Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Paper (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24448)

EA 06-02-2009 02:49 PM
David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Paper
 
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."

Praxeas 06-02-2009 03:03 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
WOW! Finally.

RandyWayne 06-02-2009 03:23 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 755736)
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."
Reading this reminds me of the directions for using a "weather rock/wood". Not saying they are wrong, just that they are such basic common sense that it is amazing it took so long.

KWSS1976 06-02-2009 03:29 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Common sense...LOL better stay away form the bowling alleys...LOL i am glad to see common sense

freeatlast 06-02-2009 05:31 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
WOW is Bernard going Charismatic?? Surely he's not serious about one and two??

*AQuietPlace* 06-02-2009 05:34 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
#3 kind of covers the bases, though, doesn't it?

freeatlast 06-02-2009 05:52 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 755826)
#3 kind of covers the bases, though, doesn't it?
# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????

(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.

mizpeh 06-02-2009 06:25 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 755836)
# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????

(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
I think it means we must uphold them if they are "specific" and "valid" biblical teachings NO MATTER what changes in our culture, philosophy or theology. All theology is not the truth. Have you ever heard of "folk theology"?

IOW, there are some things that pertain to holiness that cannot be abrogated. They are sacrosanct.

Baron1710 06-02-2009 06:32 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 755826)
#3 kind of covers the bases, though, doesn't it?
Yes, numbers one and two are trumped by number three. I don't see any real movement here on the issues. If in doubt just read Practical Holiness: A Second Look. Apparently after a second look it still looked the same to him.

*AQuietPlace* 06-02-2009 07:08 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 755847)
I think it means we must uphold them if they are "specific" and "valid" biblical teachings NO MATTER what changes in our culture, philosophy or theology. All theology is not the truth. Have you ever heard of "folk theology"?

IOW, there are some things that pertain to holiness that cannot be abrogated. They are sacrosanct.
I think most everyone agrees that we stick with what the Bible says no matter what culture does. But this part:

If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching

is what everyone debates. There's a lot of disagreement about how we apply what the Bible actually teaches to our current culture.

mizpeh 06-02-2009 07:15 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace* (Post 755858)
I think most everyone agrees that we stick with what the Bible says no matter what culture does. But this part:

If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching

is what everyone debates. There's a lot of disagreement about how we apply what the Bible actually teaches to our current culture.
I was addressing FAL's question "# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????"

I don't think DB is disregarding "true" theology.

Sam 06-02-2009 10:20 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
I'm neither licensed nor ordained by the UPC and I do not attend a UPC church, but personally, I would like to see the UPC go back to the original "fundamental doctrine" statement as it was originally worded in 1945 and would like to see the "holiness" part of the articles of faith go back to the way it was worded before it was amended in 1954.

n david 06-03-2009 06:50 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 755836)
# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????

(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
Actually, I believe the emphasis for #3 is on "shifting opinions," and should read more as:

"If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching, we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of theology."

The major point is the "shifting opinions," and it cannot be left out.

POWERUP 06-03-2009 07:34 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Sam,

I have read and heard so much about the early doctrine. But, exactly what was the fundamental Doctrine in 1945?

KWSS1976 06-03-2009 07:51 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Powerup I think that the original pioneers of the movement did not beleive like they do now as far as salvation goes probley other things also

KWSS1976 06-03-2009 07:52 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
If anyone has the answer it will be Sam

KWSS1976 06-03-2009 08:22 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Pentecostal history lesson posted on another topic also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

Michlow 06-03-2009 09:10 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 755736)
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."
Is this really change? It still all comes down to an interpretation of the scripture. There will still be those that interpret 1 Cor. 11 to mean that women have magic hair, and there will be those that interpret Deut 22:5 as women should not wear pants, and they will be able to use #3 to say that it is a valid implementation of scriptural principles for women to therefore not cut their hair or wear pants.

And there will be those who argue that by their interpretation, those scriptures mean something else, and therefore #1 applies.

Is this any different then any other standard discussion we have had ad nauseum for the past 6 years on these forums??

*AQuietPlace* 06-03-2009 09:13 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michlow (Post 756051)
Is this really change? It still all comes down to an interpretation of the scripture. There will still be those that interpret 1 Cor. 11 to mean that women have magic hair, and there will be those that interpret Deut 22:5 as women should not wear pants, and they will be able to use #3 to say that it is a valid implementation of scriptural principles for women to therefore not cut their hair or wear pants.

And there will be those who argue that by their interpretation, those scriptures mean something else, and therefore #1 applies.

Is this any different then any other standard discussion we have had ad nauseum for the past 6 years on these forums??
That's why I think no. 3 trumps 1 and 2. Nothing has necessarily changed.

Withdrawn 06-03-2009 09:33 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 755736)
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."
More of the same. **yawn**

Looks like he's paying lip service to appearing to be progressive-thinking or open to take another look. But items 1 and 2 are easily cancelled out by item 3. Item 3 is an umbrella clause that assures that nothing will change.

Nothing new here.

Withdrawn 06-03-2009 09:34 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Wow! I guess my thoughts weren't very original. Sorry for beating the same drum, I just read the rest of the posts.

Timmy 06-03-2009 09:46 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWSS1976 (Post 756003)
If anyone has the answer it will be Sam
Sam is da man!

RandyWayne 06-03-2009 09:55 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaamez (Post 756065)
More of the same. **yawn**

Looks like he's paying lip service to appearing to be progressive-thinking or open to take another look. But items 1 and 2 are easily cancelled out by item 3. Item 3 is an umbrella clause that assures that nothing will change.

Nothing new here.
I do agree with your here. It is like the final "The pastor says..." (not to be confused with "Bo knows....") clause. If all else fails, you must obey because rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

Sam 06-03-2009 03:30 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by POWERUP (Post 755998)
Sam,

I have read and heard so much about the early doctrine. But, exactly what was the fundamental Doctrine in 1945?
The "fundamental doctrine" statement established in 1945 when the UPC was formed read as follows:

"The basic fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

In 1973 it was modified to add the words "for the remission of sins" after the phrase "baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

When the "fundamental doctrine" statement was formulated there were differing opinions among the ministers on how a person was saved or born again. Some believed water and Spirit baptism were necessary and others did not. The "fundamental doctrine" statement was worded ambiguously enough so that both groups could agree with it. The word "full" was part of the statement to provide ambiguity. Without the word "full" it would sound like repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism were required before a person got saved. With the word "full" there it can be taken to mean that a person should get baptized in water and in the Spirit at some time in their life but it is not necessary in order to get saved. In other words, "we all agree on repentance, baptism in Jesus' name and the Holy Ghost baptism, we just don't all believe that all three steps are necessary to escape hell."

In 1973 when the words "for the remission of sins" was added, it was proposed to narrow the statement to say that a person's sins were not remitted or removed or washed away until the person was baptized in water. Nathan Urshan asked Bro. Greer to second the motion for adoption of the resolution to add the words. He did that because it was well known that Bro. Greer did not believe water baptism was necessary in order to be saved or born again and if a man of his stature and influence seconded the motion it would have a better chance of being passed. Bro. Greer believed the words "for the remission of sins" meant "because your sins have been forgiven." He asked Bro. Urshan if he would have to change the way he believed about it and Bro. Urshan assured him he would not. So he did second the motion and it was adopted.

ManOfWord 06-03-2009 07:51 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaamez (Post 756065)
More of the same. **yawn**

Looks like he's paying lip service to appearing to be progressive-thinking or open to take another look. But items 1 and 2 are easily cancelled out by item 3. Item 3 is an umbrella clause that assures that nothing will change.

Nothing new here.
Exactly! It would be political suicide for him to REALLY mean, without condition, 1 & 2! Ain't a snowball's chance 'o that happenin'! :D

Carpenter 06-04-2009 12:45 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 755736)
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."
Does this mean the UPC is going to abandon the term standards?

Was this written only for Texas or the whole UPC movement? I bet 99% of church folks never see this.

Jermyn Davidson 06-04-2009 07:41 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam (Post 756315)
The "fundamental doctrine" statement established in 1945 when the UPC was formed read as follows:

"The basic fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

In 1973 it was modified to add the words "for the remission of sins" after the phrase "baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

When the "fundamental doctrine" statement was formulated there were differing opinions among the ministers on how a person was saved or born again. Some believed water and Spirit baptism were necessary and others did not. The "fundamental doctrine" statement was worded ambiguously enough so that both groups could agree with it. The word "full" was part of the statement to provide ambiguity. Without the word "full" it would sound like repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism were required before a person got saved. With the word "full" there it can be taken to mean that a person should get baptized in water and in the Spirit at some time in their life but it is not necessary in order to get saved. In other words, "we all agree on repentance, baptism in Jesus' name and the Holy Ghost baptism, we just don't all believe that all three steps are necessary to escape hell."

In 1973 when the words "for the remission of sins" was added, it was proposed to narrow the statement to say that a person's sins were not remitted or removed or washed away until the person was baptized in water. Nathan Urshan asked Bro. Greer to second the motion for adoption of the resolution to add the words. He did that because it was well known that Bro. Greer did not believe water baptism was necessary in order to be saved or born again and if a man of his stature and influence seconded the motion it would have a better chance of being passed. Bro. Greer believed the words "for the remission of sins" meant "because your sins have been forgiven." He asked Bro. Urshan if he would have to change the way he believed about it and Bro. Urshan assured him he would not. So he did second the motion and it was adopted.

Sam,

Can this conversation be confirmed that it happened as you have laid it out?

I get the impression that this conversation happened over the course of days and not just a minute or two before the vote.



It seems that the UPCI is where it is today (doctrinally) due to godly men being underhanded and crafty.

How can folks turn to these kinds of methods to force their will?
Or was everything done in good faith and it just got twisted to the point that things are the way things are now?

ILG 06-04-2009 08:45 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 755736)
http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."
I can see DK Bernard saying this and then spinning a web as to why the standards of the 40's are for today too.

Sam 06-04-2009 03:46 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson (Post 756518)
Sam,

Can this conversation be confirmed that it happened as you have laid it out?

I get the impression that this conversation happened over the course of days and not just a minute or two before the vote.
...
My post is based on pages 155-158 of Christianity Without the Cross

tv1a 06-04-2009 08:34 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
In morals what begins in fear usually ends in wickedness; in religion what begins in fear usually ends in fanaticism. Fear, either as a principle or a motive, is the beginning of all evil.
Jameson, Anna

commonsense 06-05-2009 11:31 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeatlast (Post 755836)
# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????

(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.

My observations and knowledge of UC teachings/demands/instruction on standards are that if there is no scripture to support it, you use the old-----it's a Bible principle!

It's usually taught with a lot of guilt thrown in for good measure.:foottap


(This is not a reflection on those with personal convictions, but rather aimed at those who follow because they must, not out of a spirit and heart felt leading.)

CC1 06-05-2009 09:09 PM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaamez (Post 756065)
More of the same. **yawn**

Looks like he's paying lip service to appearing to be progressive-thinking or open to take another look. But items 1 and 2 are easily cancelled out by item 3. Item 3 is an umbrella clause that assures that nothing will change.

Nothing new here.
I agree 100%. When I read the statement the first thing that popped into my mind was "smoke & mirrors".

The same logic that allows UPCers to say that standards are not salvational but the reality of their culture is that they are no matter what they say.

tv1a 06-06-2009 08:03 AM
Re: David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Pape
 
If Bernard quoted from the Koran, it would make a nice Obama piece.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CC1 (Post 757251)
I agree 100%. When I read the statement the first thing that popped into my mind was "smoke & mirrors".

The same logic that allows UPCers to say that they standards are not salvatoinal but the reality of their culture is that they are no matter what they say.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.