Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Regarding the Remnant, they will say "bro... there has ALWAYS been a remnant." With no factual data to confirm there were people that believed the same message we do today (assuming we are at the point of perfect restoration), but rolling the dice that they followed each step sub-conciously anyway.
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey
DA great point about restorationism and Light Doctrine. They seem to go hand-in-hand.
As much as JR Ensey slammed outright some in the pioneering Oneness leadership, like Urshan, Ewart, Haywood, for believing Light Doctrine ... going as far as to say they possessed false, or heretical doctrine ... they do make the same claims that the first century Church had it right and then darkness overcame most of Church .... while through a progression of events light or the truth were restored or revealed .... while some say gradually ... Ensey would say Truth "revived" or "expanded"....
Ensey defines his restorationism as: When I say that the New Testament church has been “restored,” I mean that its expansion, its influence and its previous power has been renewed.
Ultimately Oneness restorationism saying we should examine Church history because it's interesting and shows a restoration but their unique Acts Precedes All hermeneutic is its guiding principle
Only major difference being it seems that some Oneness restorationists will never accept that those who did not comply to the 3 step New Birth plan can be saved.
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII
As much as JR Ensey slammed outright some in the pioneering Oneness leadership, like Urshan, Ewart, Haywood, for believing Light Doctrine ... going as far as to say they possessed false, or heretical doctrine ... they do make the same claims that the first century Church had it right and then darkness overcame most of Church .... while through a progression of events light or the truth were restored or revealed .... while some say gradually ... Ensey would say Truth "revived" or "expanded"....
Ensey defines his restorationism as: When I say that the New Testament church has been “restored,” I mean that its expansion, its influence and its previous power has been renewed.
Only major difference being it seems that some Oneness restorationists will never accept that those who did not comply to the 3 step New Birth plan can be saved.
I have to agree that the Light Doctrine doesn't make much sense.
But it's also a unstoppable implication for restorationism. Many of these admit that Azusa was not an instaneous restoration, and often argue that's why there were later debates about godhead, baptism and articulating official teachings concerning spirit baptism. This also is how they explain those who previously wore jewlery, cut their hair, etc.... I've even heard a primary "move/shaker" who was in the UPC say those like Urshan and Clyde Haney were caught in the middle of that restoration, and what they saw was incomplete. Only problem with this is... why do they feel they've arrived? Like, at what point has this all stopped?
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII
It is becoming more apparent that Bernard and Shaw believe similarly to the Mormons, JW's, that in their view of primitivism or restorationism, .... we find a teaching that states that in the last 2000 years, after about 100 AD, the Church devolved and then evolved to complete Truth once again ... just in the last century or so.
Chalfant, Arnold, even Paul Mooney and Evangelist Duane Williams .... take notice .... no remnant???.
Did as some interpret it ... the GATES OF HELL PREVAIL AGAINST THE CHURCH?
From the New Life Church of Austin:
05/05/10 | Wednesday:
Find it amazing that we are literally told by Shaw to cut out the last 2000 years and simply match our 2010 experience with the first century.
Shall we do that in all instances .... including church governance?
I agree with Bernard to a point. I think the verse you are referring to is very misused and misinterpreted. It's not intended on saying "there will always be a visible church teaching 100% the truth", and the irony here is protestants quote that but they can't find their church until Martin Luther or later
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
"False doctrine" and "heresy" are just ways of saying "doctrine I think is wrong". Christian theology has been evolving from Day One. Factions were created, faded away, resurrected (restored), etc. The stronger factions even got to decide what went into the Bible -- namely, the books they agreed with. (I wonder if it will ever come down to just one winner. )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Tell me... I read about how Tyndale was
Tyndale said,
“...the washinge preacheth unto us that we ar clensed wyth Christe’s bloud shedynge which was an offering and a satisfaction for the synne of al that repent and beleve consentynge and submyttyne themselves unto the wyl of God. The plungynge into the water sygnyfyeth that we die and are buried with Chryst as coserning ye old life of synne which is Ada (Adam). And the pulling out again sygnyfyeth that we ryse again with Christe in a new lyfeful of the holye gooste which shal teach us, and gyde us, and work the wyll of God in us; as thou seest Rom 6”. Quoted from; ‘The obedience of all degrees proved by Gods worde, imprinted by Wyllyam Copland, London, 1561’.
In modern English it reads:
The washing without the word helpeth not: but through the word it purifieth and cleanseth us: as thou readest, Ephesians 5, how Christ cleanseth the congregation in the fountain of water through the word. The word is the promise that God hath made. Now as a preacher, in preaching the word of God, sayeth the hearers that believe; so doth the washing, in that it preacheth and representeth unto us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christ. The washing preacheth unto us, that we are cleansed with Christ’s blood-shedding; which was an offering, and a
satisfaction, for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam.
And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and work the will of God in us, as thou seest, Romans 6.
Tyndale was baptized in Trinitarian fashion. However, we see what he believed about it. Was his baptism ineffectual because someone muttered the wrong words over him?
Tyndale prayed long into the nights experiencing great groanings and sobbings under the power of the Spirit. Maybe he didn't "speak in tongues" or know to "let go". Is he void of the Holy Ghost?
Re: Restorationism, No Unbroken Line: Shaw & Berna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Tell me... I read about how Tyndale was
Tyndale said,
“...the washinge preacheth unto us that we ar clensed wyth Christe’s bloud shedynge which was an offering and a satisfaction for the synne of al that repent and beleve consentynge and submyttyne themselves unto the wyl of God. The plungynge into the water sygnyfyeth that we die and are buried with Chryst as coserning ye old life of synne which is Ada (Adam). And the pulling out again sygnyfyeth that we ryse again with Christe in a new lyfeful of the holye gooste which shal teach us, and gyde us, and work the wyll of God in us; as thou seest Rom 6”. Quoted from; ‘The obedience of all degrees proved by Gods worde, imprinted by Wyllyam Copland, London, 1561’.
In modern English it reads:
The washing without the word helpeth not: but through the word it purifieth and cleanseth us: as thou readest, Ephesians 5, how Christ cleanseth the congregation in the fountain of water through the word. The word is the promise that God hath made. Now as a preacher, in preaching the word of God, sayeth the hearers that believe; so doth the washing, in that it preacheth and representeth unto us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christ. The washing preacheth unto us, that we are cleansed with Christ’s blood-shedding; which was an offering, and a
satisfaction, for the sin of all that repent and believe, consenting and submitting themselves unto the will of God. The plunging into the water signifieth that we die, and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam.
And the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a new life, full of the Holy Ghost, which shall teach us and guide us, and work the will of God in us, as thou seest, Romans 6.
Tyndale was baptized in Trinitarian fashion. However, we see what he believed about it. Was his baptism ineffectual because someone muttered the wrong words over him?
Tyndale prayed long into the nights experiencing great groanings and sobbings under the power of the Spirit. Maybe he didn't "speak in tongues" or know to "let go". Is he void of the Holy Ghost?
)
Linear Mode
