Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Sam

1913 is usually the date used for people starting to baptize using the name of Jesus. Andrew Urshan started using the words "Lord Jesus Christ" in 1910 in the church he pastored in Chicago. He did not believe anyone who had been baptized differently should get rebaptized, and he himself did not get rebaptized for several years. Some say that Charles Parham used some kind of baptismal formula with Jesus name in it but then Bro. Goss got rebaptized in Jesus name some time after Bro. Parham had baptized him. 1913 is the date used in the book The Phenomenon of Pentecost as the date that baptism in Jesus name began.

There is no place in the Bible where a baptism is recorded and the words of the one doing the baptizing are quoted. References in our New Testament in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 where it speaks of being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord" are understood by some to mean "in the authority of" or "as authorized by" the Lord. Some believe that the words He authorized are the ones recorded as being spoken in Matthew 28:19 to the ones who would later do the baptizing. I personally believe the name "Jesus" and maybe a title or two like "Lord" and/or "Christ" were spoken at baptism but not all Christians see it that way.

If the only baptism which is valid according to the Bible is done with the name "Jesus" vocalized, we really don't have any record of that being done in an unbroken chain for about 1900 years until 1910 or 1913.

I agree Sam. Good points. I don't think historical evidence is a necessary cause, although it can be sufficient cause. We can believe what we want, but the text of Scripture has been preserved for our guidance, learning, growth and sanctification IMHO. This is what we look to...ultimately.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Whatever.

These guys aren't interested in Apologetics and debate, they are interested in propaganda. David Bernard does nothing but regurgitate the same talking points like a political hack on the evening news. He wrote most of his "theology" with almost no theological training and then after having some training he clings to the same views.

The garbage that is placed under the umbrella of Oneness, which has its own set of problems, cannot be defended so it turns into a Scripture twisting propaganda party.

Might make for some interesting threads but I doubt it qualifies for solid Biblical exegesis or apologetics.

Propaganda? What are you being involved in right now? You are giving you opinion of the man as fact and truth when it is only your opinion. Bernard is not perfect. But, who is claiming perfection? Christ is our perfect example so look to Him Baron. No one is interested in propaganda, we are interested in Truth of God's Word.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Well, argue with Baron about it. I'm just supporting what he said. But Mizpeh, if you think there will be ANY room at something like this for open discovery of truth, you're fooling yourself. It's just reinforcement of old values...it's an attempt to plug the leak of young guys fleeing the mother ship. Yes, it's propaganda.

"open discovery of truth"? Come on, NOW. You believe you have the truth, isn't that right?

You see, there's a problem. Many of the 50 and under crowd have bothered to get educated, to study, to discover truth. There is a need within the system to combat that with reinforcement propaganda...some would call it brainwashing. (I didn't, but some would)

I'm one of those who has studied the word for myself. I've studied and discussed what I believe over and over again with Oneness and non Oneness believers and my mind hasn't changed about certain truths. I could easily use words like propaganda toward the reformed camp or toward the OSAS camp or toward the Say this prayer and you're saved camp or toward the Cessationists. I could easily use names and accuse this one or that one of being deliberately untruthful as the Baron has. I prefer to discuss the scriptures and ascribe motives to those who confess the name of Christ, even those who don't agree with me like Trinitarians.

Reinforced propaganda and brainwashing? Isn't that what an atheist might also say about any preacher of the gospel, even of you and what you do every Sunday when you preach? Sorry, I just see comments like that as insults and as not addressing the issues. Definitely not irenic.

As for education, do you have a degree, NOW? David Bernard has a degree, an advanced degree. James Anderson either has a degree or is working on one from Liberty University last I knew. I don't know about Medina's education. So these guys aren't uneducated (not that that should really matter). Yet they still believe things that you would disagree with. So what does the Baron say to that? " He wrote most of his "theology" with almost no theological training and then after having some training he clings to the same views." Why should he have to change his views after "some training" if he had it right in the first place?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Why should he have to change his views after "some training" if he had it right in the first place?

From reading the whole conversation here, this is exactly what I was thinking and wanted to say? Thanks, Mizpeh!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Mizpeh is right, some of you guys are venting and seem a little "bitter" or etc. Don't know you either but that's the feeling I get from your posts. Bernard isn't debating, he is lecturing on the Oneness of God with panel Q n A afterwards. The debate is taking place, at night, in a different location between Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves.

You guys are all welcome to attend. Baron I will be up in CT doing a debate. I will let you know the dates. Love to meet you in person.

I always think it's humorous that when anyone offers a dissenting point of view, they're called "Bitter." It's all part of the systematic suppression of anyone who dares question the system.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I always think it's humorous that when anyone offers a dissenting point of view, they're called "Bitter." It's all part of the systematic suppression of anyone who dares question the system.

and this is the response I expected. I disagree with people all the time in school, business, marketplace, and they disagree with me. We do not have to disagree and suddenly drop our standards to heathen standards of civility. You can disagree all you want and I will be glad to talk with you about it. I do think our posts can create a persona even if we intend it to or not.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

From reading the whole conversation here, this is exactly what I was thinking and wanted to say? Thanks, Mizpeh!

Me too!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

"open discovery of truth"? Come on, NOW. You believe you have the truth, isn't that right?

••Yes I do. But will there be anyone there presenting, with equal time and endorsement, the "Truth" that I, and others, hold dearly?

I'm one of those who has studied the word for myself. I've studied and discussed what I believe over and over again with Oneness and non Oneness believers and my mind hasn't changed about certain truths. I could easily use words like propaganda toward the reformed camp or toward the OSAS camp or toward the Say this prayer and you're saved camp or toward the Cessationists. I could easily use names and accuse this one or that one of being deliberately untruthful as the Baron has.

••You can disagree with Baron if you like. But here it goes again...just like the claims with pointed fingers of "Bitterness!!!". You're saying he's "Deliberately untruthful." Those are loaded and greatly accusatory words and I take offense. Sometimes it seems as if you people grab any available accusatory word to discredit the words of another. Not fair.

I prefer to discuss the scriptures and ascribe motives to those who confess the name of Christ, even those who don't agree with me like Trinitarians.

Reinforced propaganda and brainwashing? Isn't that what an atheist might also say about any preacher of the gospel, even of you and what you do every Sunday when you preach? Sorry, I just see comments like that as insults and as not addressing the issues. Definitely not irenic.

••Every Sunday at church is far different than a symposium designed to discuss doctrinal apologetics. You can't compare the two.

As for education, do you have a degree, NOW?

••Yes. It's buried in a box somewhere in my garage.

David Bernard has a degree, an advanced degree. James Anderson either has a degree or is working on one from Liberty University last I knew. I don't know about Medina's education. So these guys aren't uneducated (not that that should really matter). Yet they still believe things that you would disagree with. So what does the Baron say to that? " He wrote most of his "theology" with almost no theological training and then after having some training he clings to the same views." Why should he have to change his views after "some training" if he had it right in the first place?

••I think Baron's point...although I can't speak for him....is that it's difficult to trust a person who has an absolute set of values, then goes to an educational system, and then retains every single element of those values. It's like this: 1) I have values with nothing to back it up; 2) I'll get a degree to validate those values; 3) The degree has nothing to do with those values but the appearance is the values are based on the degree when, in reality, they're not at all.

NEWSFLASH!! There are many who have pursued degrees AFTER their ministries began, saw the light of the true message of grace and the gospel, but continued preaching what they were preaching in order to retain their position. Shocking but true.

Baron draws from the positive example of Dan Segraves, who was a renowned bible teacher and bible scholar. After deeper seminary training, he adjusted portions of those values because of greater enlightenment. It's what a person free of pride does.

To say that one held to every single element of his core belief system even after receiving intense training smacks of stubbornness.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Sam

1913 is usually the date used for people starting to baptize using the name of Jesus. Andrew Urshan started using the words "Lord Jesus Christ" in 1910 in the church he pastored in Chicago. He did not believe anyone who had been baptized differently should get rebaptized, and he himself did not get rebaptized for several years. Some say that Charles Parham used some kind of baptismal formula with Jesus name in it but then Bro. Goss got rebaptized in Jesus name some time after Bro. Parham had baptized him. 1913 is the date used in the book The Phenomenon of Pentecost as the date that baptism in Jesus name began.

There is no place in the Bible where a baptism is recorded and the words of the one doing the baptizing are quoted. References in our New Testament in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 where it speaks of being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord" are understood by some to mean "in the authority of" or "as authorized by" the Lord. Some believe that the words He authorized are the ones recorded as being spoken in Matthew 28:19 to the ones who would later do the baptizing. I personally believe the name "Jesus" and maybe a title or two like "Lord" and/or "Christ" were spoken at baptism but not all Christians see it that way.

If the only baptism which is valid according to the Bible is done with the name "Jesus" vocalized, we really don't have any record of that being done in an unbroken chain for about 1900 years until 1910 or 1913.

So, the issue really becomes one that most oneness Pentecostals, especially the teachers and leadership, will not face. Where was the visible, viable, powerful and soul winning church of the Living God in the centuries immediately preceeding 1913? It's totally missing.

That's a HUGE problem, folks!!!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by seekerman

So, the issue really becomes one that most oneness Pentecostals, especially the teachers and leadership, will not face. Where was the visible, viable, powerful and soul winning church of the Living God in the centuries immediately preceeding 1913? It's totally missing.

That's a HUGE problem, folks!!!

Don't you know??? Everyone on earth was an idiot for 18 hundred years! Come on man, read your history book!!