David Bernard's 2008 "Holiness & Culture" Paper

[Withdrawn]

Wow! I guess my thoughts weren't very original. Sorry for beating the same drum, I just read the rest of the posts.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

If anyone has the answer it will be Sam

Sam is da man!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by jaamez

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.

I do agree with your here. It is like the final "The pastor says..." (not to be confused with "Bo knows....") clause. If all else fails, you must obey because rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by POWERUP

Sam,

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

The "fundamental doctrine" statement established in 1945 when the UPC was formed read as follows:

"The basic fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

In 1973 it was modified to add the words "for the remission of sins" after the phrase "baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

When the "fundamental doctrine" statement was formulated there were differing opinions among the ministers on how a person was saved or born again. Some believed water and Spirit baptism were necessary and others did not. The "fundamental doctrine" statement was worded ambiguously enough so that both groups could agree with it. The word "full" was part of the statement to provide ambiguity. Without the word "full" it would sound like repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism were required before a person got saved. With the word "full" there it can be taken to mean that a person should get baptized in water and in the Spirit at some time in their life but it is not necessary in order to get saved. In other words, "we all agree on repentance, baptism in Jesus' name and the Holy Ghost baptism, we just don't all believe that all three steps are necessary to escape hell."

In 1973 when the words "for the remission of sins" was added, it was proposed to narrow the statement to say that a person's sins were not remitted or removed or washed away until the person was baptized in water. Nathan Urshan asked Bro. Greer to second the motion for adoption of the resolution to add the words. He did that because it was well known that Bro. Greer did not believe water baptism was necessary in order to be saved or born again and if a man of his stature and influence seconded the motion it would have a better chance of being passed. Bro. Greer believed the words "for the remission of sins" meant "because your sins have been forgiven." He asked Bro. Urshan if he would have to change the way he believed about it and Bro. Urshan assured him he would not. So he did second the motion and it was adopted.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by jaamez

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.

Exactly! It would be political suicide for him to REALLY mean, without condition, 1 & 2! Ain't a snowball's chance 'o that happenin'!

[Carpenter]

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."

Does this mean the UPC is going to abandon the term standards?

Was this written only for Texas or the whole UPC movement? I bet 99% of church folks never see this.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sam

The "fundamental doctrine" statement established in 1945 when the UPC was formed read as follows:

"The basic fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

In 1973 it was modified to add the words "for the remission of sins" after the phrase "baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

When the "fundamental doctrine" statement was formulated there were differing opinions among the ministers on how a person was saved or born again. Some believed water and Spirit baptism were necessary and others did not. The "fundamental doctrine" statement was worded ambiguously enough so that both groups could agree with it. The word "full" was part of the statement to provide ambiguity. Without the word "full" it would sound like repentance, water baptism and Spirit baptism were required before a person got saved. With the word "full" there it can be taken to mean that a person should get baptized in water and in the Spirit at some time in their life but it is not necessary in order to get saved. In other words, "we all agree on repentance, baptism in Jesus' name and the Holy Ghost baptism, we just don't all believe that all three steps are necessary to escape hell."

In 1973 when the words "for the remission of sins" was added, it was proposed to narrow the statement to say that a person's sins were not remitted or removed or washed away until the person was baptized in water. Nathan Urshan asked Bro. Greer to second the motion for adoption of the resolution to add the words. He did that because it was well known that Bro. Greer did not believe water baptism was necessary in order to be saved or born again and if a man of his stature and influence seconded the motion it would have a better chance of being passed. Bro. Greer believed the words "for the remission of sins" meant "because your sins have been forgiven." He asked Bro. Urshan if he would have to change the way he believed about it and Bro. Urshan assured him he would not. So he did second the motion and it was adopted.

Sam,

Can this conversation be confirmed that it happened as you have laid it out?

I get the impression that this conversation happened over the course of days and not just a minute or two before the vote.



It seems that the UPCI is where it is today (doctrinally) due to godly men being underhanded and crafty.

How can folks turn to these kinds of methods to force their will?
Or was everything done in good faith and it just got twisted to the point that things are the way things are now?

[ILG]

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."

I can see DK Bernard saying this and then spinning a web as to why the standards of the 40's are for today too.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Sam,

Can this conversation be confirmed that it happened as you have laid it out?

I get the impression that this conversation happened over the course of days and not just a minute or two before the vote.
...

My post is based on pages 155-158 of Christianity Without the Cross

[tv1a]

In morals what begins in fear usually ends in wickedness; in religion what begins in fear usually ends in fanaticism. Fear, either as a principle or a motive, is the beginning of all evil.
Jameson, Anna