How Should We Relate to Trinitarians (LONG Article Included)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Wed, 20 Sep 1995 19:58:36 -0500, you wrote:

>This post is in regards to the messages that have been coming across the
>list with regards our relationship with other church bodies. 

>What Debt Do Oneness Believers Owe Trinitarians?

>by Frank Vandenburg

>Some people have gotten this far in the article and assume they know the
>answer to this question already. "NONE!" I do not expect them to read on,
>even though it would be useful for them if they did. As for the rest of the
>readers out there who haven't made up their mind on this topic, let me
>point out a few salient facts which might bear on this question, and
>suggest a possible paradigm for understanding.
>
>Our debt to trinitarians goes right back to the source of our message, the
>Bible. While the Hebrew Scriptures and Greek New Testament were written by
>One God people, either Jews or Christians, Our English translation does
>not. The King James Version (preferred by many of our brethren and myself)
>was translated mainly by trinitarians, and certainly no Oneness folk ( See
>the book "The Men Behind The KJV" for more information.) Knowing that many
>in our fellowship are not able to read the Bible in the original tongues,
>we should thank God that these trinitarian men were inspired of God to make
>this translation without changing the text to fit their own doctrine (as
>some groups who have made their own translation have done). This allowed
>our forefathers the opportunity to discover the wonderful messages of
>Baptism in Jesus' name and the Unity of the Godhead. While we could
>commission a translation of the Scriptures by Oneness scholars, we might do
>better to simply thank God for the provision he has already made.

>This debt carries over into the area of reference books as well. James
>Strong, creator of probably the best Bible reference work ever written,
>Strong's Concordance, was also a Trinitarian (consult any reputable
>encyclopedia for  a bibliographic reference). It is impossible to mention
>all the Greek and Hebrew Grammars, Lexicons, Bible Atlases, Bible
>Dictionaries, etc. that our members and ministers have used in study,
>sermon preparation, Bible School training, and so on. We have written a
>number of good commentaries and doctrinal works, but in the area of
>technical reference works we are in great debt to trinitarian scholarship.

>Music is a hotly debated topic with many as to whether or not we owe any
>debt here. The common argument is that if it was written by someone who did
>not properly understand the nature of God it is not suitable for our use.
>The flaw in this reasoning is that it also condemns the resources listed
>above, removes the English Bible from our pulpits, and takes away the tools
>we would need to make our own translation, since they also are products of
>people who did not understand.

>We need to recognize that God prepared a heritge of worship music for us to
>use before he led us back into truth. No one can sing "Amazing Grace" (John
>Newton was a trinitarian.) like a Spirit-Filled Apostolic. We have "Joy
>unspeakable and full of glory". So once again we must be aware of where
>thanks is due.

>There are other areas I could touch on, but the last one I will mention is
>the history of modern day Pentecostalism itself. The man who rediscovered
>the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the help of his
>students, Charles F. Parham was himself a Trinitarian, (either of Parham's
>books, or his articles in the magazine "The Apostolic Faith" on the "New
>Issue") even though he received some insight into Baptism in Jesus' Name in
>1901-02 which he later rejected. (Fred Foster's "20th Century Pentecostals"
>or Sister Goss' "The Winds of God".

>The first person baptized in this new movement, Agnes Ozman (or N. O.
>LaBerge, her married name) was a trinitarian when she received the Baptism
>of the Holy Ghost in Topeka, Kansas (Frank Ewart "The Phenomenon of
>Pentecost", Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, her
>autobiography, and others). This is not including the fact thatin the late
>1880's folks in the hills of N. Carolina were speaking in tongues in their
>services although they did not yet understand the doctrine behind it (this
>group was the forefathers of The Church of God, Cleveland, TN, see "Like A
>Mighty Army" by Charles Conn).

>Azusa St. Mission was run by a trinitarian, William Seymour (see Ewart
>"Phenomonon" and "Dictionary"). Bro. Durham of Chicago, who taught the
>Finished Work of Calvary with regards to Sanctification, was also
>trinitarian (see sources for Seymour).

>Lastly, the first Jesus' Name baptismal message was preached by a
>trinitarian, R. E. MacAllister (Ewart, Dictionary, Synan "History of the
>Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States"). And the first Jesus"
>Name baptisms carried out with an understanding of the Oneness of the
>Godhead were conducted by ministers who had been baptized only in the
>titles, Glenn Cook and Frank Ewart, who baptized each other because they
>had no one else to do it (same references as above, and Foster "20th
>century", etc.).

>So if one looks objectively at this evidence, it is clear that we as Oneness believers and 
>children of God owe Trinitarians a gret debt. 

Bro. Vanderburg, I have completely read the article thus far. I
believe that your material was accurate, with perhaps some issues
relating to the canon which might be questioned. Further along, you
have made an appeal for the evangelization of souls, on the basis of a
debt. May I say that I believe in evangelization, and particularly of
the unworthy, such as I am? But, I would not do it based on a debt to
the flesh of fellow man.

You suggest that we owe a debt to "Trinitarians". 

Let's examine the idea. What is a debt? An exchange is made. The
property of one passes to the posession of another and no compensation
is provide. There is an inequality called debt, which places an
obligation upon the receiver.  I owe a debt to my dentist, since last
week he started some work which relieved a real problem. As God
blesses me, I'll pay him in cash.

It was his service which I received. A fair exchange is to compensate
for his skill and strength. His time and skill were applied to my body
and I now owe him upwards of $500 - the going rate.

In annother personal account, I was taught and baptized by a man who
ws known as a great man. He indeed was great. He taught me about the
meaning of prayer. I received the Holy Ghost at home on my bedroom
floor one thursday night after hearing him teach a message on the name
of Jesus in the adaption. It was about a year when this great man,
probably through long accumulation of deep discouragement, left the
faith pretty much, and joined up with all sorts of religious people
who believed anything but the truth. And believe me, he was a *great*
preacher. All over the country people knew it. So, he was out. I'm in
the faith for 1 year, and I'm on the street. No one else left. They
made fun of me. They changed the name of the church, and began the
same bitter talk against the brethren that you hear on this list from
time to time. My wife's family didn't leave, until recently. Do I owe
him a debt? His reputation? Those people who he fellowshipped in his
last days. Not on your life friend. 

The fact is, HE OWED ME a debt, which he did not pay. He responded to
the call of God to let His life be used for the conveyance of the
truth of God's word. He was to minister to me. That was his pledge to
God and in doing so accepted the high calling, and with it, all the
obligations of ministry, and the debt of blood whould he fail to
preach the truth. And, I forgive him. But, l;et me say, there are
many, many people lost today who CANNOT forgive him because THEY DO
NOT KNOW THEY ARE LOST AND ON THE WAY TO HELL.

Do I honor this man in the memory of the part of his life which was
consecrated? Yes, I do.

Have the saints of ages given themselves for us? In the truth, yes. In
error, no. 

My debt is to Jesus Christ (Read Romans 1:14) who has given himself
for Greeks and Barbarians. In this, by debt is to the unsaved world.
In those whose religious service stands out, we note that they did
what they did unto the Lord, if it was done in the spirit. If not,
then it is of not value. Notice: To hold ourselves accountable to the
religious works of men is to deny that God was working toward the TRUE
salvation of all men, and to give HIM the glory for it. Whatever these
people along the way did, God gave them strength and what truth they
loved enough to keep.

I am not in debt to Nebudchadnezzar for his service in holding Israel
captive so that it could learn proper monotheism, and be saved.

Honor of those who are sincere seekers of God is a completely
different matter. This nonsense of cursing people is blasphemy, pure
and simple, probably done in ignorance though WILFULL ignorance. We
ought to entertain the humanity which comes into our path with
respect. We pray people through all the time who come into the church
thinking they believe in a catholic God. People are mixed up. Even
when the receive the truth, it is gradual, and depends on a lot of
things to make the ministry bear fruit. People backslide because of
the appearance of bitterness, and worse, people are denied a hearing
of the truth because of this cursed hatred and devilish
self-centeredness which destroys the ministry of the word.

Honor of those who allow themselves to be used of God, as is any
person who yeilds to God in any matter, is proper. When you honor
someone, you do NOT honor their doctrine. God ALONE gives light. This
should be a basic assumption, and should not hinder your friendliness.


However, WORSHIP is a different matter. You MUST worship in spirit and
in truth, and NOT compromise on ANYTHING., including allowing
misdirected individuals and people with a spirit of error to be
promoted above a preacher of truth.

Winter chose to call Stan a "young man" and the rest of us WHORES. In
a different mood, he would have been calling Stan a whore. His
comments are meaningless. But the issue is indeed a very real one, and
I sense the very purposeful pressing for truth in your commentary.

I hope that I havent rubbed any feathers the wrong way. Scales, on the
other hand I LOVE to rub the wrong way.

> How can we best discharge that debt?

>Like Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos and Paul with the Ephesian disciples
>in Acts our focus must be on showing them a "most excellent way". We read
>of no condemnation coming to these people for not knowing the truth, only
>showing them what they are missing.

Absolutely.

>We cannot retreat into the answer that these denominations and churches
>have heard the message before abd rejected. Many of those that rejected it
>are DEAD. There are also numerous people who are looking for more of God in
>their life, as we look at people following Charismatic groups such as the
>Vineyard, a poor substitute for the Apostolic message. They will continue
>to follow such things if we don't share what we have.

Very poignant.

> Like Jesus we must not be self-righteous and
>avoid contact, but we must be willing to take the things we need and create
>opportunities to share what we have. 

Like Bro. Urshan said last week, someone told him we are "Standoffish"
- They said "you have this thing and you want to keep to yourself".

Knock yourselves out smiling folks! God is good at what he does, and
He is taking care of a lot of the dirty business. As ya'll know,
VENGANCE belongs to the Lord. Take a moment and be some sinner's
friend.

--
The Whole Gospel to the Whole World    -   Life Tabernacle UPC
"Preaching the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ,
with all confidence, no man forbidding ... " - Acts 28:31