Not sure if you got your answer or not stmatthew.
This thread has turned into what much of the forum has turned into, an argument over who is right and who is wrong. In 26 pages and over 250 post no one has changed their beliefs. I see a lot of the traditional believers have come out and posted support, yet most have only posted once or twice and have not engaged in the argument.
It is frustrating to say the least to try and stand on the Word of God and have some on here who simply bash you for it as being “holier than thou” and others as you have seen yourself in Pelathais and Sam who try to tell you what your “heritage is”. Most all of it is misunderstandings due to post being made before reading all post on the thread. As you have said, our problem is more so with those whose beliefs are so far off from Apostolic it's a self-righteous doctrine on its own (the “we are all saved in the end” guy).
That is where you lose the traditionalist is when we open a thread of debate within our own belief that gets hijacked by those who wish to argue their doctrine. Maybe it is time to simply straighten up the clutter and put it all in its place. Have an area in the forum where the Apostolic faith can be debated with other faiths. Have another area where the Apostolic beliefs can debate amongst themselves and policed so that it won't be hijacked by those who have no other goal than to discredit our doctrine. Either way someone should decide whether or not the doctrine on the welcome page is to be honored or not.
I don't intend to insult you Scotty by "telling you what your heritage is..." However, I have often felt insulted by those who have deliberately edited our heritage and removed material that was once required for all prospective ministers.
When I was first considering joining the UPC ministerial fellowship the one issue that caused me to be hesitant was the idea that I would be called upon to "send all other Christians to hell." However unreasonable that may sound to you, that was a real concern for me almost 30 years ago.
The one thing that really settled my mind was the attached page from the Pentecostal Home Study Course - required reading for all UPC ministers. You didn't have to agree with everything in the book, but you had to be aware of it to be able to discuss the issues intelligently.
All of the writings of John Dearing (J.H.D.) were later removed from the book without comment or notice. The book itself was first removed from the required reading materials. This is just one example of how my own heritage has been treated within the UPCI and the Apostolic fellowship in general. One dear friend calls me "blathering" every time I it up. But it is part of the heritage of all Oneness Pentecostals.
From everything I’ve been able to find, the “Acts 2:38 exclusivism” didn’t really appear on the scene until around the time of the merger. This would lead me to question the statements of many that they are “conservatives” for advocating this position because “conservatives” don’t usually advocate new things. This teaching of exclusivism is really the introduction of something new. It’s not really a “heritage” so much as a novelty. Attempts have been made to create a “heritage” for it (for example Marvin Arnold’s History Outline) but these things all end up being a source of embarrassment. Another example might be a UPC bible college’s booklet several years back that argued “Jesus had no beard.” Why do we feel we have to invent these notions?
I would like to ask you though, Scotty - can you trace your current "3 Stepper" or "Acts 2:38 or hell" persuasion back? How far can you go with this "heritage?" I am genuinely interested and would benefit greatly from anything you might have to share that is older than about 60 years.
I don't intend to insult you Scotty by "telling you what your heritage is..." However, I have often felt insulted by those who have deliberately edited our heritage and removed material that was once required for all prospective ministers.
When I was first considering joining the UPC ministerial fellowship the one issue that caused me to be hesitant was the idea that I would be called upon to "send all other Christians to hell." However unreasonable that may sound to you, that was a real concern for me almost 30 years ago.
The one thing that really settled my mind was the attached page from the Pentecostal Home Study Course - required reading for all UPC ministers. You didn't have to agree with everything in the book, but you had to be aware of it to be able to discuss the issues intelligently.
All of the writings of John Dearing (J.H.D.) were later removed from the book without comment or notice. The book itself was first removed from the required reading materials. This is just one example of how my own heritage has been treated within the UPCI and the Apostolic fellowship in general. One dear friend calls me "blathering" every time I it up. But it is part of the heritage of all Oneness Pentecostals.
From everything I’ve been able to find, the “Acts 2:38 exclusivism” didn’t really appear on the scene until around the time of the merger. This would lead me to question the statements of many that they are “conservatives” for advocating this position because “conservatives” don’t usually advocate new things. This teaching of exclusivism is really the introduction of something new. It’s not really a “heritage” so much as a novelty. Attempts have been made to create a “heritage” for it (for example Marvin Arnold’s History Outline) but these things all end up being a source of embarrassment. Another example might be a UPC bible college’s booklet several years back that argued “Jesus had no beard.” Why do we feel we have to invent these notions?
I would like to ask you though, Scotty - can you trace your current "3 Stepper" or "Acts 2:38 or hell" persuasion back? How far can you go with this "heritage?" I am genuinely interested and would benefit greatly from anything you might have to share that is older than about 60 years.
Excellent post.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?
Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.
What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!
Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.
I am surprised by your apparent assertion that I have been the cause for...
Quote:
... that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
I have never made the statement that anyone is a "Papist or Mormon..." In fact, I don't believe that I have even used those words in a post until just now.
I did see others make that statement and moved on, not wanting to be involved in that kind of back and forth. Personally, I don't see the connection except in a overly broad application of the "baptismal regeneration" idea. From my experience, OP's of the "Water&Spirit" persuasion have so many different nuanced stands on the issue that it's difficult to lump them in with any other group.
the only thing really exceptional about the post in question is how completely irrelevent it is to the discussion at hand.
I beg to differ. Seems to me that the intent of the thread is to determine how many are "three steppers", and form what I've read, there are a few who seem to feel that if you're not a confirmed "three stepper" then you have no business on this forum. This post appears to reveal that at one time the "three steppers" and "one steppers" fellowshipped together, and this issue wasn't as big as it is now.
I would love to see a forum where the three-steppers and one-steppers and two-steppers, etc. could discuss such issues without rancor and malice, and I do like Scotty's suggestion that there be a separate room in the forum for just such discussions.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Thanks, however in striving for excellence, I forgot the attachment.
Here it is...
Lesson 42, J.H.D
FAITH CALLETH THOSE THINGS THAT BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE
Rom. 4:17
Our subject is a far reaching text, and if God were not back of it, it could not be counted as truth; but with Him back of it of whom it is written that there is nothing impossible, we dare to trust it to be workable. The law of faith is as sure to bring results as any other law that is properly complied with. First God promises, then we believe, and the result is that we get what we have believed for.
God made a promise to Abram that he would have a son, and he considered not the deadness of himself nor the deadness of Sarah's womb, but he was strong in faith giving glory to God, While he was yet childless he believed God was able to make alive from the dead; so God called the “things that be not as though they were” and changed his name to Abraham, meaning the father of many nations.
The text is written of Abraham, who by faith became the father of us all. For Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness, for it was imputed to him without works. See Rom.4:5-6. Because Abraham lived before the New Testament came into force (Hebrews 9:16-17) God could not impart righteousness (the Holy Ghost is our righteousness) to him so He just counted him righteous.
Now while Abraham had righteousness accounted to him, yet he with all the other Old Testament worthies died in faith having not received the promise, God having provided some better thing for us. Hebrews 11:39-40. But if he had lived on till the Day of Pentecost, he would have been filled in the upper room with the other believers waiting for the "better things” the promise of the Holy Ghost!
We so often meet with the question, “What are you going to do with the many faithful people who have lived for God and yet never experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost as in Acts 2: 4?” Then we are glad for our text by which we can answer that God can call those things which be not as though they were. If God would counted Abraham's faith for righteousness and called him the “father of many” while he was yet childless, is it not just like Him to do that for my old faithful grandmother? Yes, He can and does, thank God! I am not talking about all the professors that died before the outpouring of the Spirit, but I am talking about those who really walked with God. When those precious souls surrendered their lives to the known will of God, they were made happy in the blessing He gave them and the blood gave them a clean slate and perfect standing before God. Yet we have to admit that their state was far different from that of a Spirit-filled believer of today. Can we not believe that their standing was just as good as ours, that God through their faith would call the things that be not as though they were?
However, if those same people had lived on to see our day of increased light and had desired to keep their standing, they too would have embraced Acts 2:4 and would soon have been rejoicing in a Spirit filled life. Thus their standing would have remained the same, but their state would have been greatly changed.
Linear Mode
