User talk:DevonSprings

Thanks for commenting on Oneness Pentecostalism
Thank you for your input. Many of what I read does sound good and I will be working to integrate it and I would welcome any edits from you. I would agree with you. I started working on the article a few days ago. I'm not Oneness, but I am Pentecostal. Personally I haven't added much to the article since I know nothing of this type of Pentecostalism. Much of what I've been doing is removing pov from all viewpoints; however, I would agree with you there are still problems. To help make this article better, I would greatly appreciate editing by someone who understands Oneness beliefs as while my knowledge about this area is limited. Ltwin (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Yes I do understand it, personally for me the doctrine doesn't answer how Christ related to the Father as he would another person. But I think that just we don't agree on fine points of doctrine doesn't mean we have to label other people as non Christians. When we get to heaven we might be surprised to find out that we were all wrong. But thats my opinion. However, I think that I have reached the limit of my knowledge at least concerning doctrine. I don't think that the beliefs section is adequate or as accurate as it could be. I would love it if you, having knowledge of the movement, could help improve it. I have incorporated your suggestions into the article, but please fill free to make any other edits you find appropriate. The thing that is driving me crazy is the History section. Before I edited it was a huge mess but I still think its not very good. One thing that confused me was that in versions prior to my edits, the History section mentioned the Assemblies of God as if the PAW came out of that when the A/G rejected Oneness, but in other places it seemed to suggest that the PAW was older and separate. Do you know anything about the history of the movement? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The PAW was never part of the Assemblies of God and therefore never came out from them. The PAW is much older than the AG. The PAW was racially integrated in the beginning as was the Azusa Street Mission (Apostolic Faith Mission). Those within the AG that recieved the Oneness revelation were basically excommunicated by the AG. My grandfather was part of the Azusa Street revival. He knew SR Hanby and GT Haywood and others. He was part of the PAW in the very beginning. History has tried to cover the fact that the white brethren left the PAW soley over racial division. My grandfather, who was white, kept fellowship with both the PAW and the PAJC(later to merge with PCI as the United Pentecostal Church International). My grandfather founded the very first Pentecostal Church (Oneness OR Trinitarian) in the whole Tri-State. I have documents, letters, ect. that shows that much of Pentecostal history has been twisted to political correctness. Alas, who am I to change anything. But I am concerned about some historical aspects of Pentecostal history that is readily available but lightly being glossed over. One of these being that the PAW was never part of any other organization and that UPC was never the mainline Oneness group until the white brethren left PAW over racial predjudice. Connor1551 (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Then nature of God isn't the nature of man. God is infinite and I don't think we will ever know what exactly his true nature is, but for me personally, and I think most Trinitarians and Oneness fill this way, to you those Bible verses prove you are right and to me they prove that I am right. Personally I could care less about a baptismal formula, as long as both are in the Bible they are both valid. What I think is more important is that there are fundamental differences in the way we are describing God. But does the Bible really give us a right/wrong, black/white answer. I don't see one. Really all I see is two sides interpreting the same Bible verses as proof text. Personally I think all Christians should focus on what unites not divides us. But I am glad that you will be involved with the article. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Devon, I added that OP believe in the atoning death, etc., because as it was, it seemed to indicate that our major doctrine centered on the godhead and that alone. While it is indeed a major doctrine of OP, it is not, and should not be, THE major doctrine. The atoning death of Christ and his resurrection are FAR more important to me (and to those I fellowship with), than is the doctrine of the godhead. I think of his redeeming blood everyday, but only think on the godhead when someone else challenges my position. I have not found any of the articles on the Trinitarian groups that begin with an in depth explanation of their Trinitarian stance. This is only my opinion. Thanks for such a speedy response to my email. You have done an excellent job editing. Keep up the good work.Connor1551 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Devon, Please look over the changes I made in the OP article and let me know what you think. I am well versed in OP history but I could use a lot of assistance in the grammer department.Thanks. Connor1551 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

I propose that ONLY secular mainstream authors publishing through secular mainstream publishing companies be cited in the articles. Agciorg (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If acceptable I would like to work closely with you and Ltwin on the OP article. There is a certain individual attempting to sabatage the article for personal reasons. I intend on completely going over the article and then share any need changes with you. Thank you.Connor1551 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

consensus
We need to discuss these issues on the talk page. Consensus needs to be reached. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is/was a dispute about what kind of sources should be allowed. It seems to have died down now. An editor was removing the section about church restorationism/successionism without any debate just the reason that he thought only secular sources should be cited. Anyway as of now things have quieted down. Just wanted you to know why I asked everyone to come to the talk page. I agree with your comment on the talkpage too. Keep up the good work. Ltwin (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I spoke too soon. Ltwin (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Young Earth Creationism
Hey! Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I've been really busy. As I read it, the problem seems to be poorly worded poll questions. In the Harris Interactive Poll, 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10 000 years", while only 18% of those same Americans agreed with the statement "The earth is less than 10 000 years old".

What this says to me is that people probably were conflicted over denying that God created the world or agreeing that the earth is only 10,000 years old. So, they picked the answer that said God created the world.

I'm afraid until we get better worded polls these confusions will persist. It seems that the other editors are content with keeping all of the poll results in the lead no matter how old they are :) . I definitely see your point, though. I don't feel as strongly about it as you appear to, but I do see that there is a lack of understanding by both poll takers and Wikipedia editors over the nuances of Christian creation theologies. Ltwin (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for the input I guess my biggest thing is that the world uses the Gallup pole. So I Wrote the lead at Gallup and pointed out that they needed better questions, and they need to determine what they are measuring. It's always good to see what you think on these issues, as we have come to consensus before on complex issues -- The behaviour of the admins during the session was also atrocious one guy banned me for a week for trying to draw people into a discussion. At the end what it made me realize is Wikipedia is a very unreliable source for information as you have a consensus of opinions and not fact.

DevonSprings (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)