David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Paper

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I think most everyone agrees that we stick with what the Bible says no matter what culture does. But this part:

If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching

is what everyone debates. There's a lot of disagreement about how we apply what the Bible actually teaches to our current culture.

I was addressing FAL's question "# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????"

I don't think DB is disregarding "true" theology.

[Sam]

I'm neither licensed nor ordained by the UPC and I do not attend a UPC church, but personally, I would like to see the UPC go back to the original "fundamental doctrine" statement as it was originally worded in 1945 and would like to see the "holiness" part of the articles of faith go back to the way it was worded before it was amended in 1954.

[n david]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

# 3 seems to say that we must uphold our expressions of bible teaching reagardless of Theology????

(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.

Actually, I believe the emphasis for #3 is on "shifting opinions," and should read more as:

"If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching, we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of theology."

The major point is the "shifting opinions," and it cannot be left out.

[POWERUP]

Sam,

I have read and heard so much about the early doctrine. But, exactly what was the fundamental Doctrine in 1945?

[KWSS1976]

Powerup I think that the original pioneers of the movement did not beleive like they do now as far as salvation goes probley other things also

[KWSS1976]

If anyone has the answer it will be Sam

[KWSS1976]

Pentecostal history lesson posted on another topic also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."

Is this really change? It still all comes down to an interpretation of the scripture. There will still be those that interpret 1 Cor. 11 to mean that women have magic hair, and there will be those that interpret Deut 22:5 as women should not wear pants, and they will be able to use #3 to say that it is a valid implementation of scriptural principles for women to therefore not cut their hair or wear pants.

And there will be those who argue that by their interpretation, those scriptures mean something else, and therefore #1 applies.

Is this any different then any other standard discussion we have had ad nauseum for the past 6 years on these forums??

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Michlow

Is this really change? It still all comes down to an interpretation of the scripture. There will still be those that interpret 1 Cor. 11 to mean that women have magic hair, and there will be those that interpret Deut 22:5 as women should not wear pants, and they will be able to use #3 to say that it is a valid implementation of scriptural principles for women to therefore not cut their hair or wear pants.

And there will be those who argue that by their interpretation, those scriptures mean something else, and therefore #1 applies.

Is this any different then any other standard discussion we have had ad nauseum for the past 6 years on these forums??

That's why I think no. 3 trumps 1 and 2. Nothing has necessarily changed.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposi...re_Bernard.pdf

“We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as follows:

(1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed.
(2) If they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty according to the teachings of Romans 14.
(3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern culture, philosophy, and theology.
(4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.”

From David Bernard's 2008 UGST symposium paper, "Holiness and Culture."

More of the same. **yawn**

Looks like he's paying lip service to appearing to be progressive-thinking or open to take another look. But items 1 and 2 are easily cancelled out by item 3. Item 3 is an umbrella clause that assures that nothing will change.

Nothing new here.