Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall > The Tab
Facebook

Notices

The Tab Cutting edge news of what is happening in Apostolic Oneness Pentecost today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-03-2007, 01:57 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by staysharp View Post
"There is also agreement that these steps do not constitute salvation by works. Rather, they are applications of the grace o God, purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, and they are expressions of faith in God."

He calls it "Three steps of faith".

David K Bernard, A History of Christian Doctrine Vol.3 p.112-113
This is a rebuttal to those one-steppers who claim that 3 steppers focus on salvation by works ... it in no way says he doesn't believe that water baptism is necessary for the New Birth/regeneration.

Furthermore, he believes, contrary to Seagraves, that our justification is not complete until step 3.

From his New Birth book:

Quote:
Since justification comes through faith, it occurs when a person fully exercises saving faith, which includes obedience to the gospel Therefore, the full work of justification comes by faith as one repents, is baptized in Jesus' name, and receives the Holy Spirit.

In I Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul listed ten categories of unrighteous people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. He continued: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). In other words, justification occurred when they were baptized in Jesus' name and baptized with the Holy Spirit. Although this verse does not specifically mention the word baptism, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible explains it as referring to baptism: "It is generally believed that here is an allusion to being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ… [T]he reference to baptism seems unquestionable." [253] A Baptist theologian asserted that, "The voice of scholarship is unanimous in affirming the association with baptism." [254]

Further examination of the purposes of repentance, water baptism, and the Spirit baptism demonstrates that the work of justification takes place in all three. At repentance, man and God begin to form a personal relationship, which lays a foundation for water and Spirit baptism. At water baptism, God remits sin (Acts 2:38), which corresponds to the first element of justification.

The Holy Spirit imparts the righteousness of Christ, for the Spirit is Christ in us: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:4); "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness" (Romans 8:9-10). The indwelling Spirit enables us to receive future salvation (Romans 8:11). Through the Spirit we qualify for God's blessings and promises (Romans 8:15-17; Galatians 3:14). In short, the baptism of the Spirit corresponds to the second element of justification.

The work of justification begins at initial repentance from sin and is completed at the time of water and Spirit baptism. Therefore, justification is instantaneous at the time of the new birth as a whole. It would be incorrect to identify justification solely with one aspect of the new birth, because the new birth must be regarded as a single whole. In one sense, however, justification is available on a continuing basis for sins committed and repented of after the new birth experience.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:00 PM
staysharp staysharp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
This is a rebuttal to those one-steppers who claim that 3 steppers focus on salvation by works ... it in no way says he doesn't believe that water baptism is necessary for the New Birth/regeneration.

Furthermore, hebelieves contrary to Seagraves, that our justification is not complete until step 3.

From his New Birth book:
All this is is double talk. Doesn't make a lick of sense, pardon my southern euphemism.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:02 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by staysharp View Post
All this is is double talk. Doesn't make a lick of sense, pardon my southern euphemism.
Of course it can be construed as double talk ... he does not want to lumped w/ those that believe in works-based salvation ....
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:02 PM
ghostryder
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
To the Contrary

Quote:
Originally Posted by staysharp View Post
Ferd, I know we may have gotten off on the wrong foot...anyway, what I mean is this. When you write positional papers, you are not free to change your mind. People read those years later and still tie you to your position.

As we age, we wisen up, or at least we should (lol) and in the UPCI or any other organization that demands performance and a certain level of expectation, you are not free to change your mind publicly. Many do change their mind, but are not free to express it. This creates a double self or a false image. This is how hypocrisy is created.

I know of which I speak. I have been in the ministry over 20+ years and have seen many people want to change, but could not for fear. The mindset is this; "if it was wrong before, it should still be wrong now". The dynamics needed to be publicly accepted are much greater.

When you pastor, and take certain positions, the people expect you to abide by those positions. If you change your mind, you risk loosing credibility. Most pastors suffer in silence, not wanting to return to the past and admit failure. Pride keeps us from admitting wrong or even our mis-education. IT TAKES TREMENDOUS COURAGE TO BE EXISTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE.

My post was observational of DB's behavior to criticism. Even though I thought the criticism was insane and unmerited personally, he felt a need to defend. When this occurs, from a human behavioral standpoint, there is insecurity involved. Insecurity comes from instability, instability from trying to reconcile mixed messages. This occurs during our formative years. In DB's case, he has been writing since his youth. Psychologist tell us to discount everything a man does until age 30. The brain does not fully develop until the mid-twenties.

DB is a good man, but has had to defend his position to great scholarly minds. His positions at times have been wrong and he knows it in his heart. The way we act is like this; Instead of admitting someone else may know more than we do, we defend until we die, even though we know deep deep down in the secret crevices of our heart that we are wrong. Pride won't let us admit it.

That's what David referred to in his repentance before the Lord...thou desirest truth in the inward part and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
To make the comment about psychologists' stance on discrediting what men (under 30 years old) say is ludicrous. So, then Staysharp are you asserting that all the teachings that Jesus Christ did as a child in the temples is not worthy and should be ignored? Furthermore, are you also asserting that the men that God inspired to write his word should not be read or adhered to, some who were younger than 30 years of age? You stated that you have been in the ministry for 20+ years. I assume you are over 30 years of age. Thus, should all those who have heard you preach or teach, now discount what you have spoken; undoubtedly by the leading of the Holy Ghost? Seeing as that does not fit in with what psychologist state and your mind just being developed?

Also, if by receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, does God not make us complete in our minds. Are our minds not whole in Christ Jesus? But, if we were to listen to you then this world would go to hell if anybody is not over 30 years old. We have young saints teenagers in my congregation that travel on missions trips around the world. Preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, they are not over 30 years old, so then those that they lay hands and are healed and receive the Holy Ghost, is that then an illusion and a fallacy? You said that you know of which you speak. Yet, you truly do not know of which you speak.

I as an ordained Minister of the Gospel (at the age of 22 and started preaching at 18 years old), an Evangelist, Pastor (previously), and a Prophet for over 35 years have sat down with good brethren of the UPCI some gone on to be with the Lord. Bro. Urshan, Bro. Guidroz, Bro. Bernard, Bro. Cole, Bro. Phillips, and the list goes on and on. All men who started out in the ministry when they were under 30 years of age, and have continued to build upon the foundation of the Apostles, Prophets, and Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone a sure foundation. So for you to make such an asinine statement of what a worldly psychologist would say of disregarding all that a man does before he is 30 years old is preposterous. And I would dare you to stand up before your district presbyters and the brethren in your district at your next fellowship meeting and make the statement to them, that you believe the psychologist that state "disregard all that a man does before he is 30 years old".

I won't be responding to any of your feedback. A-men to Bro. DB's response.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:03 PM
staysharp staysharp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Of course it can be construed as double talk ... he does not want to lumped w/ those that believe in works-based salvation ....
That's because he's wrong and he knows it. You can't please the UPCI and the ecumenical scholars at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:04 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by staysharp View Post
That's because he's wrong and he knows it. You can't please the UPCI and the ecumenical scholars at the same time.
Walking the tightrope.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:05 PM
staysharp staysharp is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea View Post
Walking the tightrope.
That's a good way to get killed, especially if you don't have a Plan B.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:06 PM
SDG SDG is offline
Guest


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: H-Town, Texas
Posts: 18,009
I am fascinated w/ the views on justification and remission that PACJers hold ... Here's a thread that classifies the 3 major schools of thought among them ...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ght=bernardian
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-03-2007, 02:45 PM
HangingOut HangingOut is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 157
I can verify 2. d, I was there, but I do recall another leaving around that time as well, probably his boss, J.L. you know who.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretWarrior View Post
COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONSERVATIVE APOSTOLIC FORUM
By David K. Bernard

The discussion about me on the Conservative Apostolic Forum was surprising. I didn’t think an individual would merit such treatment, especially not me. Here are my thoughts and response.

General Observations
1. I don’t mind people disagreeing with my positions and offering a reasoned response, criticism, or correction, but I was shocked to read numerous accusations against me, my family, and my church based on innuendos, hearsay, and outright false information. No one checked with me about the accuracy of these statements, although some know me personally. If I have an uncorrected fault, why don’t they approach me in a spirit of love instead of accusing me to the brethren? How can they make these comments or provide a forum for these comments in light of the many scriptural prohibitions? (See, for example, Leviticus 19:16; Proverbs 11:13; 18:8: 26:20-22; I Timothy 5:19; James 1:19-20.) Wouldn’t tale bearing be worse than some of the other errors they are alleging?
2. Some presume to judge my heart, saying that I am motivated by politics, desire for numbers, or desire to please my children. How do they know my heart? Where is the evidence of wrong motives? Have they no regard for Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 7:1-2, which surely applies when someone publicly makes personal judgments about someone else’s heart? Shouldn’t someone beside me tell them that such comments are inappropriate?
3. There is very little engagement with my ideas, but instead there are attacks on my character and reputation. This is the logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad hominem, which means “argument against the person.” In other words, even if every single accusation they make against me is true, it doesn’t address the validity of the ideas that I have presented.
4. Where is the concern for me, my family, and my church? They may justify their statements by saying this is a closed forum, but isn’t that what talebearers do when they tell things “in confidence”?
5. Contrary to allegations, my basic positions on holiness have remained the same. You can see this for yourself if you will read In Search of Holiness (1981, 2nd edition 2006) and Practical Holiness (1985); compare them with our church’s “Guidelines for Leadership and Public Ministry” in my book Growing a Church (2001); and then visit our church in Austin today. You will see that the growth of my family, the growth of our church, or my being elected as district superintendent has not changed my teachings. Moreover, the books are clear; you can easily understand my position on holiness from them.
6. Does this type of discussion demonstrate what it means to be “conservative Apostolic”? (By the way, I have received much criticism over the years for my “conservative Apostolic” views.) We should remember that holiness involves attitudes and communications as well as dress and entertainment. That is why my book In Search of Holiness has two chapters entitled “Christian Attitudes” and “The Tongue.” I have removed people from local church involvement because of violations of these holiness principles. Perhaps my views on these matters are too conservative for the Forum!

Specific Responses
Below are brief responses to the main accusations. I can provide a more detailed response if desired.
1. Accusation: He believes the UPCI is the body of Christ. That is a misrepresentation of my position. In Search of Holiness, 207, clearly states that no organization is equivalent to the body of Christ. However, I do believe that the UPCI is part of the body of Christ. Therefore, it must be treated with respect as a part of the body. I don’t want to cause harm or act unethically toward any portion of the body of Christ. Nor do I believe that organizational officials are someone’s pastor merely by virtue of an election. However, I do think that they are leaders who should be treated with respect.
As ministers, we are still accountable to follow scriptural principles of authority, accountability, unity, ethics, and not sowing discord. I do not say that a person cannot leave the UPCI. I say that a person should not do so without careful consideration of these principles and should not do so in an unethical way. A good test is this: Under what conditions would it be proper for a saint in your local assembly to disagree with a decision of the leadership, to express their disagreement, to leave in good standing, and to solicit other members to leave? Think about the scriptural admonitions and principles involved in answering this question. Then apply the same principles to preachers, because, believe it or not, preachers are supposed to be saints also. For further discussion, see In Search of Holiness, 207-30.
2. Accusation: He is a “company man.” He is playing “politics.” I will cite a few examples to the contrary. My intent is not to exalt self but just to give facts. I can provide other examples also.
a. In 1981, I turned down career options as one of the top graduates at one of the top law schools in the country. Some classmates and successors have attained high social, judicial, and political positions. I don’t consider my choice to be a sacrifice, because it is a privilege to preach the gospel. But it would be foolish to compromise my ministry for position, fame, or money after rejecting a greater opportunity.
b. When my mother and I wrote In Search of Holiness in 1981, the Pentecostal Publishing House refused to publish it because it was deemed too controversial, so we self-published it. Later, we turned it over to PPH to ensure wider distribution, even though it meant that PPH received most of the income.
c. From 1981 to 1986, I was part of a new administration that turned around a Bible college which had departed from the Apostolic doctrine and lifestyle. I was the primary doctrine teacher.
d. When I became associate editor for the UPCI in 1981, all full-time executives attended a church that began heading in a direction contrary to “conservative Apostolic.” Most executives were out of town most weekends, so the situation did not immediately press them. Some people advised me to attend church with everyone else. Nevertheless, in that situation I was the first full-time executive to choose another church. (Not a very smart “political move” for the new kid!)
e. In 1992, I resigned my full-time position at headquarters to start a home missions church, even though people said I would be in line for Editor in Chief. (Again, not a very good “political move.”)
f. In 2001, I joined the committee to apply for the South Texas District, even though the odds were against the application and I experienced extreme criticism. My “political career” as a district board member was certainly doomed if the application were denied. But I decided it was the best plan for growth, and if the application was turned down, it would be God’s way of refocusing my ministry.
3. Accusation: A young minister visited our church and was disappointed to see a lot of worldly people. We are a growing church, so in every service we have first-time visitors, uncommitted people, and new converts. We typically have about 100 new converts in a year. In the past year we have added 90 new families. On any Sunday we can easily have 50 or more visitors. Frankly, I would be disappointed if I did not see a lot of worldly people in a Sunday service. The minister did not see worship leaders, choir members, ushers, hostesses, or Sunday school teachers who were violating our guidelines for outward appearance. That is the more accurate test for a revival church.
4. Accusation: Owning a TV is not an issue in his church. Simply false. Our published guidelines take a position against TV. We do allow monitors for computer, video, and DVD under certain guidelines.
5. Accusation: His teenage son was shown in a family picture having “long” hair. It is a shame to drag my son into this discussion. I recommend that men’s hair be off the collar, eyebrows, and ears, basically following the hairline. As the picture shows, my son’s hair was not over his collar or eyebrows, but it was curling above his ears—technically in compliance, but longer than I wanted. Nevertheless, he is my son, I love him unconditionally, and I won’t eliminate him from a family picture on this basis, even if some criticize. (I must not be a very good “politician.”) We faced a strong spiritual attack on our family at that time, and I had to choose my battles wisely. Thankfully, the Lord gave us victory. All three of my children are walking in holiness, active in ministry, and personally winning souls.
6. Accusation: His youth band is worldly. This a mischaracterization and misjudgment of these people, their spirit, and their music. For a discussion of music, see In Search of Holiness, 252-58.
7. Accusation: Men in his church have facial hair. For district functions, our platform guidelines prohibit facial hair on men, because of perceptions of the possible symbolism. Since it is a cultural rather than a scriptural issue, in the local church I handle this matter according to Romans 14. One man on our leadership team has a mustache. (The other picture referenced is out of date.) For further discussion, see Practical Holiness, 91-107, especially 105-6. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion on this matter, but not ridicule or condemnation.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-03-2007, 03:44 PM
timlan2057's Avatar
timlan2057 timlan2057 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind View Post
SecretWarrior> I believe this accusation was started with Caston Smith and Reckart.

You DO realize CAF has a zero tolerance policy for reposting verbatim postings on other boards?

We also kinda frown on portraying other boards in a negative way.

This requires review at lunchtime when I have the time.
I'm surprised Bernard responded at all; much less in such depth.

Before I make any comment on the content of his response, I'm curious about a couple things:

Now according to Riggen, he turned Reckart's membership request down at CAF so I'll assume that Reckart is not a member there.

So are you saying here that these accusations were made solely by Reckart and Smith and NOT by ANY member of CAF?

I wonder at this because I think I could say without reservation that Bernard would never take the time to write such a detailed response to a couple off-the-wall characters like Reckart and Smith.

In fact, I don't think Bernard would relieve himself on them if they were on fire. And I don't blame him. I wouldn't either.

Now Bernard didn't say that - I did.

Is Bernard a member of CAF?

Where was Bernard's response originally written and if Bernard is not a member of CAF, then how did he read the accusations against him?

Sorry, but I just do not believe Bernard would take the time to write this solely in response to Reckart.

I'm even surprised he took the time to respond to UPC ministers on CAF.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bernard on TV, Tulsa, and Togetherness TK Burk Fellowship Hall 288 11-25-2007 11:05 PM
The Dan Rather of Legalism Speaks Again tv1a Fellowship Hall 9 11-22-2007 10:56 PM
David Bernard endorsing Christian Rock Band?? Thad The Tab 41 09-27-2007 07:09 PM
*** Newsflash: D Bernard Speaks Out on TV Debate and Upcoming GC*** SDG The D.A.'s Office 92 09-26-2007 03:03 PM
Dave Bernard addresses beards freeatlast Fellowship Hall 542 06-10-2007 10:47 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.