Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   JR Ensey's blog (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=32147)

Sabby 11-01-2010 09:45 AM
JR Ensey's blog
 
I don't know how I got on his mailing list, but received an email with his blog today. It's mostly the same old same old, but he made a comment about the merger that "moved me" to respond.
I quote from his blog:
"It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger."
(writing in bold is my emphasis). IOW, according to him, the only reason the PAJC "tolerated" the PCI brethren was to "give them time" to come around to the truth.
This was my response:
Bro Ensey,

As someone who personally knows those with a NW PCI connection, your comment

"It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger." is patently false.

I have spoken with people who were either in the PCI or are family members and can tell you that they were Absolutely convinced of their feelings re: Acts 2:38 and didn't feel that they "needed" time to correct their views on it as you infer.
In reality, the two positions were like "oil and water" and had it not been for Bro. Witherspoon's tolerance statement, it would have never happened.
Your comments disrespect the positions and memories of Bro. Goss and C.H.Yadon, both former General Superintendents as well as PCI men.

When the PAJC took over the direction of the UPC they took the Herald, the HQ not to mention the honor of their forefathers at the merger.
Mao Tse Tung revised history in China, and this type of blog is trying to revise apostolic history in America.
I've said it on more than one thread: this merger could never happen today because of the intolerant stubborn intransigient holier than thou attitude of present day PAJCers.

sandie 11-01-2010 09:55 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I'm not familiar with the merger or any history as evidenced by the fact I'm still shocked to learn my dear pastors Loren and Bud Yadon believed differently than the UPCI in general.
Yet, they embraced the standards, I find that puzzling and wonder if that was the very thing that made the merger possible at that time?

I could not tell the difference between the Boise church pastored by C.H. Yadon's son and the church I had just left in Wa. who believed differently.

hawks-cry 11-01-2010 09:55 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
the only reason the PAJC "tolerated" the PCI brethren was to "give them time" to come around to the truth.
..and if that is true,...then it would be as if the PAJC knew from the very beginning that they were actually conspiring to take-over and "snuff-out" the PCI ideology. That alone would make it almost sinister in intent. In contrast,...it seems apparent that the PCI entered into the merger with good faith,....not expecting to just be "tolerated" until assimilation. ("resistance is futile" says the Borg).

ILG 11-01-2010 09:58 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981499)
I don't know how I got on his mailing list, but received an email with his blog today. It's mostly the same old same old, but he made a comment about the merger that "moved me" to respond.
I quote from his blog:
"It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger."
.
This is exactly what I was taught when I came into the UPC. And that basically that time had passed.

DAII 11-01-2010 10:20 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981499)
I don't know how I got on his mailing list, but received an email with his blog today. It's mostly the same old same old, but he made a comment about the merger that "moved me" to respond.
I quote from his blog:
"It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger."
(writing in bold is my emphasis). IOW, according to him, the only reason the PAJC "tolerated" the PCI brethren was to "give them time" to come around to the truth.
This was my response:
Bro Ensey,

As someone who personally knows those with a NW PCI connection, your comment

"It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger." is patently false.

I have spoken with people who were either in the PCI or are family members and can tell you that they were Absolutely convinced of their feelings re: Acts 2:38 and didn't feel that they "needed" time to correct their views on it as you infer.
In reality, the two positions were like "oil and water" and had it not been for Bro. Witherspoon's tolerance statement, it would have never happened.
Your comments disrespect the positions and memories of Bro. Goss and C.H.Yadon, both former General Superintendents as well as PCI men.

When the PAJC took over the direction of the UPC they took the Herald, the HQ not to mention the honor of their forefathers at the merger.
Mao Tse Tung revised history in China, and this type of blog is trying to revise apostolic history in America.
I've said it on more than one thread: this merger could never happen today because of the intolerant stubborn intransigient holier than thou attitude of present day PAJCers.
This shows the aberrant wickedness and motives of the Enseyites .... they have no regard for honor ... consensus ... mutual agreement .... or the spirit of the merger ...

They're rabid revisionists and bearers of false witness with no regard for Truth. Paul calls them false brethren in Galatians.

ReformedDave 11-01-2010 10:28 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981499)
This was my response:

Your comments disrespect the positions and memories of Bro. Goss and C.H.Yadon, both former General Superintendents as well as PCI men.
Forgive my faulty memory but was C. H. Yadon a general sup?

pelathais 11-01-2010 10:34 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981529)
Forgive my faulty memory but was C. H. Yadon a general sup?
No. He was a member of the General Board for many years.

DAII 11-01-2010 10:38 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I'd like to know if men like DKB agree with Ensey's revision of the merger.

Apocrypha 11-01-2010 10:39 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981529)
Forgive my faulty memory but was C. H. Yadon a general sup?
He was the longest serving general board member in UPCI history.

ReformedDave 11-01-2010 10:42 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocrypha (Post 981538)
He was the longest serving general board member in UPCI history.
I'm aware of that. It was the 'gen. sup' comment that I was questioning....

DAII 11-01-2010 10:42 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
This gets worse ... Ensey is attributing this quote to the org historian JL Hall ...

“There does not appear to have been a doctrinal difference between the two groups, for most ministers in the PAJC and PCI held to the necessity of the Acts 2:38 experience. However, a few ministers in each group—more in the PCI than in the PAJC—held that a person may be saved at repentance. The merging agreement included the ‘Fundamental Doctrine’ statement affirming that salvation includes water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost—something the overwhelming majority of both the PAJC and PCI believed. However, to show patience toward ministers who practiced Acts 2:38 but who held to the view that salvation—at least in part—occurred at faith and repentance, the ‘Fundamental Doctrine’ also includes the second paragraph calling for unity in Spirit until all came to the same view. There was no tolerance on the salvation message of Acts 2:38, for this is clearly stated. It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger."

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/

DAII 11-01-2010 10:44 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
The unity clause regarding coming to the unity of the faith is straight out of the book of Ephesians 4:13... Ensey and Hall ...

Are you that inept?

I've heard Ron Wofford spew this vomit as well.

pelathais 11-01-2010 10:55 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII (Post 981546)
The unity clause regarding coming to the unity of the faith is straight out of the book of Ephesians 4:13... Ensey and Hall ...

Are you that inept?

I've heard Ron Wofford spew this vomit as well.
Attempting to put the words of Ephesians 4:13, into some sort of "post merger" environment would seem to indicate that the UPCI was supposed to disband soon after such a "unity" was obtained. Consider:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

Ephesians 4:11-12

Do both Ensey and Hall really think that there is "no work for the ministry" left to be done today?

I don't know Wofford so I can't respond to your rather sharp criticism there but this misapplication of Ephesians 4:13, clearly shows that either Ensey and Hall are wrong or that the entire 1945 constituency was in dire need of some simple Bible studies.

Justin 11-01-2010 11:01 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII (Post 981544)
This gets worse ... Ensey is attributing this quote to the org historian JL Hall ...

“There does not appear to have been a doctrinal difference between the two groups, for most ministers in the PAJC and PCI held to the necessity of the Acts 2:38 experience. However, a few ministers in each group—more in the PCI than in the PAJC—held that a person may be saved at repentance. The merging agreement included the ‘Fundamental Doctrine’ statement affirming that salvation includes water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost—something the overwhelming majority of both the PAJC and PCI believed. However, to show patience toward ministers who practiced Acts 2:38 but who held to the view that salvation—at least in part—occurred at faith and repentance, the ‘Fundamental Doctrine’ also includes the second paragraph calling for unity in Spirit until all came to the same view. There was no tolerance on the salvation message of Acts 2:38, for this is clearly stated. It was only tolerance toward those who needed time to accept the view of salvation as stated in the first paragraph. Those who honor the spirit of the merger should embrace both the unity of the Spirit and the increasing unity of the faith that the UPCI has attained in over fifty years since the merger."

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/
Bernard said a similar thing this past summer at a round table meeting in Michigan.

Sabby 11-01-2010 11:02 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I have to make a clarification about Ensey's blog. He was quoting brother Hall, the author of an article in the Forward magazine. Bro. Ensey wrote me back to tell me that the words were not his own, but rather those he was quoting from Brother Hall. Brother Ensey replied to me moments ago,

"Bro. Hall was a noted UPCI historian. He is the one who wrote the item that was printed in a recent Forward magazine. You will have to take up the matter of his statement being false with the current UPCI officials. I was only quoting him as was the editor of the magazine. You will notice that this line follows the article: Source: /Forward/ Ministers Magazine July-Aug 2010."

Does anyone out there think I'm going to take this up with the "current UPCI officials"? LOL
IMO, they are revisionists and part of the problem!

Let me just say this, why quote an article as fact if you are not going to take personal ownership of it? Just asking.

DAII 11-01-2010 11:09 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981571)
I have to make a clarification about Ensey's blog. He was quoting brother Hall, the author of an article in the Forward magazine. Bro. Ensey wrote me back to tell me that the words were not his own, but rather those he was quoting from Brother Hall. Brother Ensey replied to me moments ago,

"Bro. Hall was a noted UPCI historian. He is the one who wrote the item that was printed in a recent Forward magazine. You will have to take up the matter of his statement being false with the current UPCI officials. I was only quoting him as was the editor of the magazine. You will notice that this line follows the article: Source: /Forward/ Ministers Magazine July-Aug 2010."

Does anyone out there think I'm going to take this up with the "current UPCI officials"? LOL
IMO, they are revisionists and part of the problem!

Let me just say this, why quote an article as fact if you are not going to take personal ownership of it? Just asking.
That this mess was put in the Forward magazine ... the ministerial organ ... is telling that the likes of Shaw, the editor, and Bernard may very well be complicit ... in this retelling.

Sam 11-01-2010 11:12 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981542)
I'm aware of that. It was the 'gen. sup' comment that I was questioning....
I think that was an error.
I'm not UPC but Bro. Yadon is not listed as a Gen. Supt. in lists I've seen.
He was a leader for many years and the UPC distributed his book "Jehovah-Jesus"

DAII 11-01-2010 11:13 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
If bearing false witness is Apostolic Identity ... color me Catholic.

Sabby 11-01-2010 11:17 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
CH Yadon was one of the last influential voices of the PCI in the org. He was the last one to be voted in as GS. If he's not listed then there's more than revisionism going on.
I believe Bro. Chambers succeeded him and things began to dramatically change from the Herald to the SS department. The last bastion to fall was the FMD with the Scism/CBC influence.

ReformedDave 11-01-2010 11:19 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981596)
CH Yadon was one of the last influential voices of the PCI in the org. He was the last one to be voted in as GS. I believe Bro. Chambers succeeded him and things began to dramatically change from the Herald to the SS department. The last bastion to fall was the FMD with the Scism/CBC influence.
Wasn't A. T. Morgan the GS just before Chambers?

Sabby 11-01-2010 11:25 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I'm not bashing those UPCers that are honest about their history. But the revisionists are simply lying.
I agree with a previous post that there was more than likely an ulterior motive on the PAJCers part. My conversations with those intimately associated with all of this said that the majority "stock holders" if you will at the merger were PCIers. They owned the Herald, they owned HQ in St. Louis, etc. The minority "squeaky wheel" PAJCers literally took over the org over time and eventually controlled all of the departments, and silenced their brethren. No wonder the Affirmation Statement! It was about control and power. I heard it said that the merger was really like oil and water.

Sabby 11-01-2010 11:26 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981598)
Wasn't A. T. Morgan the GS just before Chambers?
You're probably right.

hawks-cry 11-01-2010 11:29 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
If he's not listed then there's more than revisionism going on.
..like the Egyptians of old. They chisled out all the carvings of the one they wanted to "erase",...chisled out all the writings on stone,...and completely re-told their own story THEIR way, and erected their OWN statues in the places where the old ones were. But of course,...centuries later, historians discovered the truth.

pelathais 11-01-2010 11:30 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981607)
You're probably right.
Goss
Morgan
Chambers
Urshan
Haney
Bernard

DAII 11-01-2010 11:37 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I do hold Ensey to these words:

Quote:
For decades, UPCI ministers have haggled over the wording of the Fundamental Doctrine, with some using it to protect the dwindling few among us who are hesitant to embrace the absolute necessity of the new birth according to Acts 2:38 and John 3:5.
Ensey ....NEWS FLASH .... there is nothing in the Articles of Faith that addresses a doctrinal position on the New Birth ...

INTENTIONALLY.

Contending for a view and disparaging your colleagues on the matter is directly a violation of the Fundamental Doctrine.

Sabby 11-01-2010 11:43 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII (Post 981617)
I do hold Ensey to these words:



Ensey ....NEWS FLASH .... there is nothing in the Articles of Faith that addresses a doctrinal position on the New Birth ...

INTENTIONALLY.

Contending for a view and disparaging your colleagues on the matter is directly a violation of the Fundamental Doctrine.
:thumbsup

Sam 11-01-2010 11:43 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII (Post 981582)
That this mess was put in the Forward magazine ... the ministerial organ ... is telling that the likes of Shaw, the editor, and Bernard may very well be complicit ... in this retelling.
retelling? or revisionism?

Fudge talks about the differences of opinion among the ministers regarding the new birth at the time of the merger and indicates that there are no solid numbers available for who believed what back then.

Sam 11-01-2010 11:48 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 981610)
Goss
Morgan
Chambers
Urshan
Haney
Bernard
or for the complete list:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

rgcraig 11-01-2010 11:53 AM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981598)
Wasn't A. T. Morgan the GS just before Chambers?
Correct.

Yadon was NEVER GS.

DAII 11-01-2010 12:46 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformedDave (Post 981598)
Wasn't A. T. Morgan the GS just before Chambers?
Dave, your dad was at the merger .... as a PCI 3-stepper ... what would he say about all this?

Sabby 11-01-2010 01:38 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Correction for elder Yadon. He was District Superintendent for years, head of the Home Mission's division nationally.

rgcraig 11-01-2010 01:43 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981735)
Correction for elder Yadon. He was District Superintendent for years, head of the Home Mission's division nationally.
There ya go.......

Sabby 11-01-2010 02:05 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam (Post 981634)
or for the complete list:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

:killinme

Sabby 11-01-2010 02:17 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgcraig (Post 981740)
There ya go.......
My bad . . .

pelathais 11-01-2010 02:25 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII (Post 981617)
I do hold Ensey to these words:



Ensey ....NEWS FLASH .... there is nothing in the Articles of Faith that addresses a doctrinal position on the New Birth ...

INTENTIONALLY.

Contending for a view and disparaging your colleagues on the matter is directly a violation of the Fundamental Doctrine.
The UPCI Manual clearly states that "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance... We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

So then, Bros. Hall and Ensey: Just what part of this statement FROM THE CURRENT UPCI MANUAL did some of the men "need more time to accept?" This statement still reflects the view of the "PCI" brethren and C.H. Yadon in particular.

The only folks who "need more time" are those who are attempting rewrite the history of our fellowship. How much more time do you need to cross this out of the Manual and move "remission or forgiveness of sins" to the section on water baptism?

DAII 11-01-2010 03:07 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 981805)
The UPCI Manual clearly states that "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance... We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

So then, Bros. Hall and Ensey: Just what part of this statement FROM THE CURRENT UPCI MANUAL did some of the men "need more time to accept?" This statement still reflects the view of the "PCI" brethren and C.H. Yadon in particular.

The only folks who "need more time" are those who are attempting rewrite the history of our fellowship. How much more time do you need to cross this out of the Manual and move "remission or forgiveness of sins" to the section on water baptism?
This can only be attributed to laziness .... as Bernard's own research acknowledges 75% of the Articles of Faith come from the old PCI manual ...

It's been almost 70+ years.

It is why Bernard has commissioned this new Creative Planning committee to look at revising the manual ... including examining the technology aspect of the Holiness article by 2012.

Sabby 11-01-2010 03:08 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 981805)
The UPCI Manual clearly states that "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance... We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

So then, Bros. Hall and Ensey: Just what part of this statement FROM THE CURRENT UPCI MANUAL did some of the men "need more time to accept?" This statement still reflects the view of the "PCI" brethren and C.H. Yadon in particular.

The only folks who "need more time" are those who are attempting rewrite the history of our fellowship. How much more time do you need to cross this out of the Manual and move "remission or forgiveness of sins" to the section on water baptism?
Right on

DAII 11-01-2010 03:18 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabby (Post 981830)
Right on
The water baptism article as it reads ... attributes no salvific language ... or link to remission ...

The Fundamental doctrine ... does try to paraphrase Acts 2:38 ... but even the added phrase for the remission of sin ... was allowed by a PCI Greer, who acknowledged it as a motion as long as "for" was not defined.

Also as the FD presently reads ... Dan Segraves pointed out in a symposium ... it is grammatically flawed.

.... only attributing forgiveness to water baptism ... and not both repentance and baptism for the remission of sins ... as Bernard views it.

Segraves writes:

Quote:
While the author thoroughly examined the relationship of both repentance and water baptism as they relate to remission of sins in the text of Acts 2:38, he did not discuss the fact that the Fundamental Doctrine of the U.PC.I. does not necessarily endorse this idea.

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and 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 for the remission of sins. ..:'4 The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" butare instead separated by a comma.

Neither did the author discuss the significance of the word "full" in the Fundamental Doctrine. ("The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation...:') At the merging conference, "a motion was made to take the word `full' out of the Fundamental Doctrine, but was defeated:'5 The significance of this is obvious. Without this word, the Fundamental Doctrine would have read, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of salvation. ..:' The word full is an adjective which modifies the noun salvation.

While it may be difficult for those who were not present to understand or appreciate the importance of this word to those involved in the merger, it obviously suggests that the majority present and voting viewed "full salvation" as one thing and "salvation" as another. A discussion of this element of U.PC.I. history would be a worthy subject for a subsequent symposium.
It's a hodge-podge ... and yet still a gentleman's agreement.

DAII 11-01-2010 03:29 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
I think this Hall article coupled with a few other things coming down the pike is why there seems to be a group of the Detroit guys desperately seeking to get their business in order ... as to turn in their licenses ....

And I mean ... there is a sense of urgency. They would hate to lose their affiliated churches to wolves.

DAII 11-01-2010 03:48 PM
Re: JR Ensey's blog
 
As it stands with the manual to be revised in the coming 24-36 months ... I think we can start seeing the trickle of libs leaving to become a steady flow ...

The only guys that I think can influence this org to the left anymore are Kilgore Jr. and Hennigan.

Mangun is a wild card.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:01 AM.

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