ONENESS ONENESS

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

> Now to Bro. Masoner...
> 
> Would then, according to your interpretation of Acts 1:22-26, the apostle
> Paul should not have been able to be an apostle?

I was illustrating that voting is one manner of selecting leaders.
This is certainly not the same as saying it's the exclusive way to do
so.

> Bro. Masoner, your single passage of scripture appears to me only as a form
> of subterfuge, and IGNORES MY QUESTIONS to you. Please don't do such any more.

Apologies, but it's not really my style to go point by point by point,
especially since I'm not an expert nor have I devoted any time or study
to defending the UPC as an organization.  The part about election just
seemed to me to be an obvious hole in the argument.  You might take it
another way and thank me for critiquing your argument such that you can
modify it and make it airtight :-)

BTW, I would also assert that we *do* have modern day apostles.  I would
count among them the great men we have been discussing in other threads,
men such as Bros Arnold, Huntley, Stoneking, and others.  I would also
include Bro Teklumarian (or however you spell that name!!)

Richard "One Lord One Faith One Baptism" Masoner