ONENESS ONENESS

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

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:47:59 -0800, you wrote:

>When John the Baptist, a man never ordained by any other man, came preaching
>God's truth to His people, the priest's, the religious leaders of the true
>church at that time, their first and majority response, was to violently
>reject him- though he only brought them a message of truth.

Neither being a majority NOR being a minorty is itself a certification
of God's blessing. Futher, there are numerous causes for rejection
though virtually every voice that contends for something unique claims
to be rejected by Phariseeism, as that is the historic model of
interaction of a man with a message encountering a crowd.

The one whose message is rejected many times implies that those who
reject him are the religious majority who cannot hear the voice of
God. Those many of us who received the doctrine of the Apostles, and
have been living as a small minority labouring to bring the saving
truth of the name of Jesus to our communities must be careful not to
fall into this trap of self-pity, and religious stereotyping.

If we labor with patience, we will reap in due time. 

>Same with Jesus Christ. Same when Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the
>door of the Catholic church. Same when Bro. Parham first brought the message
>of the gift of the Holy Ghost with tongues. Same with Bro. Seymour, a black
>preacher, whom Parham became jealous over. Same with Bro. Durham, when he
>brought out the message of the finished work of Calvary, Bro. Seymour locked
>him out of the Azusa street mission. Same with the Oneness message, when
>Bro. McAlister brought to us the precious message of baptism in Jesus name-
>he was sorely rejected by the Trinitarian ministers of his day.

>Every single time, the old traditions had to die, and they did not give up
>peaceably. The persecutions always came FROM THE MINISTRY of the old
>traditions, who were unwilling to let go of those traditions in order to
>embrace God's higher call.

There are many voices today claiming that they have brought a wave of
the refreshing and new. What exactly are *you* saying ?

>Were any of these men's original intentions to bring strife and contention
>into Christ's Body?

Indeed, within the UPCI the voice of the Spirit if constantly stirring
and shaking the people. Within other organizations it is the same way.
Whereever people are seeking God, he is moving in their midst. We do
come across those who wonder why their gift has not made room for
them, but we understand also the nature of the flesh, and how it is
GOD that gives promotion. Revelation is serious business. People
broken by the hand of God as they resist it. Others fall under the
pretense of their own importance. The best thing is to see out
peaceful abiding in the bond of spiritual fellowship, and watch the
power of God accomplish what we cannot. 

Isaiah was often rejected, but Isaiah was given a highly visible place
among the "brethren".

Moses was resisted, but Moses was given leadership.

You mention Luther. History records that Luther had many various
motives in his heart, and God used some and allow him to bear the
weight of his selfishness, hatred of Jews, and political motivations.
God will not be counselled by anyone.

>But, it is true, there have been messages brought out the same way that were
>false doctrines. The point being, we must all decide for ourselves the merit
>of the message based on the message, not the outward appearance of whom the
>message comes from (remember Balaam and his donkey?), Nor should we expect
>that leaders following old traditions will always readily embrace new
>truths- because most of them, it's a historically PROVEN FACT, will reject
>it, and that violently, and that usually with false witness.

I have to be honest Tom, the message here that it seems you are are
trying to impart is "Watch me. If your leadership rejects it, it
proves my point, and validates my message"

When we get to asking people to reject and assume their leadership in
error it is getting to a fairly dangerous place.

As you know, the discussion which led man into darkness started with
the same sentiment. 

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the
LORD  God had made. And he  said  unto the woman, Yea,  hath   God
said , ... ? ... ...   For  God  doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened: - Gen 3: 5

Nothing personal Tom, but this is the pattern followed by all who want
to sow dischord. I don't think you do, so here is my advise:

Most Apostolics are Bible students. They love the Bible. They have
been taught that their pastors are not to be venerated, but rather are
servents of God who labour in the word and in doctrine to help their
relationship with God. They are more than willing to read and believe
the scripture, but also know that the word of God is handled
deceitfully by some, and value the ministry of God in helping and
protecting them from wolves.

Also, Apostolics have the blessing of the indwelling spirit of God,
which usually means they can not only read and understand the Bible
well, but they know the voice of God and can see a curve ball coming.

So, if there is a point to be made, just let the word do the talking.
say, "this is what I see... what about you ?" Don't go on about all
this propaganda of how good men of God are not to be trusted. These
men (and women) don't teach absolute subjection to themselves. The
teach that whatever authoritu they have comes AS they teach the TRUTH
of the Word of GOD, and love the souls that are entrusted to them.

>Please my brethren, don't lock me out before you at least consider the
>message. And if you are God's people, He will give you discernment to
>recognize the difference between truth and error and provide you with the
>scriptures to combat it, WILL HE NOT?

Yes, He most certainly will.

----

>Bro. Basset, now where is your accusation-
>
>"It often amazes me to realize that people really do believe that the UPCI
>and other organizations teach holiness standards and principle of order
>without ANY comprehension of the scripture. But it is MORE amazing that they
>very often make these accusations without really knowing WHAT we teach, and
>evidently have acquired their understanding from rumor, myth, legend, or
>some very narrow observation on one or two examples. -Mwb"

I should note that I did not accuse, but am still surprized that the
tone of your messages seems to suggest that people have no idea of
what the Bible says.

We do NOT teach that women cannot be pastors, though our brethren are
entitled to their convictions in their own personal lives. We do not
teach that one will go to hell for wearing gold, and I have address
that briefly in another message. AND we most certainly do not teach
that we have valuable fellowship in anything but the bond of the
spirit and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think that you have not thought it out when you plead for people to
compare what you say to scripture. That is what is going to happen
with our without such a plea, as you are not addressing souls that are
"up for grabs", as far as I can see.

-mwb