Urshan and Sabin Face the Music or Defend the Truth??: Video

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Raven,

Heads up...be careful about agreeing with me...you might get hurt.

Blessings, Rhoni

Rhoni
I'm so scarred now that another one wouldn't hurt. I am friends with everyone! Even those whose sword has my blood on it. I refuse to be bitter.
Once you're my friend ... you're always my friend ... no matter what!!!
Raven

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The thing that stood out to me the most was Cal Beisner's "law of grammar" where he said any pronoun-preposition-pronoun combination indicated that you must have two or more persons either speaking or being spoken of. He made his point and nobody touched it. Subsequently I remember some Trinitarians downplayed it.

But I thought that Beisner (even though he was obviously wrong) was getting at the heart of several underlying assumptions that most "orthodox" Trinitarians have. I thought that should have been responded to, but Rbt, Sabin seemed to just give him this "WHAT?" kind of look and the show moved on.

Ankerberg's okay as the silver plumed scholar/host but he often comes across as condescending. Walter Martin of course does his Brooklyn best to dominate the discussion.

I feel bad for NA's infamous "Am I your brother?" lapse. That really gets to the heart of our differences within the Apostolic movement. Ambiguous silence and a blank stare doesn't really give the rest of us much guidance to follow. It just reveals the turmoil that goes on in "our house."

Seems to me, that it would have been an ideal time, during the focus on Matt. 28.19 and the law of grammar to have gone the Acts and pointed out that the apostles must have not understood "Sharp's" rules since it appears that they baptized using the name of Jesus in every instances. How would Cal and Walter have responded?

I do agree with Walter's assertion that to separate the whole of the Christian community, both present and past, on someone's interpretation and understanding of God's person is overly severe.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Seems to me, that it would have been an ideal time, during the focus on Matt. 28.19 and the law of grammar to have gone the Acts and pointed out that the apostles must have not understood "Sharp's" rules since it appears that they baptized using the name of Jesus in every instances. How would Cal and Walter have responded?

I do agree with Walter's assertion that to separate the whole of the Christian community, both present and past, on someone's interpretation and understanding of God's person is overly severe.

Good point, Crakjak!!

Perhaps they could have told these men that the reason the apostles

baptized every time using the name of Jesus was because in Luke 24:45,

Jesus himself, opened their understanding SO that they COULD understand

the scriptures. Yes, how would or how could they have responded!

Blessings,

Falla39

Originally Posted by Falla39

Good point, Crakjak!!

Perhaps they could have told these men that the reason the apostles

baptized every time using the name of Jesus was because in Luke 24:45,

Jesus himself, opened their understanding SO that they COULD understand

the scriptures. Yes, how would or how could they have responded!

Blessings,

Falla39

Sis. Falla,

I understand that your assertion is quite common in Oneness Apostolic circles, but we must take into account what "scriptures' existed to which their understanding was opened. Certainly Matthew 28:19 did not exist as "scripture" at that time. Nor did Mark 16:16-18. The "scriptures" to which their understanding was opened was to the law and the prophets... a full understanding of how HE was the fulfillment in every aspect of the law... the permanent propitiation... the fullness of veiled mercy unveiled... the kinsman redeemer in flesh for all flesh. I am not sure we can draw perfect parallels to Acts 2:38, even from the tabernacle plan. HE, Jesus, was the revelation they received!

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Great pic as your avatar, Sister Rhoni.

Thank-you Daniel, That was me peri-menopausal...the other was me post-menopausal. Not BC or AD.

Blessings, Rhoni

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by philjones

Sis. Falla,

I understand that your assertion is quite common in Oneness Apostolic circles, but we must take into account what "scriptures' existed to which their understanding was opened. Certainly Matthew 28:19 did not exist as "scripture" at that time. Nor did Mark 16:16-18. The "scriptures" to which their understanding was opened was to the law and the prophets... a full understanding of how HE was the fulfillment in every aspect of the law... the permanent propitiation... the fullness of veiled mercy unveiled... the kinsman redeemer in flesh for all flesh. I am not sure we can draw perfect parallels to Acts 2:38, even from the tabernacle plan. HE, Jesus, was the revelation they received!

From verses 44..., of Luke 24, it appears Jesus is doing what a good Teacher

would do. Bridging the gap from the known to the unknown, and further

enlightening them, opening their understanding so they would know what

he was saying to them. And gave further instructions as to what they

were to do and what they could expect. He was about to leave them and

did what every "father" should do. Left them with good instructions, a good

name and a good forwarding address. "That where I am you may be also".

He was leaving an earthly (natural) place to go back from whence he came,

an heavenly (spiritual) dwelling place, eternal in the heavens.

Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today and forever. If they needed

their understanding opened, we also need ours opened. Why did not these

men understand what Bro. Urshan and Bro. Sabin were saying to them.

Was it because they were closed minded. God will not reveal Himself to

those who refuse His Spirit because it is the Spirit that leads and guides.

Closed minds are like closed doors. Nothing will get through until that door

is willingly opened. The knob is on the inside!

Blessings,

Falla39

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I wonder how much this debate weighed on Sabin in reshaping his soteriological position? Would this debate have been different if a PCIer had debated alongside Sabin? Why didn't Urshan say that there were men in his org .... like Goss ... who thought the Baptists were saved?

Why didn't Urshan allow this? Or was being on TV more important?

I guess this is the puzzling part about all this to me. I have no qualms in saying one can be saved and Baptist or non-Oneness Pentecostal, but furthermore I know of many strict "Three Steppers" who would answer the question as "Yes, you are my brother in Christ".

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Thank-you Daniel, That was me peri-menopausal...the other was me post-menopausal. Not BC or AD.

Blessings, Rhoni

Oh great, next we will be posting hormone levels next to our avatars!

[Carpenter]

I remember when they brought this video into the UPC here in town and showed it, I think even Robert Sabin was there to introduce it and for Q&A afterward.

There were some pretty ticked off people in that crowd lamenting why this material would be submitted to them and bring such confusion!

I remember people getting up and leaving, poor Brother Sabin was doing his best to put a band-aid on things.

It was such a long time ago, I can't recall exactly his response.

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Carpenter

I remember when they brought this video into the UPC here in town and showed it, I think even Robert Sabin was there to introduce it and for Q&A afterward.

There were some pretty ticked off people in that crowd lamenting why this material would be submitted to them and bring such confusion!

I remember people getting up and leaving, poor Brother Sabin was doing his best to put a band-aid on things.

It was such a long time ago, I can't recall exactly his response.

Yes, it has been a while. I do remember that Bro. Sabin tried to save face...but I think that today another debate would have different results. Not sure why it was brought up really...it has been so long ago.

Blessings, Rhoni