES". :spirit
Quite frankly, the Bible College ... Search for Truth pat answers don't prepare you for this type of debate.
Raven
11-24-2007, 08:07 AM
Raven,
I agree with you...to the point of adding many women in the mix who could have done the same:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
Absolutely Rhoni! Since my first-born was a girl I am somewhat biased, but we have some ladies on this Forum who don't have to take a back seat to any one! They can be formidable!!!
Raven
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 08:10 AM
Absolutely Rhoni! Since my first-born was a girl I am somewhat biased, but we have some ladies on this Forum who don't have to take a back seat to any one! They can be formidable!!!
Raven
Raven,
Heads up...be careful about agreeing with me...you might get hurt.:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
Raven,
Heads up...be careful about agreeing with me...you might get hurt.:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
Great pic as your avatar, Sister Rhoni.
Raven
11-24-2007, 08:19 AM
Raven,
Heads up...be careful about agreeing with me...you might get hurt.:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
Rhoni
I'm so scarred now that another one wouldn't hurt. I am friends with everyone! Even those whose sword has my blood on it. I refuse to be bitter.
Once you're my friend ... you're always my friend ... no matter what!!!
Raven
crakjak
11-24-2007, 09:22 AM
The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.
But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.
Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.
I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."
Seems to me, that it would have been an ideal time, during the focus on Matt. 28.19 and the law of grammar to have gone the Acts and pointed out that the apostles must have not understood "Sharp's" rules since it appears that they baptized using the name of Jesus in every instances. How would Cal and Walter have responded?
I do agree with Walter's assertion that to separate the whole of the Christian community, both present and past, on someone's interpretation and understanding of God's person is overly severe.
Falla39
11-24-2007, 09:40 AM
Seems to me, that it would have been an ideal time, during the focus on Matt. 28.19 and the law of grammar to have gone the Acts and pointed out that the apostles must have not understood "Sharp's" rules since it appears that they baptized using the name of Jesus in every instances. How would Cal and Walter have responded?
I do agree with Walter's assertion that to separate the whole of the Christian community, both present and past, on someone's interpretation and understanding of God's person is overly severe.
Good point, Crakjak!!
Perhaps they could have told these men that the reason the apostles
baptized every time using the name of Jesus was because in Luke 24:45,
Jesus himself, opened their understanding SO that they COULD understand
the scriptures. Yes, how would or how could they have responded!
Blessings,
Falla39
philjones
11-24-2007, 09:58 AM
Good point, Crakjak!!
Perhaps they could have told these men that the reason the apostles
baptized every time using the name of Jesus was because in Luke 24:45,
Jesus himself, opened their understanding SO that they COULD understand
the scriptures. Yes, how would or how could they have responded!
Blessings,
Falla39
Sis. Falla,
I understand that your assertion is quite common in Oneness Apostolic circles, but we must take into account what "scriptures' existed to which their understanding was opened. Certainly Matthew 28:19 did not exist as "scripture" at that time. Nor did Mark 16:16-18. The "scriptures" to which their understanding was opened was to the law and the prophets... a full understanding of how HE was the fulfillment in every aspect of the law... the permanent propitiation... the fullness of veiled mercy unveiled... the kinsman redeemer in flesh for all flesh. I am not sure we can draw perfect parallels to Acts 2:38, even from the tabernacle plan. HE, Jesus, was the revelation they received!
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 10:06 AM
Great pic as your avatar, Sister Rhoni.
Thank-you Daniel, That was me peri-menopausal...the other was me post-menopausal. Not BC or AD:tease.
Blessings, Rhoni
Falla39
11-24-2007, 11:47 AM
Sis. Falla,
I understand that your assertion is quite common in Oneness Apostolic circles, but we must take into account what "scriptures' existed to which their understanding was opened. Certainly Matthew 28:19 did not exist as "scripture" at that time. Nor did Mark 16:16-18. The "scriptures" to which their understanding was opened was to the law and the prophets... a full understanding of how HE was the fulfillment in every aspect of the law... the permanent propitiation... the fullness of veiled mercy unveiled... the kinsman redeemer in flesh for all flesh. I am not sure we can draw perfect parallels to Acts 2:38, even from the tabernacle plan. HE, Jesus, was the revelation they received!
From verses 44..., of Luke 24, it appears Jesus is doing what a good Teacher
would do. Bridging the gap from the known to the unknown, and further
enlightening them, opening their understanding so they would know what
he was saying to them. And gave further instructions as to what they
were to do and what they could expect. He was about to leave them and
did what every "father" should do. Left them with good instructions, a good
name and a good forwarding address. "That where I am you may be also".
He was leaving an earthly (natural) place to go back from whence he came,
an heavenly (spiritual) dwelling place, eternal in the heavens.
Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today and forever. If they needed
their understanding opened, we also need ours opened. Why did not these
men understand what Bro. Urshan and Bro. Sabin were saying to them.
Was it because they were closed minded. God will not reveal Himself to
those who refuse His Spirit because it is the Spirit that leads and guides.
Closed minds are like closed doors. Nothing will get through until that door
is willingly opened. The knob is on the inside!
Blessings,
Falla39
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 11:58 AM
I wonder how much this debate weighed on Sabin in reshaping his soteriological position? Would this debate have been different if a PCIer had debated alongside Sabin? Why didn't Urshan say that there were men in his org .... like Goss ... who thought the Baptists were saved?
Why didn't Urshan allow this? Or was being on TV more important?
I guess this is the puzzling part about all this to me. I have no qualms in saying one can be saved and Baptist or non-Oneness Pentecostal, but furthermore I know of many strict "Three Steppers" who would answer the question as "Yes, you are my brother in Christ".
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 12:00 PM
Thank-you Daniel, That was me peri-menopausal...the other was me post-menopausal. Not BC or AD:tease.
Blessings, Rhoni
Oh great, next we will be posting hormone levels next to our avatars! :stirpot
Carpenter
11-24-2007, 12:14 PM
I remember when they brought this video into the UPC here in town and showed it, I think even Robert Sabin was there to introduce it and for Q&A afterward.
There were some pretty ticked off people in that crowd lamenting why this material would be submitted to them and bring such confusion!
I remember people getting up and leaving, poor Brother Sabin was doing his best to put a band-aid on things.
It was such a long time ago, I can't recall exactly his response.
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 12:22 PM
I remember when they brought this video into the UPC here in town and showed it, I think even Robert Sabin was there to introduce it and for Q&A afterward.
There were some pretty ticked off people in that crowd lamenting why this material would be submitted to them and bring such confusion!
I remember people getting up and leaving, poor Brother Sabin was doing his best to put a band-aid on things.
It was such a long time ago, I can't recall exactly his response.
Yes, it has been a while. I do remember that Bro. Sabin tried to save face...but I think that today another debate would have different results. Not sure why it was brought up really...it has been so long ago.
Blessings, Rhoni
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 12:26 PM
Yes, it has been a while. I do remember that Bro. Sabin tried to save face...but I think that today another debate would have different results. Not sure why it was brought up really...it has been so long ago.
Blessings, Rhoni
EXACTLY. We, as most organizations continue to evolve, whether we use 1945 as a reference or 1985.
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 12:28 PM
Thanks for posting this, Dan. I had never watched it in its entirety.
Raven
Kinda funny....this is a repeat thread someone else started a couple weeks ago already and posted the link to the videos and here comes Dan reposting it
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 12:30 PM
I think you've answered your own question there, Dan. Columbia. :wacko
Uh...but what did the man take at Columbia? Was his major in Theology? Did he have any greek or hebrew studies?
BTW if you all study out what WM says you'll find that many greek scholars will disagree with some of what he says....but WM makes it look as though he knows what he is talking about. It's all in the presentation...not to mention having a biased host
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 12:40 PM
Uh...but what did the man take at Columbia? Was his major in Theology? Did he have any greek or hebrew studies?
BTW if you all study out what WM says you'll find that many greek scholars will disagree with some of what he says....but WM makes it look as though he knows what he is talking about. It's all in the presentation...not to mention having a biased host
In particular the pre-existence of the Son of God.
However, I am not so sure the question focused on total agreement, but rather, whether one can acknowlege the possibility of Christianity and Christ's work outside of a unified theological preception of soteriology.
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 12:43 PM
The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.
But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.
Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.
I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."
What OPs and Trinitarians don't realize is this was a total set up from the get go. Other groups avoided the JAS and for good reason. WM was a master debater back then....being a master debater does not mean he is more right of course.
The JA show was taped over several days but was heavily edited in favor of the Trinitarians. This became a later "issue" when RS agreed to debates with associates of CRI. They stipulated that they had to have the same rights to the recorded material and that they were NOT to be edited.
All that though does not change NUs reaction...which leads into the next point...
WM had the majority of the time to speak. He ran the show. It was supposed to be a debate on the Oneness vs Trinity...so what in the world does a personal confrontation like this have to do with whose theological view of the godhead is true or not? Nothing. What it does do however is set the stage emotionally in favor of WM and CB in the hearts and minds of every Trinitarian watching that day and later. I would not want to answer either if I were NU. He was put on the spot. After saying "no you are not my brother in Christ" it did not matter WHAT WM or CB said after that. They could have discussed coffee and donuts...that Q&A effectively biased the audience against Oneness by being told "You are all going to hell"
That was why WM asked that. What I would have liked to have seen is a concrete answer by WM to the same question in reverse.
Next point...WM comes out in the beginning with his unorthodox Trinitarianism rejecting the Eternal Son doctrine. He says it was a heresy of Origen and says 'we both agree' referring to Cal.
However later on CB betrays WM and comes out in favor of the Eternal Son doctrine.
WM believes the pre-incarnate Son was the Logos only and was not a son until the incarnation. This shows duplicity on their part. See this is what I mean...the debate was not about an honest presentation of facts. WM has no intention of that happening. It's ONLY about making one side look bad to the audience
WM speaks as though he is an authority on the greek, but he is not. He quotes Colwells rule to support his view of Jn 1:1 but Daniel Wallace says Colwells rule only "permits" such a view and rejects it as do many other greek scholars now. One reason they reject it ironically is that a definite theos in the second clause is, according to them, Sabellious.
I had or have a tape that was done post discussion at some sort of Oneness symposium or such where Sabin discussed this show. He says that WM at one point used Sir Anthony Buzzard (I think it was) against Sabin but then this persons nephew contacted Sabin and told him that Buzzard actually agreed with Sabin. Does anyone recall WM quoting this man in the debate? The interesting thing is Buzzard is unitarian
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 12:45 PM
In particular the pre-existence of the Son of God.
However, I am not so sure the question focused on total agreement, but rather, whether one can acknowlege the possibility of Christianity and Christ's work outside of a unified theological preception of soteriology.
WM does NOT believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God as the Son. He denies a pre-existent son...or did before he passed away. He favors the Eternal Logos view. The logos became the Son at the incarnation
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 12:49 PM
WM does NOT believe in the pre-existence of the Son of God as the Son. He denies a pre-existent son...or did before he passed away. He favors the Eternal Logos view. The logos became the Son at the incarnation
Yes. A fact that has separated him from even his succesor on the Bible Answer Man Radio Show.
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Yes. A fact that has separated him from even his succesor on the Bible Answer Man Radio Show.
His successor has been in hot water before. It's sad that most of the listeners are ignorant of this man. Anyways, this guy is a huge defender of the RCC....
stmatthew
11-24-2007, 02:26 PM
I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 03:01 PM
I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.
ST Matt. I have been in UPC churches for over 20 years and have had what would mostly qualify as PAJC pastors. I feel confident that none of them would limit the term "brother" to Oneness Pentecostals in particular. Not then, and especially not now.
It is pitiful to me that one could not simply say; "YES" - not because we agree but in spite of us reaching different conclusions regarding the response to the gospel message.
I guess this is the puzzling part about all this to me. I have no qualms in saying one can be saved and Baptist or non-Oneness Pentecostal, but furthermore I know of many strict "Three Steppers" who would answer the question as "Yes, you are my brother in Christ".
I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.
ST Matt. I have been in UPC churches for over 20 years and have had what would mostly qualify as PAJC pastors. I feel confident that none of them would limit the term "brother" to Oneness Pentecostals in particular. Not then, and especially not now.
It is pitiful to me that one could not simply say; "YES" - not because we agree but in spite of us reaching different conclusions regarding the response to the gospel message.
He gave the pat answer most moderates give when faced w/ this answer .... a confusing ...."I'm not God ... He's the judge but I just preach what the bible says."
They are either saved or not ....
Those who try to appear open-minded but obviously do not see others as saved seem hypocritical and disingenuous IMO .... Just say no or yes.
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 03:09 PM
He gave the pat answer most moderates give when faced w/ this answer .... a confusing ...."I'm not God ... He's the judge but I just preach what the bible says."
They are either saved or not ....
Those who try to appear open-minded but obviously do not see others as saved seem hypocritical and disingenuous IMO .... Just say no or yes.
Dan, I think it is a justified position in the mind of those who hold to it.
The answer lies in the terms "full salvation" and "whole gospel".
Dan, I think it is a justified position in the mind of those who hold to it.
The answer lies in the terms "full salvation" and "whole gospel".
As opposed to half salvation?
Urshan looked silly,IMO ... He was concerned w/ the opinions and fallout of the fellowship if he answered in the affirmative. I think he held a position similar to his dad's ... but politics got in the way.
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 03:14 PM
As opposed to half salvation?
Urshan looked silly,IMO ... He was concerned w/ the opinions and fallout of the fellowship if he answered in the affirmative. I think he held a position similar to his dad's ... but politics got in the way.
You may be right, but then any and all versions of the "light doctrine" spawn a whole other line of questioning.
stmatthew
11-24-2007, 03:16 PM
ST Matt. I have been in UPC churches for over 20 years and have had what would mostly qualify as PAJC pastors. I feel confident that none of them would limit the term "brother" to Oneness Pentecostals in particular. Not then, and especially not now.
It is pitiful to me that one could not simply say; "YES" - not because we agree but in spite of us reaching different conclusions regarding the response to the gospel message.
He gave the pat answer most moderates give when faced w/ this answer .... a confusing ...."I'm not God ... He's the judge but I just preach what the bible says."
They are either saved or not ....
Those who try to appear open-minded but obviously do not see others as saved seem hypocritical and disingenuous IMO .... Just say no or yes.
This is what it comes down to for me. If I say that I believe it takes Acts 2:38 to be saved, I can be nice and still say what I see the scriptures as saying. All I saw was NU him hawing around in an effort not to offend.
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 03:18 PM
As opposed to half salvation?
As opposed to a salvation by default, friends of the bride, the rightous, etc... I don't know - it is not my position and the irony of that is, those who hold such views rarely talk about it. I think they see any discussion of the matter as propagation of a path outside Acts 2:38.
RandyWayne
11-24-2007, 03:39 PM
Then there are those one steppers (such as myself and a few well-known ones here) who believe you ARE saved from the moment you ask for forgiveness and believe... but are then commanded to be baptized. As was brought out in the video, people can be in error but STILL be a brother (saved) in Christ. Just look how many opinions are present here and in the church in general. Obviously many of the opinions are in error -some globally, and others just specific to the person (like individual convictions).
Are all but a few stalwart saints attending Reckarts church doomed to hells eternal flame?
stmatthew
11-24-2007, 03:51 PM
Then there are those one steppers (such as myself and a few well-known ones here) who believe you ARE saved from the moment you ask for forgiveness and believe... but are then commanded to be baptized. As was brought out in the video, people can be in error but STILL be a brother (saved) in Christ. Just look how many opinions are present here and in the church in general. Obviously many of the opinions are in error -some globally, and others just specific to the person (like individual convictions).
Are all but a few stalwart saints attending Reckarts church doomed to hells eternal flame?
I ask again, what is the fetish with Bro Reckart?? You come in here to a conversation that has nothing to do with him and take a swipe at him.
RandyWayne
11-24-2007, 03:56 PM
Reckart has become a verb!
Just like those who are destroyed in the media are referred to as being "Borked". The name "Reckart" has unofficially entered the dictionary as a word describing paranoia/lust for power/irrelevent -yes, all three at once.
stmatthew
11-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Reckart has become a verb!
Just like those who are destroyed in the media are referred to as being "Borked". The name "Reckart" has unofficially entered the dictionary as a word describing paranoia/lust for power/irrelevent -yes, all three at once.
Have you ever met the man? Have you ever sat down and talked with him? Its easy to judge from a distance a mans heart.
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 04:02 PM
I ask again, what is the fetish with Bro Reckart?? You come in here to a conversation that has nothing to do with him and take a swipe at him.
Yeah, Reckart is irrelevant, but the point is made that well-meaning children of God do disagree - even on our understanding of soteriology (some include sleeve length). In the end we should be able to say "It is POSSIBLE, even if not likely, that we may be wrong in our conclusions of scripture.
In my case - I know for certain I am wrong in some areas (I have never been good on lottery winings) and rely wholly on Christ and his work on the cross to make up my shortcomings while I prayerfully sort it all out.
RandyWayne
11-24-2007, 04:05 PM
Have you ever met the man? Have you ever sat down and talked with him? Its easy to judge from a distance a mans heart.
I don't know his heart and I strongly suspect that he has some real pain in his past. Whether from family, so-called friends, or some apostolic experience. But I also doubt that Hitler could be excused if it was found he was molested as a child......
pelathais
11-24-2007, 05:07 PM
Pelathais,
You can blame some of it on 'editting' but not all of it. They didn't edit out many of the very knowledgeable statements of Bro. Sabin. Many of the Trinitarians I know of do not consider 'oneness' people "Heretics" and they are more apt to call us brothers than oneness folks are in the reverse.
Debates are good if done in the right spirit to bring a set of knowledge truths to the table to look at and make consessions when found to be in err. Many Trinitarians, like many of us desire to have and know more truths...it is a process. If we hunger and thirst after righteousness...we will find it.
It is when we close our minds to anything other than what we think or know that we become stagnant. The Bible declares that we all see through a glass darkly. All includes Apostolics as well as Trinitarians. We should be more united in searching truths than in declaring others wrong and going to hell.
Blessings, Rhoni
Excellent thoughts, Rhoni.
Carpenter
11-24-2007, 05:23 PM
I am just curious here, why hasn't there been any prolific debates between academics in the UPC and mainstream like the one we are talking about that took place, what, 25 years ago?
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 05:36 PM
Excellent thoughts, Rhoni.
Thank-you:bouquet
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 05:46 PM
I am just curious here, why hasn't there been any prolific debates between academics in the UPC and mainstream like the one we are talking about that took place, what, 25 years ago?
Carpenter,
This is a good question! I think that our church atmosphere has changed. We have a few really deep 'word' preachers, but much of our services tend to be heavy on the music side and light on the doctrine.
I have always been more partial to the word myself. I could sit and listen to A.D. Spears, TFT, Dr. Jeffers, Anthony Ballestero, and many others for hours at a time because they study and have heavy anointing on them.
I have always felt cheated when people shout the roof down and the word is dismissed. There is a lack of study and deep teaching that we had back in the day.
I enjoy the discussions of many of the elders, men and women on this forum. I apologize if you think I don't respect the word being discussed by ultra-conservatives to liberals..ultra-liberals might not exactly fit into my way of thinking. I tend to be moderate.
ABI was always a word Bible College. JCM was more music but Bro. Craft brought in many good preachers for revival. I ate those services up. IBC has some good word teachers but overall...there aren't as many Apostolic apologists, or word studiers or preachers as there seemed to be back in the day...or I am just too spoiled from all the good things I have heard taught and preached that I expect too much.
Sincerely, Rhoni
Hoovie
11-24-2007, 06:14 PM
I am just curious here, why hasn't there been any prolific debates between academics in the UPC and mainstream like the one we are talking about that took place, what, 25 years ago?
I think debating in general is not popular today. It may have something to do with the internet culture. I would be in favor of an entire symposium of intentionally balanced exchanges with the AOG. I wonder if they would be in favor of this? I know there is some resistance on our side at the present.
David Bernard did have a debate a couple years ago that was a nice well-balanced exchage devoid of any name calling or emotional ellicted responses some other debates were characterized by.
Rhoni
11-24-2007, 06:20 PM
I think debating in general is not popular today. It may have something to do with the internet culture. I would be in favor of an entire symposium of intentionally balanced exchanges with the AOG. I wonder if they would be in favor of this? I know there is some resistance on our side at the present.
David Bernard did have a debate a couple years ago that was a nice well-balanced exchage devoid of any name calling or emotional ellicted responses some other debates were characterized by.
David Bernard is good and very knowledgeable. He and TIMLAN would make quite a debate pair. Sure wish TIMLAN would get back in the flow of the spirit.
Blessings, Rhoni
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 08:39 PM
I would surely hope that this is edited a lot, because this is some of the most pitiful stuff I have seen. WHY not just answer the question as stated. NO, he is not my brother because he has not responded to the gospel in obedience to Acts 2:38.
I don't think that part is edited. Why no answer it? I think I give a good reason why. They were here for a discussion on the bible basis of the Godhead, not for personal opinions on someone's salvation. It's ironic that we just had a discussion on not judging.
By saying trinitarians are lost they effectively biased most of the audience there and future audiences on TV or video against our views. That was WM's purpose in asking before everyone and perhaps NUs reluctance to say they are all going to hell.
Praxeas
11-24-2007, 08:41 PM
He gave the pat answer most moderates give when faced w/ this answer .... a confusing ...."I'm not God ... He's the judge but I just preach what the bible says."
They are either saved or not ....
Those who try to appear open-minded but obviously do not see others as saved seem hypocritical and disingenuous IMO .... Just say no or yes.
how about "I honestly don't know, I could be wrong on God's requirements"?
Or how about "I honestly believe there will be others saved outside this message but since this is God's word I would not advise someone willfully ignore it"?
Steve Epley
11-25-2007, 10:00 AM
I enjoyed the debates of the past Hicks-Ferguson-Hayes-Bayer-Welch-Johnson. The Campbellites still have them. I have had two in the works for about 4 years but timing has never worked for us.
Bro-Larry
11-25-2007, 01:59 PM
I wonder how much this debate weighed on Sabin in reshaping his soteriological position? Would this debate have been different if a PCIer had debated alongside Sabin? Why didn't Urshan say that there were men in his org .... like Goss ... who thought the Baptists were saved?
Why didn't Urshan allow this? Or was being on TV more important?
Dan, not just Howard A. Goss, but Andrew D. Urshan also believed the Baptists are saved.
Bro-Larry
11-25-2007, 02:02 PM
Raven,
I agree with you...to the point of adding many women in the mix who could have done the same:tease
Blessings, Rhoni
FEMANIST!!! :tease
Praxeas
11-25-2007, 02:23 PM
Have you ever met the man? Have you ever sat down and talked with him? Its easy to judge from a distance a mans heart.
It's easy because his thoughts and views are well published
Praxeas
11-25-2007, 02:25 PM
I am just curious here, why hasn't there been any prolific debates between academics in the UPC and mainstream like the one we are talking about that took place, what, 25 years ago?
After that debate Sabin took on associates of WM in debates. One in Davenport and one in Newport beach Ca. (I was there). He also debated James White ...well it really wasn't a debate. RS didn't seem like he really cared to debate. It was a pretty poor showing
David Bernard debated Cooke and then he debated some University professor...I have that on CD somewhere.
Rhoni
11-25-2007, 03:04 PM
FEMANIST!!! :tease
:ursofunnyBrother, I know where you go to church:bouquet
Blessings, Rhoni
Steve Epley
11-25-2007, 06:33 PM
Sabin & Bernard lacked the fire of Hicks and others. They made it interesting.
Raven
11-25-2007, 06:45 PM
Sabin & Bernard lacked the fire of Hicks and others. They made it interesting.
That's right SE! Marvin Hicks would have made it very interesting and the outcome would have been much different.
Raven
Steve Epley
11-25-2007, 07:23 PM
That's right SE! Marvin Hicks would have made it very interesting and the outcome would have been much different.
Raven
Hicks made it entertaining!!!!!!!!! Johnson was funny. Bayer would awe them. But I think the best debator was Hayes as far as information and both the affirmative and negative in an intelliegent manner. But Hicks made it fun.
I got these videos by mail before there was YouTube. If only I had known, I could have saved 50 bucks. :(
seguidordejesus
11-25-2007, 10:00 PM
I got these videos by mail before there was YouTube. If only I had known, I could have saved 50 bucks. :(
wow, that wasn't worth fifty bucks, was it? LOL
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.