This is from page 19 of the 1952 Manual of the United Pentecostal Church. the subject is Repentance and Conversion
Repentance and Conversion
Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5;1). John the Baptist preached repentance, Jesus proclaimed it, and the Apostles emphasized it to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30)
The word “repentance” comes from several Greek word which mean, change of views and purpose, change of heart, changed of mind, change of life, to transform, etc.
Jesus saisd, “...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
Luke 24:47 says, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
----------------------
I don't think it reads like that in the current manual.
Segraves, spoke about having serious regrets when this "Repentance and Conversion" heading was changed several years ago. Seems he thought this would not come up until a bit later. When he arrived they had just voted - without good arguments being made to keep the language.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
I wonder if Segraves would weep over a thread like this, or smile?
He probably at least grimaces knowing the political pressure for such comments. But it's widely known, and this is not new revelation.
I have often wondered about that. I have, very much, wanted to tell him what an impact he had on my life, but I would be afraid of his reaction. I've started letters, started to call, but chickened out each time. I feel like I owe him my thanks and gratitude, and feel the need, almost the obligation, to tell him he inspired the complete changing of my life. But should I?
You know, I think I've answered my own question. I'm gonna write that letter and this time I'm going to finish it.
I have often wondered about that. I have, very much, wanted to tell him what an impact he had on my life, but I would be afraid of his reaction. I've started letters, started to call, but chickened out each time. I feel like I owe him my thanks and gratitude, and feel the need, almost the obligation, to tell him he inspired the complete changing of my life. But should I?
You know, I think I've answered my own question. I'm gonna write that letter and this time I'm going to finish it.
Even some of the staff surrounding the Segraves era ... seemed to be influenced greatly by Segraves in moving leftward.
Makes you think.
I wouldn't characterize it as a "move leftward..." Segraves' theology represents the older strain and thus any move in that direction would be toward a "more conservative" stand.
This is from page 19 of the 1952 Manual of the United Pentecostal Church. the subject is Repentance and Conversion
Repentance and Conversion
Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5;1). John the Baptist preached repentance, Jesus proclaimed it, and the Apostles emphasized it to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2:38; 11:18; 17:30)
The word “repentance” comes from several Greek word which mean, change of views and purpose, change of heart, changed of mind, change of life, to transform, etc.
Jesus saisd [said], “...except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).
Luke 24:47 says, “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
----------------------
I don't think it reads like that in the current manual.
That is verbatim what it says in the 1994 Manual's Articles of Faith - page 21, under the heading "Repentance and Conversion."
Unless there's more in the 1952 AOF under that heading, then at least this portion has remained unchanged.
Such a persistence of unchanging teaching would be considered to be theologically "conservative." And, those who teach these things, for example Daniel Segraves, would be also considered "theologically conservative;" at least in the areas of "Repentance and Conversion."
Could someone explain to this outsider, in a nutshell, this Segraves thing you're talking about?
Simply put, Daniel Segraves is the finest bible teacher I've ever heard. I had a hard time staying tuned to bible teachers for more than 2 minutes, but I could listen to him for an entire class period, which was a miracle!
I learned concepts from him I'd never even imagined. He pulled principles from scripture that I'd never heard. But his teachings concerning the "Godhead", baptism, justification by faith, righteousness, and numerous other subjects, was shocking in hard-core conservative cultures.
Personally, he's rather withdrawn, not a socialite, pastored a small church in Dupo, Illinois I believe, before moving to Stockton. He's never been a part of the "uppity" UPC culture, wouldn't treat the General Superintendent any differently than a freshman from nowheresville, and he had a way of basing every single action in life, on scripture. He was always serious, never teased or joked, but always happy, laughing, and smiling. He was once told that his car had been burned and he laughed loudly and said, "My, my, isn't that something!"
Could someone explain to this outsider, in a nutshell, this Segraves thing you're talking about?
In his classes at CLC - and this is what TroubleMaker may be referring to, Brother Segraves would introduce discussions about other groups of Christian believers (Trinitarian Pentecostals in particular) with a statement to the effect of: "We don't see these people as lost and apart from the promises of God. They are good Christians with sincere faith and it is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord that saves us..." (MY WORDS SURMISING MY RECOLLECTIONS OF WHAT D.S. HAS SAID).
Dan Segraves has something of a "difference" with David Bernard (though they were very cordial and professional with one another, others like a scandal) when they both published a commentary on the Book of Romans.
Bernard takes an approach that many would say is calculated to garner the political support of "Three Steppers." He also, however, is careful to make statements about how salvation is through faith. But for the "Three Stepper," Bernard represents the "Company view."
Segraves' approach is to emphasize "greasy grace" and "sloppy agape" (in the words of others). He articulates a position that is more in harmony with the "Friends of the Bridegroom" and the "Light Doctrine." Since this is obviously the older teaching among Oneness Pentecostals, Segraves can be said to have the more "conservative" or the "right of center" approach.
Sorry, I totally forgot about this (plus a few other things on my plate makes it hard to get to get to the forums lately).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
You're right, that's not pros in Romans.
So let me ask, are you saying pros can not be translated "pertaining to" unless it modifies a noun?
That is apparently how the NT writers used it with a verb: overwhelmingly as "to," "toward," or "with."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
Isn't pros modifying the noun logos in Jn 1? What was with God?
No, the pros governs the noun but modifies the verb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
What about the pharisee that prayed (verb) within himself?
Notice that I addressed that. It has a reflexive pronoun attached to it. Also, the middle voice of the verb "prayed" (although thought of in terms of a deponent verb) gives the sense of "within." John 1:1 has a verb that is surely active and an indirect object that is not a reflexive pronoun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
BTW Im not saying it has to be "pertaining to", but my point is the preposition is like like para. It doesn't necessarily mean location. In fact it's more directional (towards), and as I have shown with the accusative it can be "pertaining to" and even (in some translations) within.
Can mean doesn't mean it does mean. You haven't given any reasons why it should mean "pertaining to" in John 1:1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
usually with the accus. the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it is predicated):—about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, × at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to (Unregistered) -ward, unto, with (-in)
Strong, J., S.T.D., LL.D. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
The problem with just listing out all the possible definitions is that one can commit the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer which is transferring every possible definition of a word back into that word. Words generally mean one thing in a given context. In John 1:1 we don't have any indication that pros can mean more than one thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
So what is meant by "with" or even "to" and "toward"?
Toward is directional. And we have with in the context what the word does. The word points to God or reveals God. And that is what Jesus did when here too. He pointed to God. The Logos reveals God and that's probably why some thing logos is "self disclosure".
Notice that I'm not even claiming pros means "to," or "toward" in John 1:1. I go with the traditional translation that virtually every legitimate version goes with: "with." If you think it should be translated something else, then it would be up to you to provide an example of what you believe it should be within other sentences of the same grammatical structure. This should be easy to do, as there are over 500 occurrences of pros with the verb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
However one still can not avoid John's own use of Eternal life
I don't even know what you mean by this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prax
I think the topic of the Logos is actually much deeper than what Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals make it out to be.
Linear Mode
