Tragedy of War RECOVERED! LISTEN!

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Loren Yadon says in his sermon that she was out of Frank Ewart's church. He was one of the biggest defenders of Olive Haney. If you wanted to find yourself on the outside with him, just attack OH.

This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.

In the final analysis, one must be honest enough to see that yes there were two differing views of when salvation happened at the merger. (what many now refer to as one step or saved at repentance/three step or water spirit) The oneness movement was still a developing movement. All of those early adherents had come from various religious backgrounds which impacted their view on MANY areas of doctrine. As they settled into their new found doctrine it is reasonable that their beliefs would change over time. (No different than a Trinitarian pastor today who would convert.....his/her beliefs would change, even if minimally over time.)

The "till we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was clearly put in the original statement to appease brethren on both sides who felt that the opposing view needed to align themselves with the proper doctrinal view. IMO the merger should have never taken place. Salvation is a HUGE issue and one that I do not believe can be taken lightly. Even if we agree on so many points that we are nearly alike.....if we do not agree on what constitutes salvation there CANNOT be unity for long. To expect such, would require a compromise (on one side or the other) on the foundational doctrine of salvation.

If I truly believe water/spirit (three step) I cannot believe that the saved at repentance (One step) crowd is actually saved until they have also been baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If I truly believe one is saved at repentance, I cannot long fellowship those who I believe are placing a burden on their followers that is not biblical. To do so would bring confusion (which it did.) For there to be enduring unity, both sides would have to come to the understanding that it really doesn't matter either way......not likely to happen IMO.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

I disagree. He pointed out the inconsistencies, it wasn't tacky. And behind closed doors the politics are really thick.

IMO it was tacky. It was like putting a finger in the eye of the organization. Politics may be thick behind closed doors, but it's the right place to put forward the suggestions he made, and address the accusations he made.

Originally Posted by bishoph

This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by bishoph

This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.

In the final analysis, one must be honest enough to see that yes there were two differing views of when salvation happened at the merger. (what many now refer to as one step or saved at repentance/three step or water spirit) The oneness movement was still a developing movement. All of those early adherents had come from various religious backgrounds which impacted their view on MANY areas of doctrine. As they settled into their new found doctrine it is reasonable that their beliefs would change over time. (No different than a Trinitarian pastor today who would convert.....his/her beliefs would change, even if minimally over time.)

The "till we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was clearly put in the original statement to appease brethren on both sides who felt that the opposing view needed to align themselves with the proper doctrinal view. IMO the merger should have never taken place. Salvation is a HUGE issue and one that I do not believe can be taken lightly. Even if we agree on so many points that we are nearly alike.....if we do not agree on what constitutes salvation there CANNOT be unity for long. To expect such, would require a compromise (on one side or the other) on the foundational doctrine of salvation.

If I truly believe water/spirit (three step) I cannot believe that the saved at repentance (One step) crowd is actually saved until they have also been baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If I truly believe one is saved at repentance, I cannot long fellowship those who I believe are placing a burden on their followers that is not biblical. To do so would bring confusion (which it did.) For there to be enduring unity, both sides would have to come to the understanding that it really doesn't matter either way......not likely to happen IMO.

Let me say this about the picture, the Haney's were there the day that was preached, not one of them, not KH not OH, no one raised the objection that she wasn't part of the movement at that time. There is a principle in law that if a person would have spoke up at the time and they didn't, it is evidence that the statement is true. No one, objected at the time.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Let me say this about the picture, the Haney's were there the day that was preached, not one of them, not KH not OH, no one raised the objection that she wasn't part of the movement at that time. There is a principle in law that if a person would have spoke up at the time and they didn't, it is evidence that the statement is true. No one, objected at the time.

That may be a principal of law.....but it is a flawed principle. If anyone is willing to believe that KH/OH or anyone for that matter, would have stood up and objected to what was being said in the middle of a sermon being preached with a conference crowd present, I have some ocean front property in Montana for sale. (Besides that we all know of situations where people have NOT spoken up or come forward and their refusal to do so did not mean that the event did/did not happen.)

It really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things.....as I said earlier, the movement was developing and anyone who would deny that is willfully ignorant. Regardless of whether she (OH) was in church at the time or not, at some point the movement as a whole...black/white, UPC/PAW/ALJC/COOLJ....Nearly all oneness organizations, developed a more restrictive doctrine of separation/sanctification from the world and a water/spirit view of salvation.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by bishoph

That may be a principal of law.....but it is a flawed principle. If anyone is willing to believe that KH/OH or anyone for that matter, would have stood up and objected to what was being said in the middle of a sermon being preached with a conference crowd present, I have some ocean front property in Montana for sale. (Besides that we all know of situations where people have NOT spoken up or come forward and their refusal to do so did not mean that the event did/did not happen.)

It really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things.....as I said earlier, the movement was developing and anyone who would deny that is willfully ignorant. Regardless of whether she (OH) was in church at the time or not, at some point the movement as a whole...black/white, UPC/PAW/ALJC/COOLJ....Nearly all oneness organizations, developed a more restrictive doctrine of separation/sanctification from the world and a water/spirit view of salvation.

Your being ridiculous. The point wasn't that they should stand up in the conference, no one would expect that. The point is they never objected after the Sermon. Both have passed from this life never having protested his assertion. Unheard of if in fact it were untrue.

The only thing flawed is your own inability to accept anything outside of your narrow view as true.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Your being ridiculous. The point wasn't that they should stand up in the conference, no one would expect that. The point is they never objected after the Sermon. Both have passed from this life never having protested his assertion. Unheard of if in fact it were untrue.

The only thing flawed is your own inability to accept anything outside of your narrow view as true.

You can't make either assumption, you couldn't possibly know if either of them ever objected or disagreed with the assertion made unless you personally asked them or were privy to their conversation on the subject, and you don't know me at all, so you don't know what I accept or don't.

Using your logic, the fact that Bro. Yaden was fired and his career finished (the OP's statement in post 1) could be evidence that they did not agree with his statements. To say that KH coward down to political pressure would indicate that he was a man who would not stand for the principles he believed.....a charge I think unworthy of such a great man.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by bishoph

You can't make either assumption, you couldn't possibly know if either of them ever objected or disagreed with the assertion made unless you personally asked them or were privy to their conversation on the subject, and you don't know me at all, so you don't know what I accept or don't.

Using your logic, the fact that Bro. Yaden was fired and his career finished (the OP's statement in post 1) could be evidence that they did not agree with his statements. To say that KH coward down to political pressure would indicate that he was a man who would not stand for the principles he believed.....a charge I think unworthy of such a great man.

The same great man who walked up to LY after the sermon and told him it was one of the best he had heard in 40 years? The one that promised to protect him when reports began to circulate that some where offended? The one who sent someone else to ask for his resignation? Is that the great man you speak of?

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

The same great man who walked up to LY after the sermon and told him it was one of the best he had heard in 40 years? The one that promised to protect him when reports began to circulate that some where offended? The one who sent someone else to ask for his resignation? Is that the great man you speak of?

So now, you would try to impugn the man you previously used to support your view. Further, you speak of these things as though you were personally there......if that is the case then you certainly can say what you saw/heard.....otherwise (unless you have been told it by one or more of those directly involved) it is hearsay, and you, more than most, know the legal veracity of that.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by bishoph

This (the bolded) does not answer the question, to say she came out of Frank Ewart's church does not tell us if she was in his church at the time this picture was taken. Further, NOONE is attacking Olive Haney, I just don't want people trying to make a case for "the way they dressed back then" based on a picture that is not relevant (IF it was a pre-church picture)....IMO that would be like showing a picture of a 5' 6" 14yr old Trayvon Martin as the kid that was shot, when in reality he was 17 and 5' 11"......DKB and friends have been charged (in this thread) with rewriting our history, but those who would use a picture (if indeed it was not taken while she was saved) of OH to support their claims would be guilty of the same.

In the final analysis, one must be honest enough to see that yes there were two differing views of when salvation happened at the merger. (what many now refer to as one step or saved at repentance/three step or water spirit) The oneness movement was still a developing movement. All of those early adherents had come from various religious backgrounds which impacted their view on MANY areas of doctrine. As they settled into their new found doctrine it is reasonable that their beliefs would change over time. (No different than a Trinitarian pastor today who would convert.....his/her beliefs would change, even if minimally over time.)

The "till we all come into the unity of the faith" clause was clearly put in the original statement to appease brethren on both sides who felt that the opposing view needed to align themselves with the proper doctrinal view. IMO the merger should have never taken place. Salvation is a HUGE issue and one that I do not believe can be taken lightly. Even if we agree on so many points that we are nearly alike.....if we do not agree on what constitutes salvation there CANNOT be unity for long. To expect such, would require a compromise (on one side or the other) on the foundational doctrine of salvation.

If I truly believe water/spirit (three step) I cannot believe that the saved at repentance (One step) crowd is actually saved until they have also been baptized in Jesus name and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If I truly believe one is saved at repentance, I cannot long fellowship those who I believe are placing a burden on their followers that is not biblical. To do so would bring confusion (which it did.) For there to be enduring unity, both sides would have to come to the understanding that it really doesn't matter either way......not likely to happen IMO.

Good Spiritual as well as common sense.