User talk:DeWayneLehman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope you take no personal offense at my listing your article on vfd. I did so reluctantly because, as one voter pointed out, it is indeed much better and more thoughtfully written than many articles that survive vfd. However, in my view, the TEC needs to gain more visibility elsewhere before it falls within the wikipedia guidelines. Regards, Michael Ward 22:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am very glad you plan to continue to contribute. Congratulations on your engagement. The following boilerplate welcome message has some links and tips that may be useful.


Welcome!

Hello, DeWayneLehman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Michael Ward 00:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] TEC

I do not know if anyone has informed you of this, but there are two Wikimedia projects where this article would be accepted, WikiSource and WikiBooks. The former is dedicated to source documents released to the public or GFDL, the latter is dedicated to the development of textbook-oriented documents.

It seems to the latter would be an excellent choice for your article. It could easily be adapted to discussions about calendars, the history of time keeping, etc., as well as providing a good basis for acceptance of the TEC. - Amgine 03:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CALNDR-L

Considering one of your interests is calendars, I invite you (and anyone else reading this with the same interest) to join the unmoderated e-mail list CALNDR-L, where we discuss the world's calendars, whether historical, modern, or invented. I'm sure that several subscribers (some of whom have invented their own calendars) would like to critique your calendar (though not me, my interests are historical). It is a private list in the sense that you must subscribe to view the contributions of others (archived or current) or to contribute yourself, which helps prevent spambots from getting your e-mail address. — Joe Kress 17:58, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oneness Article

I noticed that three other Oneness Authors were added to the Oneness article. I may be in error but it seems to me that particular paragraph alludes to an ancient Church succession of Apostolic Churches with full Apostolic Pentecostal doctrine and experience. If this is true then David Bernard should perhaps be listed elsewhere in the article since a careful reading of his books reveals no such teaching. He teaches that there were individuals or groups that sporadically taught one aspect or more of the Apostolic doctrine down through the centuries but not the full doctrine nor in an unbroken succession. I am unfamiliar with Dr. Reckart's writings. I have a little knowledge of Weisser but not enough to substantiate his teaching on a full doctrinal succession of Churches. The only authors I am aware that teach such are Dr. Ward and Dr. Arnold. Dr. Arnold is very inspiring for Oneness readers but a bit too reckless with history to be accepted by secular historians. Dr. Ward is much more historically grounded. The teaching of an unbroken Church succession with the complete Apostolic doctrine and experience is actually a new historical approach that has not yet been widely publicised nor recognised. The Landmark Baptists (and some Mennonites) have had such a doctrine of Church Succession for many decades but they, like Dr. Arnold, have been a bit reckless with historical accounts. I am interested in knowing if Dr. Reckart and Weisser adhere to such a teaching and how accurate they are. Where can I purchase books by Dr. Reckart and Weisser?

GWr 15:32, Dec 2, 2006

I would personally have to side on the side of sound historians and archeology. One of the biggest arguments by Oneness believers is history, but it is also a rejection (in terms of traditions), as you probably know. It was reckless history, for instance, that claimed that there was no form of writing in the time of Moses, which was used to attack the Old Testament accounts.

Here's what I've heard:

From all that I've read thus far, the common belief is two-fold, and yes, Bernard is absolutely correct (unless something new has been discovered in the last few years, and I've not heard anything).

First, that Oneness beliefs (generally, but possibly not as well formulated as today's widely reviewed and written doctrine) have existed in scattered bits and pieces throughout history, and usually crushed as heretical by larger church groups. However, I've also been reading on histories such as "The Eternal Sonship (A Refutation According to Adam Clarke)" by David Campbell (Word Aflame Press) that shows that there are examples of thinkers who have come very close to being Oneness (close enough that they may have today been considered Oneness, though not fully orthodox). For instance, Adam Clarke's conclusion, as noted by Campbell, in the end was that there is either an eternal Son or a begotten Son, not both as they contradict and evidence proved otherwise to him, and eternal Son is nowhere to be found in the bible. How he reconciled no eternal Son with Trinitarianism I don't know. Possibly, he held on much like some of the Old Catholic Age writers who had the expansion-contraction theory.

Secondly, Oneness Pentecostal ideally wants to return to the original Apostolic church, which is the pre-Greek Apologist church. They also note that many philosophers and thinkers of the old ages were modalist. OP writers generally reject modalism as unorthodox, but acknowledge that it's close. Put simply, modern Oneness doesn't make God out to be like a sci-fi shape shifter that the modalists seemed to lean towards, which is why OP won't embrace modalism. Instead, OP embraces the Apostles and usually their direct students and contemporaries. It is generally held by OP that after the death of John, the church immediately backslid, to use a modern OP term.

So, if it was taught through generations, there's no succession from which the Oneness movement can identify with. Maybe in secret a few families practiced this, but this would have isolated them from mainstream religion making them stand out, I would think. If it did exist in succession, it's still a secret until this day. However, it is acknowledged that it kept popping up in writings, though usually restricted to one point and very moderated in speech, at least in Europe (nobody likes being burned at the stake, heh). OP position on this, the truth was always there if anyone cared to question and look.

The "succession" for OP, then, is a direct link from the early 1920's to roughly AD 0-100, with everything else in the middle either being a slow degradation of original orthodoxy, a dark age, or a reformation back to orthodoxy. OP highly regards the Reformation, but contends that it left many doctrinal errors in place, not just Oneness. So, it's Apostlic Age, then us, and regression and progression in between, according to OP beliefs. The link, being soley the Holy Spirit. That of course, leads to the "latter times" thinking that is prevalent where ever I go.

Back to the topic, I think the paragraph is ill-worded, and any link by succession is highly theoretical. If such a link existed, surely we would hear OP opponents or proponents (would be a two edged sword) shouting it from the rooftops. I've heard nothing. Certainly, such a claim should be documented to be verifiable. (I'd want to know book, chapter, page, and a quote as well to substantiate it, as many OP readers will see that and go, "WHAT?!?") My guess is that it is exactly as you put it, reckless.

The book I am studying now by Thomas H. Weisser is called "Three Persons - from the Bible? or Babylon". It is a very interesting read on the paganism of the early church by the Roman Empire, with historical and modern comparisons of the worship of Mithras (Seperate articles Mithra and Mithraism, which backs up most of Weisser's accounts). If you are unaware of paganism in the early church, the reading of this book and history on Mithraism will definitely be jaw dropping. He makes claims that seem very bold, which I am working to verify with other sources. It looks like he published under his own name (Copyrighted 1983), and no publishing house stated on the copy I have. I would assume as it was reprinted by the UPCI, that it could be ordered from Word Aflame Press or through one of their bookstores.

This book, btw, was included in my Steadfast 2006 binder, so I am assuming, that while I'm working to verify the credibility of individual claims, that the UPCI found this book credible enough to republish as a historical reference.

I'm not familiar with Dr. Reckart either, so I can't be of any assistance. Though, I will be sure to ask around for copies if anyone does have his books.

One note - At this point, two of us are still researching, pulling out any useful citations, and have yet to fully verify everything. One thing we probably will be avoiding in adding to the historical section is anything that goes too far beyond modern Oneness, and avoiding any speculative histories that aren't generally accepted. Those that are accepted before the modern period will likely be in a historical claims section, as both Trinitarian and Oneness claim the same original Apostles, and this will be disputed, whereas modern history shouldn't be disputed. It's paragraphs like the one you point to that is the reason for a needed rewrite. Phrases like "Many people believe..." and citing no source leads to factualizing a personal generalization. We're working to avoid that in rewrite. Our view in rewriting... if the sources are silent, so are we. ;)

BTW, glad to hear from someone with an interest in Oneness! If you can't tell, I'm have a tendency to write... and write and write, heh. If you ever want to discuss more, I'm here fairly regularly. --DeWayne Lehman 12:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Church Succession

It is true that Modalism as explained by Catholic historians is not true orthodox Oneness, HOWEVER, we do not have access to the writings of the original Modalists. One has to only read some of the articles written against modern Oneness adherents to realize how easy it is to misunderstand your opponants position. For example I have heard and read innumerable times that Oneness believers reject the Father for "Jesus Only" or to the opposite extreme that we believe the Son was but a projected body and nothing more. Catholic historians incorrectly charged the Cathars with kissing Cats anus' (please excuse the gross statement), witchcraft, ritual suicide, and other atrocites that we now know to be entirely false. Bernard has stated that ancient Modalists were perhaps misquoted and in view of the universal acceptence for awhile in Rome of Modalism this would seem to be the case. It is hard to believe so many would believe such a view as dispensational modes of God when these scholars had access to scripture in which Christ prayed to the Father, etc. They split hairs for centuries over the Trinity until they felt they covered all their bases. On the other side of the coin there are different interpretations of Oneness within our ranks today that demonstrate that not all will adhere to a strictly defined interpretation of a particular doctrine. Yet these small differences are rarely used as grounds for disfellowship due to heresy. Therefore even if the historical accounts of early Modalists are correct they are closer to Orthodoxy then Trinitarianism and could still be accounted as our forebearers of Oneness doctrine.

When visiting Pearl Harbour I saw periodic eruptions of oil coming from under the water. I was told this is from ships that were sunk there many years ago. Although the ships could not be seen, the periodic oil erupting to the surface was proof that the ships were always there. The historical accounts of Oneness Pentecostal activity throughout the ages are, we believe, periodic surfacing of a great ship that has always been there. However, the book "Bloodstains", by Dr. Ward, gives so much historically accurate material that the Oneness Pentecostal Church has existed in an unbroken succession throughout the ages that one finishes reading it convinced. He furnishes much material from unpublished archives from various countries. He does not like to use the word "succession" but calls it "Church Lineage". I personally like "succession" better but I can understand some may associate it with Catholic "Apostolic Succession" or with "Baptist Church Succession". Dr. Arnold has done a lot of tremendous research but I personally feel he makes some incredible assumptions at times.

If we define the Apostolic Church by the modern doctrinal position that the exact view of the Godhead, Acts 2:38 water emmersion, holiness standards, and Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues as essentials for salvation then even our modern Apostolic Church lineage cannot be included. Prior to 1948 a huge segment of the Apostolic movement that eventually became UPCI did NOT believe tongues was essential to salvation. After merging with the segment that DID believe so the doctrine of essentials was established in the UPCI. Can anyone doubt these people were part of our lineage? The early Apostolics in 1914 had a different twist of inerpretation of Oneness then modern Oneness have. Can anyone doubt they were are forefathers in the faith? Throughout the centuries there can be traced a succession of believers that were fundamentalists that believed in holy living, would not bow to idols or pray to saints, refused the Trinty doctrine but believed Christs divinty as God, used the shorter baptismal formula due to their disbelief in a Trinity, were mystics with great outbreaks of visions and tongues, were radical and anti-Catholic, believed in direct instruction from God as opposed to the papacy, adhered to a radical life of prayer and fasting, and were willing to die for their faith. If this can be defined as Oneness Pentecostalism then indeed there IS evidence of an unbroken succession of Churches from Pentecost to the 21st century. Tongues may have been sporadic at times in this church but the body continued on. Even today a local Apostolic Church in our area went through stages in which it was firstly adament about the neccessity of tongues. A new Pastor came in and taught it was alright but not a neccessity. A few years later he left and another Pastor came in and restored the previous teaching. Now in the history of the Church should it be written that their Apostolic history extends ONLY back to the ousting of the heretical Pastor and installation of the new one or would we consider their Apostolic heretage to extend back to it's original founding? Silly question..no one would doubt its history as an Apostolic Church even with its periodic lapse in orthodoxy. It was the same continuing, successive body of believers. Even if their were several lapses of orthodoxy we would simply label it as an Apostolic Church with a rocky history. The Church of the ages has had a rough road to travel. For centuries she never even had a Bible due to its restriction to priests only. She was burned, hunted, drowned, and labled as heretics. It is incredible to read sources revealing a contiuation of the Apostolic Church. Most people are not aware of the material available. Dr. Wards information seems, to me, to be the most credible. He meticulously documents historical sources and makes more sense in his approach then many of those I have read. Unfortunately he wrote most of his work after transferring from a larger Apostolic organization to a smaller organization which published his material. I say "unfortunately" because it has not had the circulation it deserves in circles such as UPCI. I think it is only a matter of time before it DOES reach them and I believe it will revolutionize how we view our historical roots. It is also unfortunate that Dr. Arnold passed away before his work was finished. I formerly mentioned his was a bit reckless at times with historical information but actually we have to remember he was pioneering a whole new direction of gathering Apostolic history and his methods were slowly refining themselves as he progressed. David Bernard is perhaps the most conservative Apostolic historian but unfortunately he is too fearfully conservative. He accurately reports history but fails to dig into ancient sources or to dare read between the historical lines. But he does bring an air of credibility in his approach. Most Apostolic historians adhere to "Restorationism" which is a doctrine that makes me shudder. If Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church and scripture says God would never leave his world without a witness then how can we recosile over fifteen hundred years of Roman Catholic dominated centures with no true Church on the scene and then..all of a sudden restore it. What about all those souls in between. Roman Catholocism was their only choice? I think not and history bears out otherwise but you have to go to sources OUTSIDE of Catholicism. I was first shaken into reality by Dr. Arnold but after reading Dr. Ward I bacame convinced and what Ward calls Church lineage has become as much a part of my essential doctrine as Acts 2:38. Apostolic history is certainly an inspiring and a exciting jouirney and as you can see when I start talking about it I find it difficult to put a period on the end of my conversation :) Please feel free to delete this lengthy email after reading, if you wish. I look forward to your reply and informed opinion.

GWr


Just wanted to add that even if there were NO oneness Churches throughout history until after the Protestant Reformation and Azusa Street, it would not matter at all to me. Truth is still truth. If God had to restore it then that's what he did. However, I and others believe there is evidence showing otherwise and besides it is SO VERY interesting to do detective work in historical references. By the way I have babbled way too much and wasted so much of your space here. Please feel free to delete it after reading. Thanks. GWr

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/w/User_talk%7EDeWayneLehman_d6fa.html"