Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Ferd,
Bernards' first chapter indicates he is speaking to all Oneness Apostlics:
The discussion goes beyond the org ... as this paper implicates ... and seeks to influence an entire movement.
Do you hold DB to the same litmus test ... I think not.
The discussion continues ... even if you think some are not qualified to engage in it. |
More to the point. I agree with DB is saying. I also understand your distaste for it.
Your first post was much more about the UPCI and much less about David Barnard's "sanitizing" Apostolic "history".
I take it, you are distancing from your first post in order to regroup around a more defensible argument?
well, in the first place, you are still quick to shade the UPCI in as negative light as possible. Its like the scripture that explains a nagging woman... like a continual dripping on a rainy day.
in the second place, DB is in general correct. We came from a holiness movement that predates the out pouring of the Holy Ghost.
in General the Apostolic movement has been vastly more conservative than other groups down thru the decades (especially since the 1940's to the present).
but we are certainly now dealing with a movement within our ranks to "catch up with" or "fall back to" the place where the rest of Christianity is. (I will leave it to the reader to decide which it is).
That is what DB is dealing with and your attempt to make him into some sinister anti-progressive who is trying to white wash some great part of "Apostolic History" reeks of the typical sour grapes you seem so enamored with.
Face it DanA, your neo-apostolic message is very much new. It isn't reflected in the history of the Apostolic movement in any meaningful and expansive way.
Sure there has always been a group that was more liberal, but as a movement, what DB states reflects the larger portion of Oneness Pentecostals.
Threaded Mode
