Apologetics Index: Information about cults, sects, movements, doctrines, apologetics and counter-cult ministry.  Also: daily religion news, articles on Christian life and ministry, editorials, daily cartoon.

Note: see disclaimer

Accompanying Thread - 2/2

Continued from ...

Subject:     RE: AR-talk Re: Oneness Pentecostals Saved Until They Study?
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: harrymac@arctic.net (Harry McFarland)
Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:42:37 -0800

At 12:53 PM 9/19/97 -0400, MW Bassett wrote:

>Unlike Pentecostal cults, we do not instruct people how to speak in
tongues, dance in the spirit, or any >other work of the Spirit, but it 
does
very often happen without further instruction. 

Mr. Bassett:

I usually refrain from comment on this list, because it gives Rich fits
(grin) and because of the august company of apologists here, but that line
dropped into the midst of your lengthy reasoning was too much to pass up.
The issue is Oneness Pentecostal, and specifically, the United Pentecostal
Church, and whether such constitutes a cult.  Here you try to paint all
Pentecostal churches into your predicament.  That is disingenuous to say
the least.  Many Pentecostal churches may have questionable practices that
may not fit into, say, a Baptist setting, but they accept the Orthodox
belief of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. which seems to me to be the
issue at heart.

You don't want a hydra to grow, but then you give seed; very unChristian 
to
say the least.

In Christ,
Harry McFarland

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     Re: AR-talk Re: Oneness Pentecostals Saved Until They Study?
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:07:28 GMT

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:42:37 -0800, you wrote:

>Originally from: harrymac@arctic.net (Harry McFarland)
>Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:42:37 -0800
 Here you try to paint all

>Pentecostal churches into your predicament.  That is disingenuous to say
>the least.  Many Pentecostal churches may have questionable practices that
>may not fit into, say, a Baptist setting, but they accept the Orthodox
>belief of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. which seems to me to be the
>issue at heart.

Thank you for the warning. Perhaps there was some confusion. I was
simply stating that many of the beliefs and practices of the Apostolic
Pentecostals, which might seem out of place in a church that was
unfamilliar, cannot be said to be coached, or propogated by cultic
insitence, but rather occur as a cosnsitent result of faith. Not
always, but often enough to note.

I only raised the minor issue so as to indicate that a number of
practices that are imagined by some unfamilliar, and might be called
cultic as they do not flow directly from faith, are not a part of our
worship, belief or administration.

The question of what exactly the issue at heart is was indeed a
central part of Bernard's article.  It evidently is not receiving
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, repenting of sin, or in worshipping
Him as almighty God, which Oneness Apostolic do with fervor.

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     Re: AR-talk Questionable references in Ex-Cult Archive 
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:13:06 GMT

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:08:57 -0400, you wrote:

>My question is this:
>If God has revealed Himself as a trinity  then is it acceptable to worship
>Him in any other way? Is it not equal to idolotry to say of God that which
>is not true? I believe that it is. The question of God's revealed person is
>one that has been in discussion for a long time and I do not hope to solve
>it here. I see critisim of Dr. Martin but no refutation of his points. If
>we are to discuss this then we must stay with the Scripture as the final
>authority as God's revelation of Himself to us. What does the Scripture
>say??

>Steve McLeroy

Its my understanding that a general discussion of the godhead is not
on topic in this list, so I will not be responding publically to this
thread, or others that outrightly debate theological issues.

I hope a list administrator will correct this notion if it is wrong.

MW Bassett
Pastor, Life Tabernacle United Pentecostal Church
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:      Re: AR-talk Questionable references in Ex-Cult Archive 
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: Apologia@xc.org (Rich Poll)
Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 97 21:22:47 -0000

On 9/19/97 6:13 PM, Mark Bassett  wrote:

>Its my understanding that a general discussion of the godhead is not
>on topic in this list, so I will not be responding publically to this
>thread, or others that outrightly debate theological issues.
>
>I hope a list administrator will correct this notion if it is wrong.

You are correct Mark. The list is for the discussion of resources and not 
theology, points of view, etc.

Opinion is welcome, if it is brief, once, and not defended. References to 
defenses of a point of view made available for AR-talkers that can 
retireved privately (e.g., on a Web site just for that purpose) are 
welcome.

Note to the list: I am at an EMNR conference in Birmingham and unable to 
service the list traffice as I would like. (Daily log on's are not a 
given.) I will be back home on Tuesday.

Also, while at the conference today I have received input that confirms 
my suspicion that perhaps it would be best if the posting of news items 
would be a bit more selective -- scaled back -- out of concern for 
excessive volume. So, unless there is a general objection to this by the 
majority to those who post more content here than most -- I appreciate 
info. The longer I'm at this work the more I appreciate filtered info. I 
really value your input. The more I get the more I love it. I know how to 
use my delete key. It gets lots of exercise. However, please consider 
scaling back your contributions to include only the cream for the sake of 
our users who are overwhelmed by the big numbers of e-mail messages 
waiting when they log on.

Thanks.

Rich

                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     Rich Poll 
                                        Owner/Moderator, AR-talk
                                           

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     Re: AR-talk Questionable references in Ex-Cult Archive 
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org
CC:          David L MacDonald, dlmacdonald@juno.com

Originally from: mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
Originally dated: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:46:58 GMT

Greetings to James White! I have been privileged to discuss and even
debate things with James, when I was just a young Christian. I've also
purchased and  quoted from one of his books.

> A few comments:
>
>1)  Mark and I go back a long way (anyone remember Fidonet?).  We've debated
>Oneness many times.
>
>2)  Bernard is the best Oneness theologian going (which is why I tried to
>interact with him extensively in my paper on this topic:
>http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html).

Incidentally, I do have a response to your paper, though many years
old now. Since we lost touch, I have not really thought much of it,
but please tell me - what would be the best forum to entertain that
paper ? 

D.K. Bernard has been most extensively published, and is widely
appreciated. I doubt he would receive your praise, and also doubt that
everyone would agree with it, but there is latitude in the
organization, which is simply a fellowship of licensed ministers and a
body which adheres with some principles. We do love Brother Bernard,
and those who know him personally, commend him as a fine Christian
man.

>3)  However, the arguments posted to this list have many serious flaws.  You
>may have noted that most of the arguments could have been used (and in fact,
>are regularly used) by Mormons in the exact same context.  Demonstrating that
>some evangelicals are inconsistent in their use of the term "cult" does not,
>in and of itself, relieve the UPC of the stigma of denying the historical
>doctrine of the Trinity so that one cannot have and honor both the Father and
>the Son.

We would discover that the term cult is, as has many times and many
people been asserted, a variable. It tends to be defined as a
mechanism for circumscribing ones own belief set. I also agree with
those who suggest that its use is detrimental to sincere examination
of scripture, so often refocusing on human commentary rather than the
Word of God.

It is my pleasure and duty to remind James White that the honor and
Worship of the Son does in itself glorify and honor the Father.  A
christians even graver charge is to have the Father and Son. Once
again listening to the authorized teachers, we read

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is
antichrist, that denieth the  Father  and the  Son .  Whosoever
denieth the  Son , the same hath not the  Father : (but) he that
acknowledgeth the  Son  hath the  Father  also. " - 1 John 2:22-23

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,
hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both
the  Father  and the  Son ." - 2 John 1:9

"And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the  glory  of God the  Father ." - Phil 2:11

Since most Christians would regard John 14:6, and  2 Cor 5:19 as
fundamental doctrine, we are in all perplexity wondering how it is
supposed that the early church was allowed to abide on this doctrine
(creeds if you will), when modern scholarship would tell us that it is
possible to receive Jesus and yet not honor God the Father.

>At the very least, the resurgence of Oneness apologetics (aided, no doubt, by
>CT), *should* cause Christians to again consider the centrality of the
>confession that we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I also understand that you are authoring a book on the doctrine of the
Trinity. All in all, these things do interest the minds of people who
have a desire to know God, and to explore his word. 

Roman Catholicism would today extend its hand to recover authority and
approval in tides of worshippers who today are discontent and upset
with the many unstable, and odd things they sees in the church world. 

In this late hour we ought all be pointing squarely at the Apostles
and the scripture which we are privileged to possess, and together
with this great harvest field, lay hold on and contend for the faith
once delivered to the saints.

I don't know whether there is a resurgence of apologists among us. 
So long as we are deferring sincerely and directly to the writers of
scripture, and not to superfluous religious annotations, I am your
partner in Bible study and preaching.

Yours in the Lord Jesus Christ,


MW Bassett
Pastor, Life Tabernacle United Pentecostal Church

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     AR-talk Oneness Pentecostal
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: dunn_associates@juno.com (Joseph G Dunn)
Originally dated: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 00:38:20 -0500

Regarding "Answering the Charge of Cultism", by David K. Bernard,
Associate Editor of Word Aflame Press

Dear Mr. Bernard, 
Thanks for your article and the graciousness you've shown within it! 
Your points were interesting and sometimes arresting.

Mr. Bernard, if some have erred by attacking the person (1 Peter 3:15),
apologists are still right to offer rational attack of doctrine (Jude
verse 3) which *apparently* (to them) denies the clear testimony of
scripture.  Though you don't agree with them theologically, and the
attacks of some are painful, I hope you will bear no grudge to those of
us who differ with your church doctrine but sincerely love the church
members.  God is just, and the crown of the righteous will shine.  

With sincere thanks,
Joseph G. Dunn
-------------------------------------------------------
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     Re: AR-talk Oneness Pentecostal
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: "Eric Pement" 
Originally dated: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:03:52 -0600

Replying to Joseph Dunn, who on 28 Sep 97 wrote:

> Regarding "Answering the Charge of Cultism", by David K. Bernard,
> Associate Editor of Word Aflame Press
> 
> Dear Mr. Bernard, 
> Thanks for your article and the graciousness you've shown within it! 
> Your points were interesting and sometimes arresting.
[. . . ]

   Joseph, I appreciate the kind words and nice way you approached Mr. 
Bernard.  HOWEVER, David Bernard has never posted any messages to this 
list, and probably does not even receive any e-mail from AR-talk.  I 
don't know why you are writing to him here.

   You may have confused David Bernard with Mark Basset, a UPCI pastor 
from Connecticut.  Mark reprinted one of David Bernard's articles on 
this mailing list, but Bernard himself has never posted here. 
Hopefully, if Bernard has e-mail, Mark will forward your remarks on 
to him.

--
Eric Pement 
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     Re: AR-talk Oneness Pentecostal
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org

Originally from: mbasset@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
Originally dated: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 15:20:22 GMT

On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:03:52 -0600, you wrote:

>   You may have confused David Bernard with Mark Basset, a UPCI pastor 
>from Connecticut.  Mark reprinted one of David Bernard's articles on 
>this mailing list, but Bernard himself has never posted here. 
>Hopefully, if Bernard has e-mail, Mark will forward your remarks on 
>to him.

That's right. I am forwarding it to David Bernard. By the way, I
didn't want to clutter the list but let me say that I too appreciate
the kind words and the approach that Joseph Dunn took in his response.

-mw bassett
milford, ct
http://www.elilabs.com/~mbasset/
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Subject:     AR-talk Response to David Bernard's defense of Oneness 
Pentecostali
To:          AR-talk, ar-talk@xc.org
CC:          Anton Hein, webmaster@apologeticsindex.org
             -Rich Poll, RichPoll@ix.netcom.com

Originally from: ebeisner@aol.com (E. Calvin Beisner)
Originally dated: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 08:08:07 EST

Dear Friends,

Several weeks ago Mark Bassett posted to AR-talk a lengthy article by
David Bernard, an editor at the Pentecostal Publishing House (Word
Aflame) of the United Pentecostal Church International. Bernard was
defending the UPC (and by implication other Oneness churches) against
charges of cultism. Among other mistakes, Bernard misrepresents me in a
quotation from my book GOD IN THREE PERSONS. I reply to the entire
article point-by-point in an article now available over the net by Anton
Hein's kindness. The main URL is:

		http://www.apologeticsindex.org/counterpoint.html

If, for whatever reason, you prefer a more "neutral" or easier URL, you
can use:

		http://visitweb.com/counterpoint

Both lead to the same starting page.

In Christ's Joyous Service,
E. Calvin Beisner     423-825-0738
4409 Alabama Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37409 USA
Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies
Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, GA 30750 USA
Office phone: 706-820-1572 ext. 1417; Office fax 706-820-2165
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
To post on AR-talk (subscribers only) send posts to 
To join or leave the AR-talk apologetics resource discussion, send
 subscribe (or unsubscribe) AR-talk  to 
Send "info ar-sample" by itself to  to see the real AR

Return to Start of Thread
Return to CounterPoint Menu

Push Pin                             A Quick Guide To Apologetics Index                            Push Pin

  

Look, "feel" and original content are © Copyright 1998, Apologetics Index™.

Anton Hein retains the right to determine whose material is posted within these pages.

Guide to CMR What's New? Religion News Renewal and Revival Apologetics Ministry Jots & Tittles - Check it out! Quality Links Holland's Online Christian Directory Holland's Christian Calendar The Amsterdam Letter About CMR Contact CMR