UPCI Changes

[yisroelm]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I know one group in Brazil that has their laws hanging up in the walls of their church and the missionary's phone number for saints to call if the rules are not obeyed...

Sister Alvear is this an Apostolic group? If so are they UC?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Rose

I take it that Bro Osborn only meant that the Apostolic doctrine comes direct from the Bible and that the next generation should not change it!

I would agree that the next generation should not change the Bible. However, to say that the current genre of theology known as "Oneness Pentecostalism" in all of its variant forms represents pristine Bible theology is to do both OP theology and the Bible a disservice.

As Jeffrey pointed out so well, just the topic of Oneness has many conflicting "flavors" and interpretations. Add to that the long time divide concerning the remission of sins (is it at repentance or baptism?) and our unformed doctrine of "speaking in other tongues."

We don't even have a means for defining or evaluating "speaking in tongues" and yet many of us claim it's a requirement for salvation! The first person in the modern era to "speak in tongues" was said to have "spoken in the Chinese language for 2 hours..." Most of those who heard her speaking denied this. The woman herself (Agnes Ozman) later denied it and repudiated the whole experience for years until she later heard about Azusa Street.

Maybe it's best for the status quo that nobody really ask any questions about all of our claims. For those who love and seek Truth however, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

[On The Wheel]

Winston Churchill once said,

"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

The truth is not afraid of honest examination. Those that are afraid have built their houses on the shifting sands of traditionalism rather than the bedrock the apostles doctrine.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

We don't even have a means for defining or evaluating "speaking in tongues" and yet many of us claim it's a requirement for salvation! The first person in the modern era to "speak in tongues" was said to have "spoken in the Chinese language for 2 hours..." Most of those who heard her speaking denied this. The woman herself (Agnes Ozman) later denied it and repudiated the whole experience for years until she later heard about Azusa Street.

This has got to be a logical fallacy, Pel. (I think it's called guilt by association) Just because Agnes Ozman may have denied her initial experience of speaking with other tongues does not make it true for the rest of us and those who BEFORE Agnes spoke with tongues (glossalia).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This has got to be a logical fallacy, Pel. (I think it's called guilt by association) Just because Agnes Ozman may have denied her initial experience of speaking with other tongues does not make it true for the rest of us and those who BEFORE Agnes spoke with tongues (glossalia).

The experience has no standard nor even an interpretation. It is ephemeral and mystical to the core and subject to thousands of misunderstandings and manipulations.

On the other hand, Jesus said that a wise man would build his house upon a rock. In another place He likened the church to being built upon a rock as well.

I have yet to ever have anyone answer my question: How do we know that this 20th Century experience is the same experience as on the Day of Pentecost? Not one detail of today's experience lines up with the account in Acts 2 of the disciples "speaking in other tongues."

I'm not ready to discount the experience entirely, but I certainly wouldn't demand this to be a standard of one's salvation. That is too cruel in light of the disparities I have already described.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Justin

At the Mich mens conf. J. H. Osborn pleaded to the next generation of men: "You did not write this doctrine, do not change it, do not analyze it, just preach it!"

Why not just get up and say "hand your brains over to us, do not think".

They never had that attitude when they were Trinitarians...they questioned, they analyzed and they became Oneness

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Why not just get up and say "hand your brains over to us, do not think".

They never had that attitude when they were Trinitarians...they questioned, they analyzed and they became Oneness

Didn't Verbal Bean compare all this "questioning! <spit>" to a pot that scums?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

We don't even have a means for defining or evaluating "speaking in tongues" and yet many of us claim it's a requirement for salvation! The first person in the modern era to "speak in tongues" was said to have "spoken in the Chinese language for 2 hours..." Most of those who heard her speaking denied this. The woman herself (Agnes Ozman) later denied it and repudiated the whole experience for years until she later heard about Azusa Street.

Pel, do you have an online source for this?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Pel, do you have an online source for this?

Pages 10 and 11 of Christianity Without the Cross found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gmz...=ozman&f=false.


Thomas Fudge is citing two other works that I have in my library:

Vision of the Disinherited by Robert Mapes Anderson.
Fields White Unto Harvest by James R. Goff.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Pages 10 and 11 of Christianity Without the Cross found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Gmz...=ozman&f=false.


Thomas Fudge is citing two other works that I have in my library:

Vision of the Disinherited by Robert Mapes Anderson.
Fields White Unto Harvest by James R. Goff.

So who does Mapes cite? He is the one that says she rejected this experience? What did she say herself as to this rejection?