View Full Version : I just talked with "Thomas Fudge"
Folks I just got off a 2 hour conversation via phone with Thomas Fudge.
Author of “Christianity without the Cross”.
I found him to be a very engaging person.
We talked about mutual folks we know and have known over the years.
We talked about some very interesting follow-up to his book.
He shared with me in a 2004 symposium that was held in St. Louis on the information written in his book.
He actually flew to St Louis and attended the symposium.
He was recognized by the panel as being in attendance.
Both David Bernard and Robert Sabin refuted claims in his book.
They however offered no supporting information to counter his claims.
Thomas told me that he has several taped conversations with men that he interviewed starting in 1999.
30 or so have since passed away.
I shared with him that we should have these taped interviews converted to media files.
We could also have many of these documents scanned.
The purpose would be to create a website of the artifacts collected during his research.
Within in this website he could add updates to any articles and items found that folks have been sending him since his book was published.
I find that the history of the merger between the PCI and PA-JC is a fascinating historical union within Pentecost.
We talked about the failed merger talks with the same organizations dating back to 1938.
I asked him about Agnes N. Ozman-LaBerge and her recanting her experiences of Topeka, KS.
His told me his research led him to her writings on her recanting some of the claims that Charles Parham claimed to have happened.
She did not recant her Hold Spirit experience but many of the claims of her writing in tongues were simply overstated.
I plan on meeting with him in the near future.
I am interested in reading and hearing much of his research material.
It simply was one the best conversations I have ever experienced!
Nathan Eckstadt
Fascinating. Does he read the forum, Neck?
call him back and ask him to come on AFF and debate us
would you?
freeatlast
12-11-2007, 02:17 PM
Folks I just got off a 2 hour conversation via phone with Thomas Fudge.
Author of “Christianity without the Cross”.
I found him to be a very engaging person.
We talked about mutual folks we know and have known over the years.
We talked about some very interesting follow-up to his book.
He shared with me in a 2004 symposium that was held in St. Louis on the information written in his book.
He actually flew to St Louis and attended the symposium.
He was recognized by the panel as being in attendance.
Both David Bernard and Robert Sabin refuted claims in his book.
They however offered no supporting information to counter his claims.
Thomas told me that he has several taped conversations with men that he interviewed starting in 1999.
30 or so have since passed away.
I shared with him that we should have these taped interviews converted to media files.
We could also have many of these documents scanned.
The purpose would be to create a website of the artifacts collected during his research.
Within in this website he could add updates to any articles and items found that folks have been sending him since his book was published.
I find that the history of the merger between the PCI and PA-JC is a fascinating historical union within Pentecost.
We talked about the failed merger talks with the same organizations dating back to 1938.
I asked him about Agnes N. Ozman-LaBerge and her recanting her experiences of Topeka, KS.
His told me his research led him to her writings on her recanting some of the claims that Charles Parham claimed to have happened.
She did not recant her Hold Spirit experience but many of the claims of her writing in tongues were simply overstated.
I plan on meeting with him in the near future.
I am interested in reading and hearing much of his research material.
It simply was one the best conversations I have ever experienced!
Nathan Eckstadt
As I heard, Bro Fudge was in attendance and his book was being discussed in terms as to , what do we do about this?
Br. Norris saw that T Fudge was there and asked him if he would address the forum.
I can't recall who the "chair" was, but they would not allow questions to be asked and answered of Bro Fudge.
It was quite laughable, as they had just had quite a discussion as to how we needed to be able to dialogue with theologians with degrees.
Yeah "we" s pretty scared of Thomas Fudge.
Br Norris, I understand, was a little embarrased that Fudge was not allowed after he had been asked.
Fascinating. Does he read the forum, Neck?
I did not want to mention. That I may be turning him on to the forum. If he comes in we will not know who he is....
I found him to be a fasinating man...
Earth Over ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
When it comes to historical documents and interviews that are from those who were part of the merger.
Who or what is there to debate?
Acts 2:38?
His book details two organizations that came together solely for their common understanding of the Oneness of God.
That is why my father in the 1960's and 70's preached mainly on the Oneness of God.
So when he went to the southeast, they would let him preach...
ManOfWord
12-11-2007, 02:23 PM
I spent some time talking with him and sharing information with him also when he was writing his book. I found him to be very kind and engaging. I don't think his work was sloppy, but by his own admission, it wasn't exhaustive.
As I heard, Bro Fudge was in attendance and his book was being discussed in terms as to , what do we do about this?
Br. Norris saw that T Fudge was there and asked him if he would address the forum.
I can't recall who the "chair" was, but they would not allow questions to be asked and answered of Bro Fudge.
It was quite laughable, as they had just had quite a discussion as to how we needed to be able to dialogue with theologians with degrees.
Yeah "we" s pretty scared of Thomas Fudge.
Br Norris, I understand, was a little embarrased that Fudge was not allowed after he had been asked.
Thomas Fudge told me that he thougt that Norris with PHD from Temple University would have given a paper more historical.
Instead he delivered a paper trying to refute the book.
The room was surprised that Fudge showed up.
He mentioned to me that "Bro Lewis" who ran the archieves for the UPC.
Met with him the last time he went to HQ to do some more research.
Which they denied him access.
He told Bro Lewis when I am done with my research material.
Where would be a good place to have the items on display for future resource material.
He told Bro Lewis it would be here at the UPCI HQ.
But he told Bro Lewis I will not give you these materials.
Because you will keep them under lock and key.
I would love to see him come by here.
ManOfWord
12-11-2007, 02:33 PM
Thomas Fudge told me that he thougt that Norris with PHD from Temple University would have given a paper more historical.
Instead he delivered a paper trying to refute the book.
The room was surprised that Fudge showed up.
He mentioned to me that "Bro Lewis" who ran the archieves for the UPC.
Met with him the last time he went to HQ to do some more research.
Which they denied him access.
He told Bro Lewis when I am done with my research material.
Where would be a good place to have the items on display for future resource material.
He told Bro Lewis it would be here at the UPCI HQ.
But he told Bro Lewis I will not give you these materials.
Because you will keep them under lock and key.
Norris' paper was pretty much a polemic against Fudge, which is why is lacked what it did. It played very well to the choir, but that's as far as those "notes" went. IMO :D
Norris' paper was pretty much a polemic against Fudge, which is why is lacked what it did. It played very well to the choir, but that's as far as those "notes" went. IMO :D
Is there anyway to get a copy of it?
NE
ManOfWord
12-11-2007, 02:40 PM
Is there anyway to get a copy of it?
NE
I'm sure someone on here can but I don't have a copy. I only read what was posted on NFCF. :D
RevBuddy
12-11-2007, 02:40 PM
Neckstadt...
Fasinating!!!
I've got to have a conversation with my Dad about the 1945 merger. He and Brother David Gray wrote the Youth Department policy for the merger conference. I've not asked my Dad much about the differences between the two organizations, but now, I'm very interested in his perspective on these issues. He's almost 88 years old now, but has a very clear memory of those days and specifically the difficulty he and Brother Gray had in getting their policy reviewed by the executive boards and passed by the merger conference. They were successful in spite of strong opposition from Brother Vouga.
I give you an update after I've spoken with Dad...
Thanks again for this updated valuable information.
freeatlast
12-11-2007, 02:43 PM
I'm sure someone on here can but I don't have a copy. I only read what was posted on NFCF. :D
I "had" a copy of Norris paper. Lemme see if i can find it. It's doubtful though :gift
Neckstadt...
Fasinating!!!
I've got to have a conversation with my Dad about the 1945 merger. He and Brother David Gray wrote the Youth Department policy for the merger conference. I've not asked my Dad much about the differences between the two organizations, but now, I'm very interested in his perspective on these issues. He's almost 88 years old now, but has a very clear memory of those days and specifically the difficulty he and Brother Gray had in getting their policy reviewed by the executive boards and passed by the merger conference. They were successful in spite of strong opposition from Brother Vouga.
I give you an update after I've spoken with Dad...
Thanks again for this updated valuable information.
I would love to hear your dad's recollection. Because he was there!
I wish those proceedings were taped or recorded.
It would be so fasinating to hear them...
I "had" a copy of Norris paper. Lemme see if i can find it. It's doubtful though :gift
I would love a copy.
Nate
StillStanding
12-11-2007, 02:49 PM
I was told by someone who would know, that Thomas Fudge was disappointed that there was a symposium concerning his book, yet he was not allowed to refute arguments or make comments!
I guess it's kind of like in a courtroom. A good lawyer will not ask a question that he/she doesn't already know the answer to!
freeatlast
12-11-2007, 03:05 PM
here's a short review by Norris on Fudge's book.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity without the Cross
Reviewed by David S. Norris
August 23, 2004
Thomas A Fudge, Christianity without the Cross. A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism. (Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2003). vi + 394 pp. $29.95 paper.
Although Thomas A. Fudge’s Christianity without the Cross claims to be “a history of salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism,” the title is somewhat misleading. Rather, Fudge writes a very specific history of a single oneness organization, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). The UPC, formed in 1945, generally equates John 3:5 with Acts 2:38, ascribing special soteriological significance to Peter’s initiatory sermon on Pentecost. Specifically, the UPC teaches that the New Testament pattern of conversion/initiation is repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sin, and being filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. Fudge offers the reader what amounts to a minority report of those who came to the formation of the UPC believing otherwise, and who, from Fudge’s perspective, lost their voice in the years following the formation of the UPC.
Christianity without the Cross offers an unusual insider look at the workings of UPC church organization. This generally well-written book presents a wealth of information gleaned through numerous interviews in which Fudge demonstrates a global understanding of issues within the UPC. There is, unfortunately, some methodological unevenness to his presentation. He begins the book by tracing the historical development of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century; because Fudge privileges Robert Mapes Anderson’s construal of the formation of Pentecostalism while largely ignoring the corrective work of Grant Wacker, the reader is left with a reductionist deprivation theory as the explanation for Pentecostalism origins.
Further bias manifests itself when the history of the United Pentecostal Church itself is offered. It appears that for Fudge, the worst sin of the UPC is that they are in fact the UPC. While Catholics or Lutherans might defend their place for baptism or other sacraments, Fudge allows no such quarter for the UPC—they become Christians without a cross. In the end, this kind of cutting critique gets in the way of the narrative. On p. 36, William Durham, with whom Fudge is sympathetic, emerges as the “only authentic or original theologian of those early years…” while the people who equate Acts 2:38 with the new birth are throughout the text “radicals,” even though, by Fudge’s own research, they always constituted the majority position of the UPC. The thing that Fudge works to prove, the kind of underlying premise of the work, is that by historically consolidating the majority position, the UPC is somehow in violation of the spirit of its own articles of faith.
Christianity without the Cross offers a helpful critique but self destructs in the last third of the text. People who were apparently forced to leave the UPC emerge as heroic martyrs, while those who are in Fudge’s mind responsible for their leaving come across as both dishonest and reprehensible. This shoot-to-kill vindictiveness causes one to second-guess Fudge’s credibility throughout the entire book, which is unfortunate.
One doesn’t have to agree with the perspective of Thomas A. Fudge to be thankful to him for cataloguing this piece of history of the UPC. To what level doctrinal development occurred may be argued, but to quibble about it misses the point. It is certain that those within the UPC place a different meaning on historical development than does Fudge. Both Classical Pentecostals in general and the United Pentecostals in particular view themselves as restorationist movements, and as such, doctrinal development and solidification of that doctrinal position is normal and works to bring modern day Christianity closer to the teachings of the earliest church. Although Fudge is within his rights to disallow this perspective, it is unfortunate that his lack of charity takes away from what is an otherwise interesting and informative contribution to the place of the UPC in modern Pentecostalism.
(This article originally appeared in Pneuma, Spring 2004.)
ninetyandnine.com
© 2004, David S. Norris
----------
David S. Norris is Professor of Biblical Theology at Urshan Graduate School of Theology.
James Griffin
12-11-2007, 03:13 PM
True shame that Norris would level such a criticism and yet not give a single example of where or what Fudge misstated.
Praxeas
12-11-2007, 03:49 PM
As I heard, Bro Fudge was in attendance and his book was being discussed in terms as to , what do we do about this?
Br. Norris saw that T Fudge was there and asked him if he would address the forum.
I can't recall who the "chair" was, but they would not allow questions to be asked and answered of Bro Fudge.
It was quite laughable, as they had just had quite a discussion as to how we needed to be able to dialogue with theologians with degrees.
Yeah "we" s pretty scared of Thomas Fudge.
Br Norris, I understand, was a little embarrased that Fudge was not allowed after he had been asked.
I've heard TF has a propeller that comes out of his rear end and flies him around the church while he is preaching...can anyone verify this? Thad?
BTW Robert Sabin was there refuting him? Neck is that what he said?
Carpenter
12-11-2007, 04:04 PM
I've heard TF has a propeller that comes out of his rear end and flies him around the church while he is preaching...can anyone verify this? Thad?
BTW Robert Sabin was there refuting him? Neck is that what he said?
I read your post and was SHOCKED!!! To think he would say this about Brother Tenney, Prax is going to get hammered...then I realized who you were talking about.
Does anyone have any proceeds whatsoever on the symposium regarding T.Fudge's book? how many people were there, who were the principals, tapes?
I too would love to have an opportunity to browse the materials he collected, I wonder if the UPC could/would try and get a restraining order against doing such?
Nahum
12-11-2007, 04:09 PM
Poor Thomas Fudge....he's soooo mistweeted!
The next thing we'll hear is that he is a "great man of God."
lol
I bet he puts his britches on just like the rest of us, one leg at a time.
Carpenter
12-11-2007, 04:14 PM
I found/find it sooo interesting how people can make comments not having read his book. They have simply judged it by its cover.
I found/find it sooo interesting how people can make comments not having read his book. They have simply judged it by its cover.
I have it. read parts of it. not all yet but am working my way thru it.
I will say the history seems pretty solid, I do however get the feeling that the thesis (Water/Spirit doctrine bad, W/S men mean) was decided on before the first bit of research was done.
the history seems to fit the theory instead of the history leading to the conclusions.
here's a short review by Norris on Fudge's book.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity without the Cross
Reviewed by David S. Norris
August 23, 2004
Thomas A Fudge, Christianity without the Cross. A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism. (Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2003). vi + 394 pp. $29.95 paper.
Although Thomas A. Fudge’s Christianity without the Cross claims to be “a history of salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism,” the title is somewhat misleading. Rather, Fudge writes a very specific history of a single oneness organization, the United Pentecostal Church (UPC). The UPC, formed in 1945, generally equates John 3:5 with Acts 2:38, ascribing special soteriological significance to Peter’s initiatory sermon on Pentecost. Specifically, the UPC teaches that the New Testament pattern of conversion/initiation is repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name for the remission of sin, and being filled with the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues. Fudge offers the reader what amounts to a minority report of those who came to the formation of the UPC believing otherwise, and who, from Fudge’s perspective, lost their voice in the years following the formation of the UPC.
Christianity without the Cross offers an unusual insider look at the workings of UPC church organization. This generally well-written book presents a wealth of information gleaned through numerous interviews in which Fudge demonstrates a global understanding of issues within the UPC. There is, unfortunately, some methodological unevenness to his presentation. He begins the book by tracing the historical development of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century; because Fudge privileges Robert Mapes Anderson’s construal of the formation of Pentecostalism while largely ignoring the corrective work of Grant Wacker, the reader is left with a reductionist deprivation theory as the explanation for Pentecostalism origins.
Further bias manifests itself when the history of the United Pentecostal Church itself is offered. It appears that for Fudge, the worst sin of the UPC is that they are in fact the UPC. While Catholics or Lutherans might defend their place for baptism or other sacraments, Fudge allows no such quarter for the UPC—they become Christians without a cross. In the end, this kind of cutting critique gets in the way of the narrative. On p. 36, William Durham, with whom Fudge is sympathetic, emerges as the “only authentic or original theologian of those early years…” while the people who equate Acts 2:38 with the new birth are throughout the text “radicals,” even though, by Fudge’s own research, they always constituted the majority position of the UPC. The thing that Fudge works to prove, the kind of underlying premise of the work, is that by historically consolidating the majority position, the UPC is somehow in violation of the spirit of its own articles of faith.
Christianity without the Cross offers a helpful critique but self destructs in the last third of the text. People who were apparently forced to leave the UPC emerge as heroic martyrs, while those who are in Fudge’s mind responsible for their leaving come across as both dishonest and reprehensible. This shoot-to-kill vindictiveness causes one to second-guess Fudge’s credibility throughout the entire book, which is unfortunate.
One doesn’t have to agree with the perspective of Thomas A. Fudge to be thankful to him for cataloguing this piece of history of the UPC. To what level doctrinal development occurred may be argued, but to quibble about it misses the point. It is certain that those within the UPC place a different meaning on historical development than does Fudge. Both Classical Pentecostals in general and the United Pentecostals in particular view themselves as restorationist movements, and as such, doctrinal development and solidification of that doctrinal position is normal and works to bring modern day Christianity closer to the teachings of the earliest church. Although Fudge is within his rights to disallow this perspective, it is unfortunate that his lack of charity takes away from what is an otherwise interesting and informative contribution to the place of the UPC in modern Pentecostalism.
(This article originally appeared in Pneuma, Spring 2004.)
ninetyandnine.com
© 2004, David S. Norris
----------
David S. Norris is Professor of Biblical Theology at Urshan Graduate School of Theology.
Thanks so very much.....
Praxeas
12-11-2007, 05:14 PM
I read your post and was SHOCKED!!! To think he would say this about Brother Tenney, Prax is going to get hammered...then I realized who you were talking about.
Does anyone have any proceeds whatsoever on the symposium regarding T.Fudge's book? how many people were there, who were the principals, tapes?
I too would love to have an opportunity to browse the materials he collected, I wonder if the UPC could/would try and get a restraining order against doing such?
The irony was lost on you....I also heard TF preached a campmeeting for the Muslims and a bunch of UPCers there accepted Allah as their God...Thad can you confirm this please?
I read your post and was SHOCKED!!! To think he would say this about Brother Tenney, Prax is going to get hammered...then I realized who you were talking about.
Does anyone have any proceeds whatsoever on the symposium regarding T.Fudge's book? how many people were there, who were the principals, tapes?
I too would love to have an opportunity to browse the materials he collected, I wonder if the UPC could/would try and get a restraining order against doing such?
I am going to ask Thomas Fudge on his recollections of the meeting.
Can i get Tom Fudge's phone number??
I'm going to call him and invite him to come and debate on the forum
I've heard TF has a propeller that comes out of his rear end and flies him around the church while he is preaching...can anyone verify this? Thad?
BTW Robert Sabin was there refuting him? Neck is that what he said?
I am sorry I meant to say David S Norris was there refuting his book. He went to Temple Univ. We did talk about Robert Sabin regarding another debate on the Oneness.
My apologies.
Nathan Eckstadt
Dedicated Mind
12-11-2007, 05:23 PM
Dan just gave me a link to Fudge's book on pdf, for anyone who is interested in reading it. You can download it and read as adobe pdf file.
Go to Amazon and search for the Copyrighted book pleaes?- Admin
I have it. read parts of it. not all yet but am working my way thru it.
I will say the history seems pretty solid, I do however get the feeling that the thesis (Water/Spirit doctrine bad, W/S men mean) was decided on before the first bit of research was done.
the history seems to fit the theory instead of the history leading to the conclusions.
You need to then go back and read the writings of the PA-JC side from their organizational magazine the "Outlook".
Can i get Tom Fudge's phone number??
I'm going to call him and invite him to come and debate on the forum
I will ask him if he wants me pass his number around.
Sorry!
I will ask him if he wants me pass his number around.
Sorry!
I didn't expect you to post it- no problem.
isn't he living in Australia ?
BoredOutOfMyMind
12-11-2007, 05:41 PM
Dan just gave me a link to Fudge's book on pdf, for anyone who is interested in reading it. You can download it and read as adobe pdf file.
It is a copyrighted book, is it not?!?
If so the link should be removed, please?
Dan can share by PM but we cannot violate copyrights.
Hoovie
12-11-2007, 05:45 PM
I too communicated with T F some time ago (by e-mail)
I think it is vitally important that he fulfill his intentions of making all his notes and interviews available to the public. If his intentions are pure, and he wants to "help" Oneness Pentecostals understand their history, he needs to make these available. It would go a long way in offsetting the negative impact that the title presented.
S Hoover
It is a copyrighted book, is it not?!?
If so the link should be removed, please?
Dan can share by PM but we cannot violate copyrights.
Great point thanks for stating that....
Nate
pelathais
12-11-2007, 06:11 PM
I'm getting ready to go out to a Christmas concert for my kid's band at school so I don't have much time now. But I did recieve my copy of Robert Mapes Anderson's Vision of the Disinherited the other day.
If anyone is interested I can post the material that Thomas Fudge was citing about Agnes Ozman's renunciation of her 1901 Holy Ghost experience. In her own word's she does say that she had renounced the experience, not just other people's accounts of her experience, but she renounced her own experience.
This will be a lengthy post. Not sure if it should go on this thread or one another. I'll be back after getting my ears blown out. LOL.
And thanks Nathan for your update on your converstation with TF (not Tenney). Before he comes on here, I'd hope that a few of us could grow up a little bit so we don't embarrass ourselves.
Hoovie
12-11-2007, 06:23 PM
I'm getting ready to go out to a Christmas concert for my kid's band at school so I don't have much time now. But I did recieve my copy of Robert Mapes Anderson's Vision of the Disinherited the other day.
If anyone is interested I can post the material that Thomas Fudge was citing about Agnes Ozman's renunciation of her 1901 Holy Ghost experience. In her own word's she does say that she had renounced the experience, not just other people's accounts of her experience, but she renounced her own experience.
This will be a lengthy post. Not sure if it should go on this thread or one another. I'll be back after getting my ears blown out. LOL.
And thanks Nathan for your update on your converstation with TF (not Tenney). Before he comes on here, I'd hope that a few of us could grow up a little bit so we don't embarrass ourselves.
I sure hope he does, but think it's highly unlikely that Fudge will agree to post here.... like most of the rest of the world there are better (and more important) things to do.
freeatlast
12-11-2007, 07:16 PM
Dan just gave me a link to Fudge's book on pdf, for anyone who is interested in reading it. You can download it and read as adobe pdf file.
There is an interesting chapter on what happened and what went down about the Affirmation Statement.
It begins at about page 200.
I found/find it sooo interesting how people can make comments not having read his book. They have simply judged it by its cover.
I have read the book.
It is not an easy read.
A couple of things from the book that people do not like:
1. Not all Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that a person who has not been baptized in Jesus' Name and/or has not spoken in tongues is lost. There have been ministers, pastors, teachers who have been and still part of the Oneness (UPC related) who believe and teach that justification/salvation/regeneration occurs when a person comes to Jesus in faith and repentance. We use the terms "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" in our discussions and both viewpoints are valid among Apostolic people.
2. Some folks among Oneness Pentecostals have placed so much emphasis on "proper" water baptism and on properly following the "rules/traditions" that a person's salvation hinges on what they do, how they live, and what they say instead of on who Jesus is and what He has done for us. We have become like the Galatians of whom Paul spoke in Gal 3:1-3. We started in the Spirit but are attempting to complete/perfect our salvation by carefully observing man-made rules, ordinances, traditions, and "standards." We are preaching a salvation based on what we know and what we do instead of being based on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
I do not mean for this to be harsh and condemning but stop and think what kind of a message we have conveyed to people over the years.
Coonskinner
12-11-2007, 07:44 PM
I read his book. My opinion is pretty much in line with Ferd's.
I don't question the veracity of his history, for the most part. I do think there is a pretty strong dose of bias in some of his editorializing and anecdotes.
Really though, who should be surprised?
Apostates and backsliders generally make efforts to justify their actions. Most of them just aren't Anglican priests with PhD's.
freeatlast
12-11-2007, 07:45 PM
I have read the book.
It is not an easy read.
A couple of things from the book that people do not like:
1. Not all Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals believe that a person who has not been baptized in Jesus' Name and/or has not spoken in tongues is lost. There have been ministers, pastors, teachers who have been and still part of the Oneness (UPC related) who believe and teach that justification/salvation/regeneration occurs when a person comes to Jesus in faith and repentance. We use the terms "one-steppers" and "three-steppers" in our discussions and both viewpoints are valid among Apostolic people.
2. Some folks among Oneness Pentecostals have placed so much emphasis on "proper" water baptism and on properly following the "rules/traditions" that a person's salvation hinges on what they do, how they live, and what they say instead of on who Jesus is and what He has done for us. We have become like the Galatians of whom Paul spoke in Gal 3:1-3. We started in the Spirit but are attempting to complete/perfect our salvation by carefully observing man-made rules, ordinances, traditions, and "standards." We are preaching a salvation based on what we know and what we do instead of being based on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
I do not mean for this to be harsh and condemning but stop and think what kind of a message we have conveyed to people over the years.
Could'nt agree more Sam.............good post
I'm getting ready to go out to a Christmas concert for my kid's band at school so I don't have much time now. But I did recieve my copy of Robert Mapes Anderson's Vision of the Disinherited the other day.
If anyone is interested I can post the material that Thomas Fudge was citing about Agnes Ozman's renunciation of her 1901 Holy Ghost experience. In her own word's she does say that she had renounced the experience, not just other people's accounts of her experience, but she renounced her own experience.
This will be a lengthy post. Not sure if it should go on this thread or one another. I'll be back after getting my ears blown out. LOL.
And thanks Nathan for your update on your converstation with TF (not Tenney). Before he comes on here, I'd hope that a few of us could grow up a little bit so we don't embarrass ourselves.
Your statement on Agnes Ozman is just how he shared it with me.
TF focused on the part of where Charles P stated she wrote in Tounges.
There is an interesting chapter on what happened and what went down about the Affirmation Statement.
It begins at about page 200.
For sure.
There is also a web page that shows a letter from Robert Sabin and why he did not sign the AS.
Nov 1st, 1992
Please take the time to read this page:
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/affirmation/sabin.html
Praxeas
12-11-2007, 09:45 PM
I am sorry I meant to say David S Norris was there refuting his book. He went to Temple Univ. We did talk about Robert Sabin regarding another debate on the Oneness.
My apologies.
Nathan Eckstadt
I'd like to read about that discussion too if you can post it
Praxeas
12-11-2007, 09:47 PM
For sure.
There is also a web page that shows a letter from Robert Sabin and why he did not sign the AS.
Nov 1st, 1992
Please take the time to read this page:
http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/affirmation/sabin.html
I think I have a copy on paper actually
commonsense
12-11-2007, 10:44 PM
I own the Thomas Fudge book, but haven't read all of it. It certainly gives lots of the UPC history.
I think I read Bro Sabins letter before, but I read it again now. Regardless of ones opinion of Bro Sabin today, his insight in 1992 seems to have been accurate.
I can state that my father did not llike the AS and felt it caused a lot of harm to the church. (He'd been saved over 60 years and the church was his life).
I own the Thomas Fudge book, but haven't read all of it. It certainly gives lots of the UPC history.
I think I read Bro Sabins letter before, but I read it again now. Regardless of ones opinion of Bro Sabin today, his insight in 1992 seems to have been accurate.
I can state that my father did not llike the AS and felt it caused a lot of harm to the church. (He'd been saved over 60 years and the church was his life).
I know many very good men felt the same way. They may have even signed it.
Felicity
12-11-2007, 11:07 PM
I appreciate the history that's been recorded.
The book was written with "bias". So what? Most are. :p That doesn't negate the facts.
I'd like to read about that discussion too if you can post it
We talked about ...
Robert Sabin & late Nathaniel Urshan vs. late Walter Martin & Calvin Beisner on John Ankerberg Show (1985). Trinity debate.
How he (TF) felt Nathaniel Urshan looked out matched. He had heard over the years that Robert Sabin had been instructed or scripted in parts of his responses.
I told TF that I had seen the debate and felt both Sabin and Urshan seemed to lose focus during the debate.
I want to ask TF more of his findings of the behind the scenes from that debate.
He also told me as we talked about the difference of the Trinitarian use of the word Person's to describe the Godhead and our use of the word Manifestation.
He said he saw or was told of a symposium on the Oneness/Trinity.
Where a Trinitarian man stood up and explained God in 3 person's.
Then conluded with "and without controversy great is the "mystery" of godliness: God was mainifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The trinitarian stated God is a mystery.
TF, said without notice or reservation David Bernard stood up and said, "I can explain God in context to the Oneness belief".
I believe that to be a bold statement, when Paul said without Controversy, "Great" is the mystery.
I believe in our Oneness explanation of the Godhead.
I do not believe that we will ever understand God in his fullness.
One more note worth mentioning from a trinitarian minister I talked with a few years ago.
He told me there does rest a difference in the trinitarian doctrine vs the Oneness.
He told me it is not in the person vs manifestation argument or explanation.
It is the office assigned to the person or the manifestation.
He told me the fundamental difference is that the Trinitarian believes that the Hold Spirit and God the Son are secondary to the positions in the Godhead.
In the Oneness Theology, Got the Father and God Holy Spirit are secondary to Jesus.
After hearing him talk that person's vs manifestations as only a defining method to put God into human understanding.
Does not put God in the head and shoulders of 3 men like bodies in reality.
Nor does it break God up into 3 morphing personalites or manifestations.
I personally believe the Oneness doctrine helps us define in our understanding who "God" is as stated in 1 Timothy 3:16.
It is not only a formula to have us sum up the parts of Jesus.
Paul chose to use the mystery as referring to "God".
So as to not leave out any of God's essence.
If I have one problem with many Oneness ministers.
It is how they treat their revelation of the Mighty God In Christ.
They make that the end all of the essence of God.
When God is so much more than 3 parts.
Here is a link to the Sabin/Urshan debate:
http://www.freewebs.com/onenessresource/audiodebate.htm
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:I9OQ6e87HsUJ:www.freewebs.com/onenessresource/audiodebate.htm+sabin+urshan+debate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
pelathais
12-11-2007, 11:32 PM
Your statement on Agnes Ozman is just how he shared it with me.
TF focused on the part of where Charles P stated she wrote in Tounges.
Here are the portions he cites from Anderson's book. Anderson in turn relies upon Mary (Maria) Woodworth-Etter's autobiography.
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/pg58.jpg
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/ftnote_40.jpg
My guess on the other thread about Ozman appears to have been correct.
It was one of those "I got it... no I didn't.... yes, I did!" sort of things.
From reading Visions of the Disinherited so far, I get the idea that it was this kind of "on again/off again" enthusiasm that Parham was trying to obliterate with his doctrine of Speaking in Tongues being the Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. I can really feel his disappointment after leaving Topeka and then Kansas City.
I appreciate the history that's been recorded.
The book was written with "bias". So what? Most are. :p That doesn't negate the facts.
It would be very difficult to write any book or paper or post on a forum and not have personal bias show through.
Thomas Fudge was familiar with Oneness Pentecost which was different than that which was "officially" depicted by the UPC. He was familiar with teachers, pastors, missionaries, preachers, etc who seemed to be marginalized and overlooked or even kept out of sight. So he researched, interviewed, studied, etc. to see where this "public face" presented by the UPC came from. He collected and passed on information which he was able to find to let us know how a vocal and militant group within the organization were able to violate the spirit of the fundamental doctrine statement and the original intended unity and mutual respect among brethren of the 1945 merger and turn it into a hostile takeover.
He reveals some ugly character assassinations and political maneuvering that we don't like to think exists among those who we thought to be filled with the love of God toward one another.
It would be very difficult to write any book or paper or post on a forum and not have personal bias show through.
Thomas Fudge was familiar with Oneness Pentecost which was different than that which was "officially" depicted by the UPC. He was familiar with teachers, pastors, missionaries, preachers, etc who seemed to be marginalized and overlooked or even kept out of sight. So he researched, interviewed, studied, etc. to see where this "public face" presented by the UPC came from. He collected and passed on information which he was able to find to let us know how a vocal and militant group within the organization were able to violate the spirit of the fundamental doctrine statement and the original intended unity and mutual respect among brethren of the 1945 merger and turn it into a hostile takeover.
He reveals some ugly character assassinations and political maneuvering that we don't like to think exists among those who we thought to be filled with the love of God toward one another.
I think that is a good review of his book.
Nathan Eckstadt
PastorD
12-11-2007, 11:49 PM
The opinions here are rather interesting. I, too, appreciate history, but this guy I just can't take. I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church. I just have no respect for his opinion about committed men when he has no commitment to God, church, or marriage.
pelathais
12-11-2007, 11:59 PM
I read his book. My opinion is pretty much in line with Ferd's.
I don't question the veracity of his history, for the most part. I do think there is a pretty strong dose of bias in some of his editorializing and anecdotes.
Really though, who should be surprised?
Apostates and backsliders generally make efforts to justify their actions. Most of them just aren't Anglican priests with PhD's.
This is the second time I've heard that Fudge was or is an Anglican priest here on AFF. I have not heard this from other sources.
I don't even know the guy, obviously, but is it correct to call him "an apostate and backslider" as well as an Anglican priest? How can you say that any of those statements are true? And why the hostility against the guy? He was actually rather generous in praising OP's. He even praised Leonard Westberg as a man of conviction.
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 04:46 AM
The opinions here are rather interesting. I, too, appreciate history, but this guy I just can't take. I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church. I just have no respect for his opinion about committed men when he has no commitment to God, church, or marriage.
Taking personal shots from behind a pseudonym is a cheap trick.
Thomas Fudge's book is fair game for comment, but attacking a man's character from behind a cloak of anonymity on a public forum is without justification.
I would hope that the people I share Thanksgiving meals with have more class than this post displays.
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 05:28 AM
We talked about ...
Where a Trinitarian man stood up and explained God in 3 person's.
Then conluded with "and without controversy great is the "mystery" of godliness: God was mainifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The trinitarian stated God is a mystery.
TF, said without notice or reservation David Bernard stood up and said, "I can explain God in context to the Oneness belief".
I believe that to be a bold statement, when Paul said without Controversy, "Great" is the mystery.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:I9OQ6e87HsUJ:www.freewebs.com/onenessresource/audiodebate.htm+sabin+urshan+debate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
For Oneness theology 1 Tim. 3:16 is not about the persons of God numerically - so I am sure DB was speaking in that context - and NOT saying he understood the mystery of Godliness via the the incarnation of Christ.
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 05:34 AM
Taking personal shots from behind a pseudonym is a cheap trick.
Thomas Fudge's book is fair game for comment, but attacking a man's character from behind a cloak of anonymity on a public forum is without justification.
I would hope that the people I share Thanksgiving meals with have more class than this post displays.
I did like the book and want to agree... BUT, I can't say it does not matter at all. It does hurt his credibility with OP's that today he is Anglican.
I would not recommend going to a marriage councelor that is divorced either - since he is where I don't want to be/go....
I do hope the family in question has a Merry Christmas.:horn
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 06:03 AM
I did like the book and want to agree... BUT, I can't say it does not matter at all. It does hurt his credibility with OP's that today he is Anglican.
I would not recommend going to a marriage councelor that is divorced either - since he is where I don't want to be/go....
I do hope the family in question has a Merry Christmas.:horn
To say that Thomas Fudge is an Anglican, if indeed he is, is fair comment. It's a part of his public identity and germane to the topic, but to say "he has no commitment to God, church, or marriage" is a personal judgement, and a cheap shot coming from an anonymous poster claiming personal relationship.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 06:33 AM
For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.
However, let's get real here.
We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.
Furthermore, who do you think reads this book? Who was the target audience?
Jesuits?
Mormons?
Wiccans who are fascinated with doctrinal nuances in the Oneness movement?
No way.
He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.
Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.
This gives cntext to his bias.
I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.
I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.
What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.
Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.
But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.
Now go take on the day. :)
The opinions here are rather interesting. I, too, appreciate history, but this guy I just can't take. I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church. I just have no respect for his opinion about committed men when he has no commitment to God, church, or marriage.
I appreciate your opinion. But that does not take away from the past and the direction the organization has taken with some other great men in the past. 1992 being a great example.
For Oneness theology 1 Tim. 3:16 is not about the persons of God numerically - so I am sure DB was speaking in that context - and NOT saying he understood the mystery of Godliness via the the incarnation of Christ.
His comment that he can explain God in full context was not a comment to make at the moment he made it.
Then he followed with a long drawn out idea that the Trinity came from a pagan concept etc.
Each comment took him down a road of dogma.
A wise person would step outside the courtroom and get step away from the prosecution table...
He knows that seeing he is a lawyer by education.
StillStanding
12-12-2007, 07:12 AM
If TF hadn't written the book, I would have never known the true history of the UPC. The "officially approved" versions of Oneness history had a positive bias spin towards the UPC!
I believe I now have a more clear understanding of my church heritage.
For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.
However, let's get real here.
We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.
Furthermore, who do you think reads this book? Who was the target audience?
Jesuits?
Mormons?
Wiccans who are fascinated with doctrinal nuances in the Oneness movement?
No way.
He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.
Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.
This gives cntext to his bias.
I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.
I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.
What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.
Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.
But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.
Now go take on the day. :)
Many men were torn to shreads over the years as they questioned any position within the UPCI.
My dad ran into this dogma as he started to teach "Soul Sleep" and not the idea of going to heaven directly after death.
It blocked him from many districts in the UPCI.
Headquarters actually pursued every sermon and writings that my dad preached and taught on 'Soul Sleep".
To the point where Mark Hanby cautioned him not to teach it in detial while teaching at his "Wide World of Truth Bible College".
It is like the Post Office with their Postal Inspectors following the Mailmen around to see if they are keeping to their route.
Today there is a large group of men that now teach this position.
The file on my dad who passed away in 1978 is not available to his family.
Because of privacy.
I would love to see what is within the file....
ChicagoPastor
12-12-2007, 07:23 AM
If TF hadn't written the book, I would have never known the true history of the UPC. The "officially approved" versions of Oneness history had a positive bias spin towards the UPC!
I believe I now have a more clear understanding of my church heritage.
Pianoman, i haven't read the book yet, waiting on my copy to arrive...
why do you say that "the approved versions of Oneness histoy had a bias spin towards the UPC?"
What books are you talking about...
Can you list a few points that this book discusses that aren't discussed in past historical books of the Oneness movement
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 07:32 AM
Many men were torn to shreads over the years as they questioned any position within the UPCI.
My dad ran into this dogma as he started to teach "Soul Sleep" and not the idea of going to heaven directly after death.
It blocked him from many districts in the UPCI.
Headquarters actually pursued every sermon and writings that my dad preached and taught on 'Soul Sleep".
To the point where Mark Hanby cautioned him not to teach it in detial while teaching at his "Wide World of Truth Bible College".
It is like the Post Office with their Postal Inspectors following the Mailmen around to see if they are keeping to their route.
Today there is a large group of men that now teach this position.
The file on my dad who passed away in 1978 is not available to his family.
Because of privacy.
I would love to see what is within the file....
I don't doubt this, but what exactly does it have to do with my post?
SiblingRevelry
12-12-2007, 08:15 AM
I read your post and was SHOCKED!!! To think he would say this about Brother Tenney, Prax is going to get hammered...then I realized who you were talking about.
Does anyone have any proceeds whatsoever on the symposium regarding T.Fudge's book? how many people were there, who were the principals, tapes?
I too would love to have an opportunity to browse the materials he collected, I wonder if the UPC could/would try and get a restraining order against doing such?
I'd be curious for more information about the symposium as well.
As for the materials he collected, unless it's under some sort of copyright that the UPC holds or has assigned to it, the UPC would be out of luck.
If I were Thomas Fudge, I'd make sure that my document collection went into the hands of a reputable private (non-church-related) or public university. Of course, making it electronically available and putting it on a collection of disks would be useful as well.
The UPC is not the only church organization that has tried to control access to its archives in order to control the view that comes out about it. I had a friend who was offered the opportunity to get an electronic copy of a database that would have cut his work time on a paper by a significant factor, but the church organization wanted the right to read and edit his paper in return. He refused and went to the public library and spent weeks looking at old microfilm to get the information he needed and wrote his paper. I think it gave him great pleasure to be able to do his work and thumb his nose at this very large organization that tried to hamper him.
For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.
However, let's get real here.
We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.
Furthermore, who do you think reads this book? Who was the target audience?
Jesuits?
Mormons?
Wiccans who are fascinated with doctrinal nuances in the Oneness movement?
No way.
He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.
Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.
This gives cntext to his bias.
I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.
I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.
What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.
Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.
But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.
Now go take on the day. :)
Wow ... some of us are up early today, judaizing.:santathumb
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:27 AM
If TF hadn't written the book, I would have never known the true history of the UPC. The "officially approved" versions of Oneness history had a positive bias spin towards the UPC!
I believe I now have a more clear understanding of my church heritage.CWTC validated the history I knew and that many disbelieved and scoffed at.
That's one of the importances of the book for me personally.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 08:30 AM
CWTC validated the history I knew and that many disbelieved and scoffed at.
That's one of the importances of the book for me personally.
I've read on AFF how Bernard and others have tried to gloss over the teachings of the PCI. Is the disbelief and scoffing noted in his book? And how did you experience it?
I haven't read the book but I've been thinking of buying it but wondering if it is worth the read?
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:32 AM
I haven't read the book but I've been thinking of buying it but wondering if it is worth the read?I would say a definite "yes".
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:34 AM
I discovered when I first started posting on forums back in the late 90s (about 10 years ago now that I stumbled upon the first forum - lol :)) that there are a great many apostolics who know little of what TF wrote in regard to the history he provides.
And certainly, for sure, the younger generation doesn't know anything about much of the historically rich heritage and tapestry of the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
Why keep it hidden?
I discovered when I first started posting on forums back in the late 90s that there are a great many apostolics who know little of what TF wrote in regard to the history he provides.
And certainly, for sure, the younger generation doesn't know anything about much of the historically rich heritage and tapestry of the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
Why keep it hidden?
because he's Anglican.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 08:35 AM
Wow ... some of us are up early today, judaizing.:santathumb
Explain how I was Judaizing.
When people who have tasted the heavenly gift and the powers of the world to come fallaway, what do you callit?
This man was once Apostolic and has embraced trinitarianism and Anglican doctrine.
What do you call that?
You are throwing around loaded labels without substantiation.
I explained why I used the terminology I used.
Can you?
Explain how I was Judaizing.
When people who have tasted the heavenly gift and the powers of the world to come fallaway, what do you callit?
This man was once Apostolic and has embraced trinitarianism and Anglican doctrine.
What do you call that?
You are throwing around loaded labels without substantiation.
I explained why I used the terminology I used.
Can you?
Falling away to your crowd is wearing a short sleeve shirt. I stand by my opinion.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 08:37 AM
I discovered when I first started posting on forums back in the late 90s that there are a great many apostolics who know little of what TF wrote in regard to the history he provides.
And certainly, for sure, the younger generation doesn't know anything about much of the historically rich heritage and tapestry of the Oneness Pentecostal movement.
Why keep it hidden?
I have no desire to see history hidden.
It wasn't hidden from me, and I am not at all opposed to the true story being told.
I do object to the smear campaign thinly veiled in the book.
Actually, looking at the title,it wasn't even veiled. :)
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 08:39 AM
Falling away to your crowd is wearing a short sleeve shirt. I stand by my opinion.
That's not my position nor my crowd, Daniel.
And Fudge has done far more than reject standards.
He has rejected Oneness, baptism in Jesus Name, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Don't try your obfuscation deal here, Dan.
We have had a bad ice storm and I am going to have some time to play today.
That's not my position nor my crowd, Daniel.
And Fudge has done far more than reject standards.
He has rejected Oneness, baptism in Jesus Name, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Don't try your obfuscation deal here, Dan.
We have had a bad ice storm and I am going to have some time to play today.
Quite honestly I'm a bit disillusioned w/ the human race today ... especially those in ecclesiastical garbs and cheap suits ...
I may play or just call it a day.
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:43 AM
I have no desire to see history hidden.
It wasn't hidden from me, and I am not at all opposed to the true story being told.
I do object to the smear campaign thinly veiled in the book.
Actually, looking at the title,it wasn't even veiled. :) There's a difference between "bias" and "motive".
If there was a "smear" motive present ..... and sometimes that's visible only through perspective and I'm certainly not going to argue about that ..... been there done that ;) :D ....... I'm sure the reader will pick up on it.
It still doesn't negate factual history and all the interviews and testimony given in the book. That's what's really important in my opinion.
The title of the book was unfortunate.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 08:47 AM
There's a difference between "bias" and "motive".
If there was a "smear" motive present and sometimes that's visible only through perspective and I'm certainly not going to argue about that ..... been there done that ;) :D ....... I'm sure the reader will pick up on it.
It still doesn't negate factual history and all the interviews and testimony given in the book. That's what's really important in my opinion.
The title of the book was unfortunate.
I refuse to fuss with my favorite virual aunty. :)
The title pretty much reveals the motive I think.
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:49 AM
I've read on AFF how Bernard and others have tried to gloss over the teachings of the PCI. Is the disbelief and scoffing noted in his book? And how did you experience it? Got to run. Perhaps I'll get back to this later Mizpeh.
God bless!
Felicity
12-12-2007, 08:49 AM
I refuse to fuss with my favorite virual aunty. :)
The title pretty much reveals the motive I think.:D:D:D
You all have a great day and stay safe. Gotta run.
berkeley
12-12-2007, 09:00 AM
Anyone who wants to get rid of their book, let me know. :)
deadeye
12-12-2007, 09:07 AM
One of the things that I have noticed is that some seem aghast at the fact that TF was refused access to the Historical Societys files.
Truth be told, if a man came in wanting access to my churches information so he could use it to smear our church....I would refuse the info too.
In fact I might be tempted to drop kick him out the front doors of the church.
Only tempted mind you....
berkeley
12-12-2007, 09:11 AM
One of the things that I have noticed is that some seem aghast at the fact that TF was refused access to the Historical Societys files.
Truth be told, if a man came in wanting access to my churches information so he could use it to smear our church....I would refuse the info too.
In fact I might be tempted to drop kick him out the front doors of the church.
Only tempted mind you....
An unsuccessful attempt... hard to aim with a deadeye.
PastorD
12-12-2007, 09:16 AM
Taking personal shots from behind a pseudonym is a cheap trick.
Thomas Fudge's book is fair game for comment, but attacking a man's character from behind a cloak of anonymity on a public forum is without justification.
I would hope that the people I share Thanksgiving meals with have more class than this post displays.
Interesting that I wasn't able to find any personal information about you in your profile either. No cheap tricks here . . .
If you ever have such a conversation with him, you will see that he thinks nothing of ripping anyone's character. His disgust for Truth and UPC borders on hatred. Again, if one (TF) is going to call eveyone's character and commitment into question you need to have lived a little something yourself.
One of the things that I have noticed is that some seem aghast at the fact that TF was refused access to the Historical Societys files.
Truth be told, if a man came in wanting access to my churches information so he could use it to smear our church....I would refuse the info too.
In fact I might be tempted to drop kick him out the front doors of the church.
Only tempted mind you....
Deadeye you are dead wrong. The AOG opened up their archieves and the GC met him and shock his hand.
Told him anything he needed for any reason was available to him.
He did not tell the AOG why he was doing research.
For all they knew he was there to lable them a cult.
He told them he was a Professor doing research.
When He asked for files on EN Bell a very controversary figure in the AOG they did so without reservation.
They opened up a room and gave him complete access.
J.L. Hall the Director of the UPCI Historical center was not as open armed to Thomas Fudge.
What did they have to hide?
That later could be refuted if they had nothing to hide?
The last time he visted they denied him access.
Here is some info on EN Bell.
You will see the name of the first UPCI GC.
This is taken from the AOG website:
http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/199904/048_enbell.cfm
E.N. Bell — A Voice of Restraint in an Era of Controversy
E.N. Bell, the first and fourth general chairman of the Assemblies of God.
by Richard A. Lewis
The history of the Assemblies of God is filled with individuals who shaped the fledgling organization into what it is today. One of these influential founding fathers was Eudorus Neander Bell (1866–1923). In citing even a few of his accomplishments, we discover just how invaluable he was. Recognizing the need to organize the revival and with only the initial support of H.A. Goss, Bell agreed to issue the “call” in his magazine, Word and Witness, for Pentecostals to convene in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Joining these two men in this endeavor were M.M. Pinson, A.P. Collins, and D.C.O. Opperman. This resulted in the formation of the Assemblies of God.
Bell was the first and fourth chairman (general superintendent) of the Fellowship. Between his terms as chairman, he served the young organization as general secretary and as a pastor. Bell was also the first editor of two organizational papers, the aforementioned Word and Witness and the Weekly Evangel, both precursors to the Pentecostal Evangel.
The first issue of the Weekly Evangel, a precursor to The Pentecostal Evangel.
If this were not enough to assure his status, E.N., as he preferred over Eudorus, wrote the first adult and intermediate Sunday school quarterlies. His popular question-and-answer column in the Evangel proved to be an influential as well as a moderating voice of reason in the early years of the Assemblies of God. Several districts were also organized under his direction as chairman. When the decision was made to write a Statement of Fundamental Truths, E.N. was a member of the five-man committee appointed to the task. He championed the autonomy of the local church and congregational church government. Bell also recommended Springfield, Missouri, to be the home of the Fellowship’s national headquarters.
Bell, and his twin brother, Endorus E., were born June 27, 1866, at Lake Butler, Florida. Their father George died when the boys were only 2 years old. E.N. and his family lived in the severest of poverty during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. He was converted at an early age and felt called to full-time ministry. Realizing the need for training, E.N. enrolled at Stetson Academy, and later Stetson University.
Many have struggled to make ends meet as they have worked their way through school, but few have overcome the challenges faced by E.N. Bell. He was forced to adopt a steady diet of hard, stale bread dipped in water when finances ran low. The dream of completing college would have ended for most when faced with such sacrifice. This did not prove to be the case for Bell. He graduated at age 30 from the Academy, enrolled and earned a B.A. from Stetson University. He attended Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville from 1900 to 1902, and received a bachelor of divinity degree from the University of Chicago the following year. Later he would seriously consider continuing his education at Oxford, believing it would be a wonderful “opportunity both for travel and for study abroad.” In considering all of his education, there is little doubt Bell was one of the most academically qualified persons of the early Pentecostal movement.
General Council, September 1919, on the steps of the Stone Church, Chicago, Illinois. Front row: J.R. Flower, S.A. Jamieson, E.N. Bell, J.W. Welch, J.T. Boddy, Stanley H. Frodsham, Ellis Banta. Second row: Frank Gray, J.R. Kline, John Goben, David H. McDowell, Robert A. Brown, Joseph Tunmore, F.A. Hale. Third row: Oliver P. Brann, E.R. Fitzgerald, E.N. Richey, John Coxe, D.W. Kerr, R.J. Craig, Orville Benham, A.P. Collins, T.K. Leonard.
One of the things that I have noticed is that some seem aghast at the fact that TF was refused access to the Historical Societys files.
Truth be told, if a man came in wanting access to my churches information so he could use it to smear our church....I would refuse the info too.
In fact I might be tempted to drop kick him out the front doors of the church.
Only tempted mind you....
Deadeye you are dead wrong. The AOG opened up their archieves and the GC met him and shock his hand.
Told him anything he needed for any reason was available to him.
He did not tell the AOG why he was doing research.
For all they knew he was there to lable them a cult.
He told them he was a Professor doing research.
When He asked for files on EN Bell a very controversary figure in the AOG they did so without reservation.
They opened up a room and gave him complete access.
J.L. Hall the Director of the UPCI Historical center was not as open armed to Thomas Fudge.
The last time he visted they denied him access.
You will see the name of the first UPCI GC.
Here is some info on EN Bell.
This is taken from the AOG website:
http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/199904/048_enbell.cfm
E.N. Bell — A Voice of Restraint in an Era of Controversy
E.N. Bell, the first and fourth general chairman of the Assemblies of God.
by Richard A. Lewis
The history of the Assemblies of God is filled with individuals who shaped the fledgling organization into what it is today. One of these influential founding fathers was Eudorus Neander Bell (1866–1923). In citing even a few of his accomplishments, we discover just how invaluable he was. Recognizing the need to organize the revival and with only the initial support of H.A. Goss, Bell agreed to issue the “call” in his magazine, Word and Witness, for Pentecostals to convene in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Joining these two men in this endeavor were M.M. Pinson, A.P. Collins, and D.C.O. Opperman. This resulted in the formation of the Assemblies of God.
Bell was the first and fourth chairman (general superintendent) of the Fellowship. Between his terms as chairman, he served the young organization as general secretary and as a pastor. Bell was also the first editor of two organizational papers, the aforementioned Word and Witness and the Weekly Evangel, both precursors to the Pentecostal Evangel.
The first issue of the Weekly Evangel, a precursor to The Pentecostal Evangel.
If this were not enough to assure his status, E.N., as he preferred over Eudorus, wrote the first adult and intermediate Sunday school quarterlies. His popular question-and-answer column in the Evangel proved to be an influential as well as a moderating voice of reason in the early years of the Assemblies of God. Several districts were also organized under his direction as chairman. When the decision was made to write a Statement of Fundamental Truths, E.N. was a member of the five-man committee appointed to the task. He championed the autonomy of the local church and congregational church government. Bell also recommended Springfield, Missouri, to be the home of the Fellowship’s national headquarters.
Bell, and his twin brother, Endorus E., were born June 27, 1866, at Lake Butler, Florida. Their father George died when the boys were only 2 years old. E.N. and his family lived in the severest of poverty during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. He was converted at an early age and felt called to full-time ministry. Realizing the need for training, E.N. enrolled at Stetson Academy, and later Stetson University.
Many have struggled to make ends meet as they have worked their way through school, but few have overcome the challenges faced by E.N. Bell. He was forced to adopt a steady diet of hard, stale bread dipped in water when finances ran low. The dream of completing college would have ended for most when faced with such sacrifice. This did not prove to be the case for Bell. He graduated at age 30 from the Academy, enrolled and earned a B.A. from Stetson University. He attended Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville from 1900 to 1902, and received a bachelor of divinity degree from the University of Chicago the following year. Later he would seriously consider continuing his education at Oxford, believing it would be a wonderful “opportunity both for travel and for study abroad.” In considering all of his education, there is little doubt Bell was one of the most academically qualified persons of the early Pentecostal movement.
philjones
12-12-2007, 09:41 AM
Falling away to your crowd is wearing a short sleeve shirt. I stand by my opinion.
You say some of the most inane things some times about folks you no nothing about while attempting to demonstrate the validity of your profoundly flawed positions regarding those with whom you disagree.
You would be ashamed of yourself and your comments if you ever met and got to know some of the folks you love to poke in the eye with a stick!:santathumb
A word of advice, don't stand by that opinion in the face of a true strong wind... it certainly would not offer you much protection!
philjones
12-12-2007, 09:49 AM
Deadeye you are dead wrong. The AOG opened up their archieves and the GC met him and shock his hand.
Told him anything he needed for any reason was available to him.
He did not tell the AOG why he was doing research.
For all they knew he was there to lable them a cult.
He told them he was a Professor doing research.
When He asked for files on EN Bell a very controversary figure in the AOG they did so without reservation.
They opened up a room and gave him complete access.
J.L. Hall the Director of the UPCI Historical center was not as open armed to Thomas Fudge.
The last time he visted they denied him access.
You will see the name of the first UPCI GC.
Here is some info on EN Bell.
This is taken from the AOG website:
http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/199904/048_enbell.cfm
E.N. Bell — A Voice of Restraint in an Era of Controversy
E.N. Bell, the first and fourth general chairman of the Assemblies of God.
by Richard A. Lewis
The history of the Assemblies of God is filled with individuals who shaped the fledgling organization into what it is today. One of these influential founding fathers was Eudorus Neander Bell (1866–1923). In citing even a few of his accomplishments, we discover just how invaluable he was. Recognizing the need to organize the revival and with only the initial support of H.A. Goss, Bell agreed to issue the “call” in his magazine, Word and Witness, for Pentecostals to convene in Hot Springs, Arkansas. Joining these two men in this endeavor were M.M. Pinson, A.P. Collins, and D.C.O. Opperman. This resulted in the formation of the Assemblies of God.
Bell was the first and fourth chairman (general superintendent) of the Fellowship. Between his terms as chairman, he served the young organization as general secretary and as a pastor. Bell was also the first editor of two organizational papers, the aforementioned Word and Witness and the Weekly Evangel, both precursors to the Pentecostal Evangel.
The first issue of the Weekly Evangel, a precursor to The Pentecostal Evangel.
If this were not enough to assure his status, E.N., as he preferred over Eudorus, wrote the first adult and intermediate Sunday school quarterlies. His popular question-and-answer column in the Evangel proved to be an influential as well as a moderating voice of reason in the early years of the Assemblies of God. Several districts were also organized under his direction as chairman. When the decision was made to write a Statement of Fundamental Truths, E.N. was a member of the five-man committee appointed to the task. He championed the autonomy of the local church and congregational church government. Bell also recommended Springfield, Missouri, to be the home of the Fellowship’s national headquarters.
Bell, and his twin brother, Endorus E., were born June 27, 1866, at Lake Butler, Florida. Their father George died when the boys were only 2 years old. E.N. and his family lived in the severest of poverty during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. He was converted at an early age and felt called to full-time ministry. Realizing the need for training, E.N. enrolled at Stetson Academy, and later Stetson University.
Many have struggled to make ends meet as they have worked their way through school, but few have overcome the challenges faced by E.N. Bell. He was forced to adopt a steady diet of hard, stale bread dipped in water when finances ran low. The dream of completing college would have ended for most when faced with such sacrifice. This did not prove to be the case for Bell. He graduated at age 30 from the Academy, enrolled and earned a B.A. from Stetson University. He attended Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville from 1900 to 1902, and received a bachelor of divinity degree from the University of Chicago the following year. Later he would seriously consider continuing his education at Oxford, believing it would be a wonderful “opportunity both for travel and for study abroad.” In considering all of his education, there is little doubt Bell was one of the most academically qualified persons of the early Pentecostal movement.
Nate,
J.L. Hall knew "the perfesser" and the positions he had adopted and therefore had a much better frame of reference than the AOG. Their open ignorance is not a condemnation to a man who used wisdom in not putting a bigger club in the hand of the enemy... and trust me... Thomas Fudge IS the enemy of Oneness Apostolic Truth! If I wrap my deceitful arm around your shoulder it is much easier to slide the knife between your ribs. :d
Nate,
J.L. Hall knew "the perfesser" and the positions he had adopted and therefore had a much better frame of reference than the AOG. Their open ignorance is not a condemnation to a man who used wisdom in not putting a bigger club in the hand of the enemy... and trust me... Thomas Fudge IS the enemy of Oneness Apostolic Truth! If I wrap my deceitful arm around your shoulder it is much easier to slide the knife between your ribs. :d
Philjones,
I want to state.... I have great respect for you. I enjoy reading your point of view and posts.
One question for you.
Have you met or talked one on one with TF?
If not then I will quote a wise man.
"You say some of the most inane things sometimes about folks you no nothing about while attempting to demonstrate the validity of your profoundly flawed positions regarding those with whom you disagree.
You would be ashamed of yourself and your comments if you ever met and got to know some of the folks you love to poke in the eye with a stick!"
Nathan Eckstadt
A word of advice, don't stand by that opinion in the face of a true strong wind... it certainly would not offer you much protection!
__________________
StillStanding
12-12-2007, 10:24 AM
Pianoman, i haven't read the book yet, waiting on my copy to arrive...
why do you say that "the approved versions of Oneness histoy had a bias spin towards the UPC?"
What books are you talking about...
Can you list a few points that this book discusses that aren't discussed in past historical books of the Oneness movement
When I was in bible school in the mid 70's, the only history we read and was taught about the UPC were in chapters of autobiographys, or articles in the Pentecostal Herald. We were told about the PCI and PAJC merginging in 1945, but nothing about the doctrinal differences. I read about the different GS's throughout the years, but nothing about their doctrinal beliefs.
I assumed that everyone was in lock step since the merger.
CWTC was an EYE-OPENER for me!
philjones
12-12-2007, 10:25 AM
Philjones,
I want to state.... I have great respect for you. I enjoy reading your point of view and posts.
One question for you.
Have you met or talked one on one with TF?
If not then I will quote a wise man.
"You say some of the most inane things sometimes about folks you no nothing about while attempting to demonstrate the validity of your profoundly flawed positions regarding those with whom you disagree.
You would be ashamed of yourself and your comments if you ever met and got to know some of the folks you love to poke in the eye with a stick!"
Nathan Eckstadt
A word of advice, don't stand by that opinion in the face of a true strong wind... it certainly would not offer you much protection!
__________________
ROFL... that was a good one! I think I am going to cry I am laughing so hard.
That said, I have not met this man face to face. I have, however read some of his slanted views. Based on his views and the title of his book, I am convinced that he is the enemy of Oneness Pentecostalism. Were he writing from the perspective of one who, still inside the movement, desired to reawaken an awareness among his brethren I might take less offense. He is not writing from that perspective. He is writing it from the perspective of one who has denied ALL that we love and hold dear and as a condemnation of all that we are.
Nate, you may find him pleasant and enjoyable but the fruit of his labor is not going in my basket and I will hold him as I would an adder... at arms length... getting too close might be lethal.:santathumb
philjones
12-12-2007, 10:28 AM
When I was in bible school in the mid 70's, the only history we read and was taught about the UPC were in chapters of autobiographys, or articles in the Pentecostal Herald. We were told about the PCI and PAJC merginging in 1945, but nothing about the doctrinal differences. I read about the different GS's throughout the years, but nothing about their doctrinal beliefs.
I assumed that everyone was in lock step since the merger.
CWTC was an EYE-OPENER for me!
Your experience is so strange to me, PM... I went to TBC, the conservative of the UPCI endorsed colleges, at the same time you were at JCM. We heard plenty about the PCI and PAJC doctrines and differences and I was told the story of the merger from the time I was a young boy. It was common knowledge among my peers and, maybe it is an Oklahoma thing, across my district.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 10:29 AM
Check out the report of PastorD, who knows him personally and has spent time with him.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 10:29 AM
Your experience is so strange to me, PM... I went to TBC, the conservative of the UPCI endorsed colleges, at the same time you were at JCM. We heard plenty about the PCI and PAJC doctrines and differences and I was told the story of the merger from the time I was a young boy. It was common knowledge among my peers and, maybe it is an Oklahoma thing, across my district.
Same here, Phil.
My pastor in Oklahoma told me all about the whle deal.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 10:31 AM
Interesting that I wasn't able to find any personal information about you in your profile either. No cheap tricks here . . .
If you ever have such a conversation with him, you will see that he thinks nothing of ripping anyone's character. His disgust for Truth and UPC borders on hatred. Again, if one (TF) is going to call eveyone's character and commitment into question you need to have lived a little something yourself.
Bump...testimony from someone who knows Fudge personally.
ROFL... that was a good one! I think I am going to cry I am laughing so hard.
That said, I have not met this man face to face. I have, however read some of his slanted views. Based on his views and the title of his book, I am convinced that he is the enemy of Oneness Pentecostalism. Were he writing from the perspective of one who, still inside the movement, desired to reawaken an awareness among his brethren I might take less offense. He is not writing from that perspective. He is writing it from the perspective of one who has denied ALL that we love and hold dear and as a condemnation of all that we are.
Nate, you may find him pleasant and enjoyable but the fruit of his labor is not going in my basket and I will hold him as I would an adder... at arms length... getting too close might be lethal.:santathumb
Then you got me. I figured you would not say that without holding your own position. I do respect your point of view...
Nate
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 10:32 AM
The opinions here are rather interesting. I, too, appreciate history, but this guy I just can't take. I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church. I just have no respect for his opinion about committed men when he has no commitment to God, church, or marriage.
Eyewitness testimony here, people.
Your experience is so strange to me, PM... I went to TBC, the conservative of the UPCI endorsed colleges, at the same time you were at JCM. We heard plenty about the PCI and PAJC doctrines and differences and I was told the story of the merger from the time I was a young boy. It was common knowledge among my peers and, maybe it is an Oklahoma thing, across my district.
I was in the UPCI circles for 40 plus years. My dad came over from the AOG. I just talked to my mom.
She knew very little of the doctrinal differences of the merger groups.
I was shocked that for 40 years it was always told to me from a differeent slant.
This could be done because it was always done in context to the "Oneness" which was agreed upon by both merging organizations.
The differences were the reason that a 1938 merger between the same organizations failed.
Bump...testimony from someone who knows Fudge personally.
There is a whole lot of ripping going on in this forum...
Ripping on the 49, ripping on the Resolution and the men who passed it...
How is that any different?
Ripping is ripping...
Eyewitness testimony here, people.
If your pastor wrote the book would you think it to be made up history?
Just look at the book and not the author...
Otherwise throw away many of the Psalms which were written by a man with bad charater in parts of his life. King David...
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 10:53 AM
If your pastor wrote the book would you think it to be made up history?
Just look at the book and not the author...
Otherwise throw away many of the Psalms which were written by a man with bad charater in parts of his life. King David...
I didn't read anyone saying TF made up history? Some are questioning his motives and bias. Is there something wrong with that?
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 10:57 AM
Interesting that I wasn't able to find any personal information about you in your profile either. No cheap tricks here . . .
If you ever have such a conversation with him, you will see that he thinks nothing of ripping anyone's character. His disgust for Truth and UPC borders on hatred. Again, if one (TF) is going to call eveyone's character and commitment into question you need to have lived a little something yourself.
I'm as anonymous here as you are, but, then again, I'm not trying to destroy a man's credibility by insulting his character.
What Thomas Fudge has had to say, he has published publicly, with his name attached. You, on the other hand, are severely denigrating the man from behind a mask.
Thomas Fudge's bias' and attitude are pretty well known, but what about yours? You've set at the table with him, are you part of his ex-wife's family? Did he quote you in his book and embarass you? Did he steal your date in Bible School, or beat you at ping pong?
Step out of the shadows and give us a chance to see if your opinion of the good professor has any substance, or if you're just stomping sour grapes.
I didn't read anyone saying TF made up history? Some are questioning his motives and bias. Is there something wrong with that?
Nope nothing wrong with it.
I'm as anonymous here as you are, but, then again, I'm not trying to destroy a man's credibility by insulting his character.
What Thomas Fudge has had to say, he has published publicly, with his name attached. You, on the other hand, are severely denigrating the man from behind a mask.
Thomas Fudge's bias' and attitude are pretty well known, but what about yours? You've set at the table with him, are you part of his ex-wife's family? Did he quote you in his book and embarass you? Did he steal your date in Bible School, or beat you at ping pong?
Step out of the shadows and give us a chance to see if your opinion of the good professor has any substance, or if you're just stomping sour grapes.
lol! :santathumb
PastorD
12-12-2007, 11:00 AM
If your pastor wrote the book would you think it to be made up history?
Just look at the book and not the author...
Otherwise throw away many of the Psalms which were written by a man with bad charater in parts of his life. King David...
Neck...all respect for you and your post, but to compare Fudge to King David????? Please.....
I know you talked to TF for 2 hours and maybe you are a little 'star struck' and feel like you just got kissed at the Prom, but let's not go overboard.
He has called men's character into question. Many feel they were mis-quoted and until we hear those interview tapes we will not know. I am not against the history or his interpretation of it. But when you ask us not to look at the author.....just not possible.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 11:01 AM
If your pastor wrote the book would you think it to be made up history?
Just look at the book and not the author...
Otherwise throw away many of the Psalms which were written by a man with bad charater in parts of his life. King David...
Necker,
I have repeatedly stated that I do not either question or object to the history in the book.
But there is more to the book than just the historical facts presented, beginning with the slanderous and totally inaccurate title.
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Eyewitness testimony here, people.
Eyewitness testimony? Hardly.
It's more in line with an anonymous tip emailed to Thad's Tab.
How are we to receive such bitter accusations, even against an Anglican, from a man behind a mask.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 11:04 AM
I'm as anonymous here as you are, but, then again, I'm not trying to destroy a man's credibility by insulting his character.
What Thomas Fudge has had to say, he has published publicly, with his name attached. You, on the other hand, are severely denigrating the man from behind a mask.
Thomas Fudge's bias' and attitude are pretty well known, but what about yours? You've set at the table with him, are you part of his ex-wife's family? Did he quote you in his book and embarass you? Did he steal your date in Bible School, or beat you at ping pong?
Step out of the shadows and give us a chance to see if your opinion of the good professor has any substance, or if you're just stomping sour grapes.
Well spoken, Stephanas. :rudolph
StillStanding
12-12-2007, 11:05 AM
Necker,
I have repeatedly stated that I do not either question or object to the history in the book.
But there is more to the book than just the historical facts presented, beginning with the slanderous and totally inaccurate title.
I agree that the title of the book is over the top! The publishers may have had a hand in deciding to give it such a controversial title.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 11:06 AM
Eyewitness testimony? Hardly.
It's more in line with an anonymous tip emailed to Thad's Tab.
How are we to receive such bitter accusations, even against an Anglican, from a man behind a mask.
Some of us know who pastorD is, Steph.
Are you calling him a liar?
PastorD
12-12-2007, 11:07 AM
I'm as anonymous here as you are, but, then again, I'm not trying to destroy a man's credibility by insulting his character.
What Thomas Fudge has had to say, he has published publicly, with his name attached. You, on the other hand, are severely denigrating the man from behind a mask.
Thomas Fudge's bias' and attitude are pretty well known, but what about yours? You've set at the table with him, are you part of his ex-wife's family? Did he quote you in his book and embarass you? Did he steal your date in Bible School, or beat you at ping pong?
Step out of the shadows and give us a chance to see if your opinion of the good professor has any substance, or if you're just stomping sour grapes.
I don't know either of TF's ex-wives. He beat me at ping pong . . . you got me. You must be going to next years Prom.
We all enjoy the shadows here. You keep talking to him and before you know it you will hate what he hates.
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Some of us know who pastorD is, Steph.
Are you calling him a liar?
Not at all.
I haven't even suggested that anything he has said is untrue.
All that I have said is that an anonymous report is just that, anonymous.
I didn't respond to defend the Professor. I only posted because it irked me to see a man's character publicly insulted when I have no way to know if the poster making the accusation has any real life credibility.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 11:10 AM
I don't know either of TF's ex-wives. He beat me at ping pong . . . you got me. You must be going to next years Prom.
We all enjoy the shadows here. You keep talking to him and before you know it you will hate what he hates.
Does Stephanas personally know TF or his family? I'm inclined not to think so.
I guess I'll get the book eventually and find out for myself if there is slander and tearing down of the ministry by TF.
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 11:13 AM
I don't know either of TF's ex-wives. He beat me at ping pong . . . you got me. You must be going to next years Prom.
We all enjoy the shadows here. You keep talking to him and before you know it you will hate what he hates.
I haven't spent more than five minutes talking to him in the last twenty years.
He may be all that you say he is, but a public forum is a pretty poor place to pass personal judgements.
Truly Blessed
12-12-2007, 11:14 AM
Bump...testimony from someone who knows Fudge personally.Does Pastor D know TF personally or simply knows about him? Has he ever personally met or spoken to the man? I am simply looking for confirmation on that point. I have personally met TF and spoken at length with him. I don't like the title of the book and don't agree with everything that TF writes in his book, but I don't understand why anyone feels it necessary to demonize someone simply because they may have a bias and are being critical of an organization.
Through the years I have read many articles and books by UPC authors that not only criticized other groups and their teachings, but even cursed them. Does that mean these authors also should be demonized in the way that TF is being demonized?
What was expressed to me when I spoke with TF was that he simply felt that there was an aspect of UPCI and Oneness history that wasn't being presented and he saw an opportunity to present a more balanced view of what happened. There was no animosity expressed to me. He did feel strongly that the PCI needed to be better represented in the history of oneness. I agreed with that opinion.
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 11:16 AM
Does Stephanas personally know TF or his family? I'm inclined not to think so.
I guess I'll get the book eventually and find out for myself if there is slander and tearing down of the ministry by TF.
Actually, I have met both him and his family.
Get the book. It's a good read. Read it with Brother Bernard's and Hall's books in one hand and it in the other and you'll get a pretty good view of UPCI history.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 11:20 AM
Does Pastor D know TF personally or simply knows about him? Has he ever personally met or spoken to the man? I am simply looking for confirmation on that point. I have personally met TF and spoken at length with him. I don't like the title of the book and don't agree with everything that TF writes in his book, but I don't understand why anyone feels it necessary to demonize someone simply because they may have a bias and are being critical of an organization.
Through the years I have read many articles and books by UPC authors that not only criticized other groups and their teachings, but even cursed them. Does that mean these authors also should be demonized in the way that TF is being demonized?
What was expressed to me when I spoke with TF was that he simply felt that there was an aspect of UPCI and Oneness history that wasn't being presented and he saw an opportunity to present a more balanced view of what happened. There was no animosity expressed to me. He did feel strongly that the PCI needed to be better represented in the history of oneness. I agreed with that opinion.
He is connected by family, and has shared holiday meals, etc. with him and heard him discuss the Apostolic movement and our doctrines.
he has personal knowledge of Fudge swaying family to leave Spirit filled churches.
I have never, ever, objected to or questioned the history Fudge has written. I even agree that the story needed to be told.
I just wish he could have done it without the digs at Apostolics sprinkled throughout the book, beginning with the title.
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 11:23 AM
TB, here is PastorD's testimony:
I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church
Eyewitness testimony? Hardly.
It's more in line with an anonymous tip emailed to Thad's Tab.
How are we to receive such bitter accusations, even against an Anglican, from a man behind a mask.
:eek:
Felicity
12-12-2007, 11:36 AM
If it was true that TF hates Oneness Pentecost and everything that goes along with it (which I truly doubt by the way) how does that diminish or extinguish or negate the factual history he has provided?
I read books by men who are fervently against the Pentecostal message but there is still a lot of truth and knowledge in what they write and I'm the better for reading some of it.
I learn from some who wouldn't agree with everything I believe including those who would be regarded as more liberal or more conservative than I. ;) :)
Coonskinner
12-12-2007, 11:37 AM
It doesn't diminish the facts or history.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 11:38 AM
Actually, I have met both him and his family.
Get the book. It's a good read. Read it with Brother Bernard's and Hall's books in one hand and it in the other and you'll get a pretty good view of UPCI history.What books by Bro Bernard and Hall?
Adino
12-12-2007, 12:58 PM
Necker,
I have repeatedly stated that I do not either question or object to the history in the book.
But there is more to the book than just the historical facts presented, beginning with the slanderous and totally inaccurate title.The title of TF's book gets to the core of water/spirit theology. A "Christianity without the Cross" is precisely what you have if the implications of the water/spirit position are carried to their logical conclusions. It is a doctrine which degrades, if not by-passes altogether, the significance of the Cross.
I will use the account of Cornelius as example:
The account in Acts 10 evidences that Cornelius possessed the living Spirit of God prior to water baptism. In fact, in like fashion, evidence of Spirit reception prior to water baptism is said to happen time and time again even today.
If the shed blood of Calvary is for the remission of sins, and sins are remitted in water baptism as the water/spirit position teaches, why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the Holy Spirit could indwell a man without the need of sin remission?
If Cornelius' heart could be cleansed enough for the indwelling of the Spirit of God..... what was the need for Calvary?
If a man's heart can be clean enough for the Holy Spirit to indwell it, why is there a need to further remit sins?
Why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the spirit of man could be quickened to new life by the indwelling living Spirit of God without sin remission?
Those who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them are no longer under condemnation (Romans 8:1-2,9). That a man can be purified by faith and indwelt by the Spirit of God yet remain in a state of condemnation until baptism is theologically skewed.
The purpose of Christ's death on the cross is negated if the heart can be made alive without sin remission.
The title of TF's book is extremely fitting. In water/spirit theology there is no need for the cross to become spiritually alive, because one can possess the living Spirit of God without sin remission. This is theologically impossible and the title "Christianity without the Cross" points to this very important doctrinal dilemma in the water/spirit rank and file.
HangingOut
12-12-2007, 01:22 PM
I think his title describes what he believes as far as oneness doctrine is concerned. He believes that there is a creedence to Acts 2:38 that often times leaves out the actual event of what happened on the cross and more on the attempt to reinact the event than the event itself satisfying salvation. His interview comes out in this if you ever get chance to listen to it. I am not saying it doesn't have a two-fold purpose.
For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.
However, let's get real here.
We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.
Furthermore, who do you think reads this book? Who was the target audience?
Jesuits?
Mormons?
Wiccans who are fascinated with doctrinal nuances in the Oneness movement?
No way.
He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.
Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.
This gives cntext to his bias.
I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.
I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.
What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.
Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.
But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.
Now go take on the day. :)
I don't know either of TF's ex-wives. He beat me at ping pong . . . you got me. You must be going to next years Prom.
We all enjoy the shadows here. You keep talking to him and before you know it you will hate what he hates.
I personally won't hate. I am open to point of views.
What I do hate is being cut short on the history of the church that I was in for 40 years.
StillStanding
12-12-2007, 01:24 PM
I think his title describes what he believes as far as oneness doctrine is concerned. He believes that there is a creedence to Acts 2:38 that often times leaves out the actual event of what happened on the cross and more on the attempt to reinact the event than the event itself satisfying salvation. His interview comes out in this if you ever get chance to listen to it. I am not saying it doesn't have a two-fold purpose.
I think TF is referring to the 3 stepper view, not the oneness view!
HangingOut
12-12-2007, 01:29 PM
Thanks for clarifying for me.
I think TF is referring to the 3 stepper view, not the oneness view!
HangingOut
12-12-2007, 01:34 PM
Amen, I think it is a desperate rebuttal to try to assasinate his character as a means to undermine the book. His interview and what I have read of the book are of high regard. I mean, the man took the time out in his life to interview hundreds. He uses as much space for references as he does for content. I have never seen another book in that manner.
I personally won't hate. I am open to point of views.
What I do hate is being cut short on the history of the church that I was in for 40 years.
What books by Bro Bernard and Hall?
It's not the history of the UPCI that I seek.
It is prior to Oct 1945 that I seek.
Why did the merger fail in 1938?
It was not over the name of the organization, nor the HQ.
It was over when is the salvational grace of God applied?
"At the Cross" or at the waters of Baptism and speaking in tougues?
Most who darken a UPCI church in a service for the first time.
We took for granted that the person know's what the cross of Jesus represents.
They are told Repent and be Baptized and you shall receive the gift of the HG.
Does anyone tell them about the Grace and what the battered body on the cross represents?
Paul states it this way, "as for folks on this forum" I am determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified. I Cor 2:2
I Cor 1:18 For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God!
I need to ask this question:
Does the Cross of Jesus Christ in your theology point to Acts 2:38 or does Act's 2:38 point to the Cross?
That is a fundamental difference!
The Cross points to Acts 2:38.
However many step past the Cross to Acts 2:38.
Because the difference from the ecumenical church is the absolute of Acts 2:38 as the ticket to eternity.
We have been so shortsighted that we think the power is in the Acts 2:38 absolute.
We forget that the power of Jesus Christ which overcame the power of death and damnation was at the Cross.
The Gospel is Jesus Christ and him Crucified, that is the power unto salvation.
Maybe that is the reason why so many made up their minds at an alter in the UPCI.
Got baptized from the zeal of the instructor to be Acts 2:38'd
They stepped out of the waters of Baptism to the door of the church.
Then never came back.
They received the experience of Acts 2:38 with a weak experience at the Cross.
I think we could all use a moment back at the foot of the Cross!
Nathan Eckstadt
Adino
12-12-2007, 02:17 PM
I need to ask this question:
....Does the Cross of Jesus Christ in your theology point to Acts 2:38 or does Act's 2:38 point to the Cross?
That is a fundamental difference!
The Cross points to Acts 2:38.....
Nathan EckstadtA fundamental difference, indeed. Acts 2:38 should point to the Cross.
The water/spirit position has unfortunately assumed that the cross's work climaxes in a "plan" found in Acts 2:38. It incorrectly takes the position that the Cross points to Acts 2:38. In reality, the plan of salvation was hanging on the cross.
The Cross does not point to a saving formula in Acts 2:38; Acts 2:38 should point to the saving work of the Cross.
A fundamental difference, indeed. Acts 2:38 should point to the Cross.
The water/spirit position has unfortunately assumed that the cross's work climaxes in a "plan" found in Acts 2:38. It incorrectly takes the position that the Cross points to Acts 2:38. In reality, the plan of salvation was hanging on the cross.
The Cross does not point to a saving formula in Acts 2:38; Acts 2:38 should point to the saving work of the Cross.
A poster on this forum ... once said on another forum .... ALL SCRIPTURE POINTS TO ACTS 2:38 ....
I ALMOST FELL OUT.
Truly Blessed
12-12-2007, 02:49 PM
One problem I have with the water/Spirit doctrine is that this view simply doesn't represent what actually happens in a person's life when they look to Jesus Christ for salvation. I agree that the message of Acts 2:38 points back to the cross. I don't need to die, be buried and rise again. I need to accept by faith that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on my behalf. Repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost is my way of identifying with and being empowered by what was accomplished for me at Calvary.
The two views(PCI and PAJC) IMHO represent a difference between where one places the emphasis. Do we place the emphasis on what Jesus Christ did to save us or emphasize what we do to save ourselves? Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost emphasized Jesus Christ and what He accomplished. Acts 2:38 was very simply the altar call not the message that was preached. PAJCers make Acts 2:38 THE MESSAGE. Paul and Peter both made the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ THE MESSAGE.
pelathais
12-12-2007, 03:18 PM
For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.
However, let's get real here.
We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.
The focus of his book was the charge that some of us deny the cross and some of us, in his opinion do not. He was amplifying a dispute among OP's that goes back to our roots. One that is documented, but that our leadership has gone to great pains to try and hide.
He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.
Again, the "slap in the face" as you've called it, is really only aimed at a subset of Oneness Pentecostals, not the movement as a whole.
Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.
This gives cntext to his bias.
I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.
So far no one has answered the question directly, and you've asserted the point twice; is Fudge really an ordained Anglican priest authorized to say mass and consecrate the host? Or is he a history professor who, lacking a church of his own, joined the dominate religion on the campus where he taught? Since we are attempting to uncover motives of bias here, this is a critical consideration.
You appear to push his Anglicism to the furtherest extreme. Do you have grounds for doing so, or are you driven by bias yourself? This is a sincere question on my part because frankly, I don't have the faintest idea what the man believes.
I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.
That may be the case for you, but we were discouraged from examining the issue in Bible school, at the WEC and in my home church and district. The "PCI" way of thinking was verbotem and CH Yadon's "From Acorn to Oak" was banned locally. Further, almost all of the PCI material has been deleted from the Pentecostal Publishing House. It has been removed from all "required reading" and "official" documents. At one time all UPCI ministers were required to at least read the writings of John Dearing; those writings have been removed without comment or footnote.
I was just checking to see if "Acorn to Oak" was still there, I thought that it was, but the PPH site is down right now!
The UPCI manual no longer notes when various changes were made to it, especially the changes made to the Fundamental Doctrine in 1973. The notes on when and what was changed used to be a staple of the manual. Now it's gone without comment or footnote. That is a cover up of no small proportions.
What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.
Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.
SG Norris seems to get criticized heftily in the book, but Fudge also appears to have missed Norris most famous publication Where are the Dead and to also have missed that Norris didn't "send all other Christians to hell." My impression is that had Fudge been aware of that angle, then Norris would have been given a better treatment. Just my take on it.
And the "bad guy" of the whole book, Leonard Westberg gets high praise in spite of his infamous remark about the "smell" of "liberals." In fact Fudge goes to pains to try and persuade his readers that Westberg was merely a man who pursued his convictions. The "bad guys" end up being unnamed denominational and institutional leaders. This seems to be a balanced way to approach a controversial topic. [/quote]
But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.
And yet Fudge makes the same charge of his critics and those who criticize Brother Yadon, Brother Drost, and etc. By charging that there are those who are "without the cross" he would certainly seem to be saying they are "without faith" (infidels) and having abandoned the very place of their hope (and thus apostates).
The unbiased reader is left to search, first for the cross himself, and then to search for those that have also found a place at the cross as well.
Now go take on the day. :)
I hope you have a great day yourself, and that you will consider responding to my post. I'm not picking a fight here, I just think that you're a good person who sees somethings differently than I do. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Amen, I think it is a desperate rebuttal to try to assasinate his character as a means to undermine the book. His interview and what I have read of the book are of high regard. I mean, the man took the time out in his life to interview hundreds. He uses as much space for references as he does for content. I have never seen another book in that manner.
It is an acadimic work. it is supposed to be like that.
and Acadimics are supposed to write books like that.
this history and the results form the exhaustive interviews is fantastic.
it is part of the history of our little corner of the Pentecostal movement, and it is valuable. however, I suspect that even TF would tell you it is not all of the story.
I still contend that the direction of the book was decided on before the first interview was done. That takes nothing away from the content except to suggest that one cannot take this work alone as the final autority on the subject the way some do.
pelathais
12-12-2007, 03:39 PM
A fundamental difference, indeed. Acts 2:38 should point to the Cross.
The water/spirit position has unfortunately assumed that the cross's work climaxes in a "plan" found in Acts 2:38. It incorrectly takes the position that the Cross points to Acts 2:38. In reality, the plan of salvation was hanging on the cross.
The Cross does not point to a saving formula in Acts 2:38; Acts 2:38 should point to the saving work of the Cross.
I've often wondered about the element of sympathetic magic at work here.
"Sympathetic magic (http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html)" was a practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic) among many cultures where if a person wanted something, they had to do something similar. For example, if a wife wanted a baby but seemed to not be able to conceive, she would still dress up in maternity garb and act as if she were pregnant.
In the Bible we also find "examples," though many would obviously object to the association. When Jacob wanted "ringstraked and speckled" cattle, he carved the bark off of branches of wood to make the branches "ringstraked and speckled" (Genesis 30:31-43 and Genesis 32:1-12). When an iron axe head fell into the water, sank and was lost, Elisha spread wood over the site and the iron floated as if it were wood (2 Kings 6:1-7). These could be examples of "sympathetic magic."
We might also say that the so called "magic hair" doctrine is another example among some Oneness folks. When you want your prayers to get the attention of angels and heaven itself, why not put your prayers down on paper and mingle the paper with a woman's uncut hair? Sympathetic magic.
What of baptism? Why are to be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism, so that as Christ rose from the dead, so also will God quicken our mortal bodies. There is an obvious identification with Christ that comes through Christian baptism, particularly baptism in Jesus Name. Are some wanting to carry that act of identification forward to the point where it is no longer an act of identification, but it becomes a form of sympathetic magic?
And remember, I haven't even ruled out the possibility that sympathetic magic can at times be valid. I'm just wondering how far are we comfortable in carrying this point about water baptism? Is it "magic?"
PastorD
12-12-2007, 03:55 PM
I haven't spent more than five minutes talking to him in the last twenty years.
He may be all that you say he is, but a public forum is a pretty poor place to pass personal judgements.
I'll start reading through your posts and threads with the forum and hopefully I won't find any "personal judgements passed."
This forum may be a poor place to discuss, but someone needs to tell the other side of the story as some of you making him out to be the Apostle Paul's twin brother. King David even...
PastorD
12-12-2007, 03:58 PM
I personally won't hate. I am open to point of views.
What I do hate is being cut short on the history of the church that I was in for 40 years.
Of course you won't....you are a thinker and I respect that.
Nothing wrong with the history...our entire story needs to be told. We agree on that.
Adino
12-12-2007, 04:24 PM
I've often wondered about the element of sympathetic magic at work here.
"Sympathetic magic (http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html)" was a practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic) among many cultures where if a person wanted something, they had to do something similar. For example, if a wife wanted a baby but seemed to not be able to conceive, she would still dress up in maternity garb and act as if she were pregnant.
In the Bible we also find "examples," though many would obviously object to the association. When Jacob wanted "ringstraked and speckled" cattle, he carved the bark off of branches of wood to make the branches "ringstraked and speckled" (Genesis 30:31-43 and Genesis 32:1-12). When an iron axe head fell into the water, sank and was lost, Elisha spread wood over the site and the iron floated as if it were wood (2 Kings 6:1-7). These could be examples of "sympathetic magic."
We might also say that the so called "magic hair" doctrine is another example among some Oneness folks. When you want your prayers to get the attention of angels and heaven itself, why not put your prayers down on paper and mingle the paper with a woman's uncut hair? Sympathetic magic.
What of baptism? Why are to be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism, so that as Christ rose from the dead, so also will God quicken our mortal bodies. There is an obvious identification with Christ that comes through Christian baptism, particularly baptism in Jesus Name. Are some wanting to carry that act of identification forward to the point where it is no longer an act of identification, but it becomes a form of sympathetic magic?
And remember, I haven't even ruled out the possibility that sympathetic magic can at times be valid. I'm just wondering how far are we comfortable in carrying this point about water baptism? Is it "magic?"Pelathais, you have put your finger on one of the issues which helped formulate the new birth doctrine of Frank Ewart. There is evidence that Ewart's understanding of a legal vs a vital side of justification came from E.W. Kenyon's doctrine of "Identification." Your post on "sympathetic magic" comes very close to the experiential/vital side of Kenyon's (and ultimately Ewart's) view of salvation coming through "identification" with the Spirit's work in justification.
The following excerpt from one of Bernie Gillespie's articles is relevant:
The adoption of Kenyon’s ideas into Ewart’s thought is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it dispels any notion that Ewart’s doctrine was a direct revelation from Scripture. Not that Ewart expressed that this part of his theology was direct revelation from Scripture, but because those who are influenced by Ewart often claim as much about his distinctives. Obviously, he was working with the text of Scripture throughout his arguments. But, he was doing it under the influence of Kenyon’s thought. He read Scripture and came to conclusions looking through the Bible-reading lens of Kenyon. Second, Kenyon’s distinction between legal and vital provided Ewart with the rationale for including the experience of being Baptized with the Spirit with the experiential and physically objective manifestation of tongues speech. By splitting the forensic side of salvation – justification by faith – from the experiential side – the Baptism of the Spirit (evidenced by the experience of speaking with tongues), Ewart put forward a need for a more “full salvation” than that presented by the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. Beyond simple faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross (legal) a person needed to obtain and “experience” the indwelling work of the Spirit in the human heart (vital).
Here we see Ewart’s misunderstanding of the orthodox view of Justification by Faith and the adoption which takes place through it. He considers adoption as “purely legal.” This reductionism has serious consequences for his doctrine of salvation. The thrust of Ewart’s argument is that since sinners have a satanic nature, a purely legal declaration by God, e.g. that one is the child of God, is not sufficient because it does not change the sinner’s nature. That is why the New Birth, as Ewart understands it, is necessary for one to be truly saved. Otherwise, the proclamation by God that one is righteous or adopted is only a legal statement with no real change affected in the heart of the sinner. This is a failed understanding of the biblical doctrines of justification and adoption.Excerpted from Bernie's paper "The True 'Plan of Salvation' (http://www.inchristalone.org/html%20True%20Plan.htm)"
Adino
12-12-2007, 04:39 PM
A poster on this forum ... once said on another forum .... ALL SCRIPTURE POINTS TO ACTS 2:38 ....
I ALMOST FELL OUT.One of the things I enjoy most about a oneness pentecostal service is the Christocentric worship. I wish the doctrine was just as Christ centered.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 04:40 PM
A fundamental difference, indeed. Acts 2:38 should point to the Cross.
The water/spirit position has unfortunately assumed that the cross's work climaxes in a "plan" found in Acts 2:38. It incorrectly takes the position that the Cross points to Acts 2:38. In reality, the plan of salvation was hanging on the cross.
The Cross does not point to a saving formula in Acts 2:38; Acts 2:38 should point to the saving work of the Cross.
Christ's work was finished on the cross. The Lamb was slain and the blood of atonement was shed. The price for our sin was paid. If we leave it there then what does it accomplish? Without faith in that sacrifice and repentance (change of mind that leads us to turn away from darkness and sin to God) Christ sacrifice would be fruitless. Our repentance is a type of dying to sin and to our old sinful lifestyle..the old man dies. Baptism is a type of burial of the body of the sins of the flesh and being filled with the Spirit a type of resurrection in which we rise in newness of life. We have the life of God in us. It's more than a symbolic association with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. There are actual Spiritual processes taking place. The work is the Spirit's. It's the process of new birth. God is birthing us not we ourselves as many would have us to believe. That we are saving ourselves apart from the cross, the blood, and the Spirit.
Now this is the part that none of you have been able to explain from the scriptures except in abstract concepts or figures of speech.
When do we receive the Spirit of Christ? What does the Bible say?
When are our sins remitted/washed away? What does the Bible say?
The Spirit of God is involved in water baptism directly performing an act of circumcision see Romans 2:28-29 NASB and Colossians 2:11-12. The Spirit of God fills us, baptizes us in His ownself. We receive the gift of the Spirit by faith (the means is faith) when our hearts are made right through repentance.
Explain if you will why after our new birth, if and when we sin, we are advised to confess our sins and the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I'm assuming you do not take this literally. But there is a washing available even after our initial cleansing when our sins were first remitted.
I guess my experience influences my thoughts on this subject as well. When I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt clean on the inside and while under the water I had an overwhelming sense of peace with God. Something happens spiritually when we are baptized.
pelathais
12-12-2007, 05:04 PM
Christ's work was finished on the cross. The Lamb was slain and the blood of atonement was shed. The price for our sin was paid. If we leave it there then what does it accomplish? Without faith in that sacrifice and repentance (change of mind that leads us to turn away from darkness and sin to God) Christ sacrifice would be fruitless. Our repentance is a type of dying to sin and to our old sinful lifestyle..the old man dies. Baptism is a type of burial of the body of the sins of the flesh and being filled with the Spirit a type of resurrection in which we rise in newness of life. We have the life of God in us. It's more than a symbolic association with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. There are actual Spiritual processes taking place. The work is the Spirit's. It's the process of new birth. God is birthing us not we ourselves as many would have us to believe. That we are saving ourselves apart from the cross, the blood, and the Spirit.
But what happens when our experience is out of step with the sequence of events that Christ experienced? One also thinks of Cornelius and the Gentiles in his household. They were "resurrected" before they were "buried." This is an obvious case where the pattern of salvation at least appeared to fail to follow the example of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
The fact that the type we are to follow (Christ's death burial and resurrection) would be a ridiculous event if it occurred out of sequence would seem to impy that if a literal following of that type were necessary, then there would be no Biblical examples of other than the sequential occurrence of the "3 steps."
In other words, if the antitype must follow the type in order for there to be salvation, then we should find that point emphasized in the experiences of the New Testament church. Instead what we find is a group of Apostles (Apostolics?) who are reluctant to ascribe salvation to others and only the manifest evidence of God's Spirit overcomes their reluctance.
Could it be that in trying to be "Apostolic" that we have also managed to obtain the prejudices of the original Apostles. Prejudices for which they were continually rebuked by others among them and by the Lord Himself?
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 07:34 PM
Neck...all respect for you and your post, but to compare Fudge to King David????? Please.....
I know you talked to TF for 2 hours and maybe you are a little 'star struck' and feel like you just got kissed at the Prom, but let's not go overboard.
He has called men's character into question. Many feel they were mis-quoted and until we hear those interview tapes we will not know. I am not against the history or his interpretation of it. But when you ask us not to look at the author.....just not possible.
Many? I don't know about that. I have yet to see any accusation of a misquote which would have made a difference in the substance or premise of the book.
This is indeed though, why the tapes/intereveiws should be made public.
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 07:40 PM
He is connected by family, and has shared holiday meals, etc. with him and heard him discuss the Apostolic movement and our doctrines.
he has personal knowledge of Fudge swaying family to leave Spirit filled churches.
I have never, ever, objected to or questioned the history Fudge has written. I even agree that the story needed to be told.
I just wish he could have done it without the digs at Apostolics sprinkled throughout the book, beginning with the title.
See... when ya say it that way - I agree. You ARE a reasonable guy.
PS Do you kill the coons before you skin them?
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 07:55 PM
The title of TF's book gets to the core of water/spirit theology. A "Christianity without the Cross" is precisely what you have if the implications of the water/spirit position are carried to their logical conclusions. It is a doctrine which degrades, if not by-passes altogether, the significance of the Cross.
I will use the account of Cornelius as example:
The account in Acts 10 evidences that Cornelius possessed the living Spirit of God prior to water baptism. In fact, in like fashion, evidence of Spirit reception prior to water baptism is said to happen time and time again even today.
If the shed blood of Calvary is for the remission of sins, and sins are remitted in water baptism as the water/spirit position teaches, why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the Holy Spirit could indwell a man without the need of sin remission?
If Cornelius' heart could be cleansed enough for the indwelling of the Spirit of God..... what was the need for Calvary?
If a man's heart can be clean enough for the Holy Spirit to indwell it, why is there a need to further remit sins?
Why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the spirit of man could be quickened to new life by the indwelling living Spirit of God without sin remission?
Those who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them are no longer under condemnation (Romans 8:1-2,9). That a man can be purified by faith and indwelt by the Spirit of God yet remain in a state of condemnation until baptism is theologically skewed.
The purpose of Christ's death on the cross is negated if the heart can be made alive without sin remission.
The title of TF's book is extremely fitting. In water/spirit theology there is no need for the cross to become spiritually alive, because one can possess the living Spirit of God without sin remission. This is theologically impossible and the title "Christianity without the Cross" points to this very important doctrinal dilemma in the water/spirit rank and file.
This becomes a bit circular though, since the three steppers do not believe true repentance and Holy Spirit baptism occurs apart from the cross.
I have and enjoyed the book but, I have a question regarding the title Adino. Do you lend the same support to the many other churches who see baptism as effectual, efficacious or regenerative to salvation?
By far the majority of todays Christians fall into these catagories. I wonder why the crossless Christianity vitrol is reserved for the UPC?
The book would have been more effective with a different title.
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 07:57 PM
I think TF is referring to the 3 stepper view, not the oneness view!
This is true, and it does come through in the book and when I heard him interviewed.
philjones
12-12-2007, 08:40 PM
I've often wondered about the element of sympathetic magic at work here.
"Sympathetic magic (http://skepdic.com/sympathetic.html)" was a practice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic) among many cultures where if a person wanted something, they had to do something similar. For example, if a wife wanted a baby but seemed to not be able to conceive, she would still dress up in maternity garb and act as if she were pregnant.
In the Bible we also find "examples," though many would obviously object to the association. When Jacob wanted "ringstraked and speckled" cattle, he carved the bark off of branches of wood to make the branches "ringstraked and speckled" (Genesis 30:31-43 and Genesis 32:1-12). When an iron axe head fell into the water, sank and was lost, Elisha spread wood over the site and the iron floated as if it were wood (2 Kings 6:1-7). These could be examples of "sympathetic magic."
We might also say that the so called "magic hair" doctrine is another example among some Oneness folks. When you want your prayers to get the attention of angels and heaven itself, why not put your prayers down on paper and mingle the paper with a woman's uncut hair? Sympathetic magic.
What of baptism? Why are to be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism, so that as Christ rose from the dead, so also will God quicken our mortal bodies. There is an obvious identification with Christ that comes through Christian baptism, particularly baptism in Jesus Name. Are some wanting to carry that act of identification forward to the point where it is no longer an act of identification, but it becomes a form of sympathetic magic?
And remember, I haven't even ruled out the possibility that sympathetic magic can at times be valid. I'm just wondering how far are we comfortable in carrying this point about water baptism? Is it "magic?"
Pelthais,
What you have described in the beginning of your post as "sympathetic magic" is, according to Hebrews "faith"... Now faith is evidence and substance of that which is not seen and that which is hoped for. Am I missing something here? Is not living as though the answer has already come when it has not "faith", i.e. evidencing that which you have not yet seen and showing substance of that for which you hope?
Stephanas
12-12-2007, 08:46 PM
I'll start reading through your posts and threads with the forum and hopefully I won't find any "personal judgements passed."
This forum may be a poor place to discuss, but someone needs to tell the other side of the story as some of you making him out to be the Apostle Paul's twin brother. King David even...
I feel sorry for anybody that feels they have to read even one of my posts.
If you find any harsh personal judgements, let me know, and I'll do my best to try to make it right.
It is an acadimic work. it is supposed to be like that.
and Acadimics are supposed to write books like that.
this history and the results form the exhaustive interviews is fantastic.
it is part of the history of our little corner of the Pentecostal movement, and it is valuable. however, I suspect that even TF would tell you it is not all of the story.
I still contend that the direction of the book was decided on before the first interview was done. That takes nothing away from the content except to suggest that one cannot take this work alone as the final autority on the subject the way some do.
Take a look at the 3 new threads I just started.
Fuge in his own words...
pelathais
12-12-2007, 08:59 PM
Pelthais,
What you have described in the beginning of your post as "sympathetic magic" is, according to Hebrews "faith"... Now faith is evidence and substance of that which is not seen and that which is hoped for. Am I missing something here? Is not living as though the answer has already come when it has not "faith", i.e. evidencing that which you have not yet seen and showing substance of that for which you hope?
It may be closely related. The two Old Testament examples of Jacob and Elisha would appear on the surface to be "magic." The appearance of a stick cannot influence the appearance of livestock being sired in the field, at least not in any natural sense.
I was just thinking about the "magic" that happens at baptism. And I am using a specialized meaning for "magic" here. But what happens? What is the best way to articulate this?
When I was baptized in Jesus name I understood that I was going through a 1, 2, 3 step process. I was confused by what seemed like everyone's insistence that I "pray through first." I was just a kid and had not been raised in the church. The fact that I was compelled to follow "the process" and take each thing in the order that Christ had experienced it was puzzling to some of those around me. One man questioned my sincerity.
At the time, for me it was Death (Repentenance), Burial (Baptism in Jesus' name) and then Resurrection (Receiving the Holy Ghost). I didn't really know about Cornelius yet. But what has carried me forward and sustained me through some pretty terrible times was the faith that I had before I ever did any of those "3 steps." The faith that in my heart I am a child of God and that He cares for me.
Today, the only thing that the "3 Steps" appear to do for me is qualify me for certain privileges and acceptance among Apostolic people. But for the pain and the sickness in my body, I need the faith. To overcome depression and despair, I need the faith. To see any point in just getting along with my life, I need the faith. What tangible and eternal benefit did I recieve from the "3 Steps?"
Everything seems to point back to the faith I had when I showed up at a Pentecostal church and told those folks to baptize me in Jesus' name.
Adino
12-12-2007, 09:09 PM
....It's the process of new birth.... The new birth is when the spirit of man is born of the spirit of God (John 3:6). This takes place the moment LIFE is born in the heart of man. This life is the Spirit of Christ. Do not look at salvation in light of natural child birth. When does the spark of life appear in the human soul? This is the moment the spirit passes from death to life. This is the moment life is born in the spirit of man and he is spiritually born again from the dead.
Now this is the part that none of you have been able to explain from the scriptures except in abstract concepts or figures of speech.
When do we receive the Spirit of Christ? What does the Bible say? At the moment of faith. The man who has faith has life and has Christ. Galatians 2:20; John 3:15-16, 36; John 5:24; John 6:40,47; John 11:25,26; 1John 5:12
When are our sins remitted/washed away? What does the Bible say?At the moment of faith. The believer has imputed righteousness and is justified of all things. Acts 10:43; Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:5
The Spirit of God is involved in water baptism directly performing an act of circumcision see Romans 2:28-29 NASB and Colossians 2:11-12.Do not make the mistake of confusing the circumcision of the heart with that ritual which points to it. While baptism points to the circumcision made without hands it is not that circumcision, nor is it the occasion of this circumcision. Just like Abraham was justified prior to physical circumcision, the external sign of his being right with God, so the saint is justified and has circumcision of the heart prior to the external sign which points to this inward existing reality.
God gives the new heart to enable a man to walk in his statutes (Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27). We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). The newly created heart precedes the external manifestation of that new heart. Regeneration engenders regenerate behavior. Cause and effect. Baptism is an effect of the circumcised heart. It is neither the cause nor the occasion.
Explain if you will why after our new birth, if and when we sin, we are advised to confess our sins and the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I'm assuming you do not take this literally. But there is a washing available even after our initial cleansing when our sins were first remitted.
I understand 1John 1:9 to be addressed to those gnostics who believed sin did not defile the spirit. John's audience is both to believers and to those gnostics in their midst. When he speaks of confession of sin he is not meaning that the saved person should confess every time he stumbles for forgiveness, it is a call to the gnostics to confess their depravity before God in order to receive forgiveness.
I guess my experience influences my thoughts on this subject as well. When I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt clean on the inside and while under the water I had an overwhelming sense of peace with God.
Do not let your emotions influence the objective truth of Scripture.
Something happens spiritually when we are baptized. Yes, but it does not concern salvation of the soul.
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 09:17 PM
But what happens when our experience is out of step with the sequence of events that Christ experienced? One also thinks of Cornelius and the Gentiles in his household. They were "resurrected" before they were "buried." This is an obvious case where the pattern of salvation at least appeared to fail to follow the example of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
The fact that the type we are to follow (Christ's death burial and resurrection) would be a ridiculous event if it occurred out of sequence would seem to impy that if a literal following of that type were necessary, then there would be no Biblical examples of other than the sequential occurrence of the "3 steps."
In other words, if the antitype must follow the type in order for there to be salvation, then we should find that point emphasized in the experiences of the New Testament church. Instead what we find is a group of Apostles (Apostolics?) who are reluctant to ascribe salvation to others and only the manifest evidence of God's Spirit overcomes their reluctance.
Could it be that in trying to be "Apostolic" that we have also managed to obtain the prejudices of the original Apostles. Prejudices for which they were continually rebuked by others among them and by the Lord Himself?
The sequence of the baptisms is not always the same in all accounts. But the end result is the same. Paul received the Spirit before he was baptized as did the Gentiles of Cornelius' household. Water baptism took place immediately after someone received the Holy Spirit. The order of the baptisms doesn't seem to be that big a deal in the book of Acts or anywhere else. The only ones making it a big deal are the one steppers. Once again the end result, no matter the sequence, is every believer died, was buried, and rose to newness of life. It's a likenessof what Christ went through: Rom 6:5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, NASB
You lost me with antitype. I don't see a rigid 3 steps in Acts. I never have. I see the need to believe, repent, and be baptized in the water and the Spirit or Spirit and water, which ever comes first, to become part of the body of Christ. The prejudices of the Apostles? toward the Gentiles? and how does that relate to current day apostolics?
Adino
12-12-2007, 09:18 PM
Do you lend the same support to the many other churches who see baptism as effectual, efficacious or regenerative to salvation?
By far the majority of todays Christians fall into these catagories. I wonder why the crossless Christianity vitrol is reserved for the UPC?The title would hold true to anyone who taught like doctrine. I thought the title in the context of the water/spirit doctrine was very fitting. I would think it fitting to others who, as you put it, "see baptism as effectual, efficacious or regenerative to salvation" as well. Though, I would strongly disagree that a majority of Christians place such salvational emphasis on baptism.
Btw, I thought the accompanying picture on the front kind of witty.
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 09:29 PM
The title would hold true to anyone who taught like doctrine. I thought the title in the context of the water/spirit doctrine was very fitting. I would think it fitting to others who, as you put it, "see baptism as effectual, efficacious or regenerative to salvation" as well. Though, I would strongly disagree that a majority of Christians place such salvational emphasis on baptism.
Btw, I thought the accompanying picture on the front kind of witty.
Catholic, Lutheran, Church Of Christ, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican (ironically) do not make up a majority of Christendom?
mizpeh
12-12-2007, 09:33 PM
It may be closely related. The two Old Testament examples of Jacob and Elisha would appear on the surface to be "magic." The appearance of a stick cannot influence the appearance of livestock being sired in the field, at least not in any natural sense.
I was just thinking about the "magic" that happens at baptism. And I am using a specialized meaning for "magic" here. But what happens? What is the best way to articulate this?
When I was baptized in Jesus name I understood that I was going through a 1, 2, 3 step process. I was confused by what seemed like everyone's insistence that I "pray through first." I was just a kid and had not been raised in the church. The fact that I was compelled to follow "the process" and take each thing in the order that Christ had experienced it was puzzling to some of those around me. One man questioned my sincerity.
At the time, for me it was Death (Repentenance), Burial (Baptism in Jesus' name) and then Resurrection (Receiving the Holy Ghost). I didn't really know about Cornelius yet. But what has carried me forward and sustained me through some pretty terrible times was the faith that I had before I ever did any of those "3 steps." The faith that in my heart I am a child of God and that He cares for me.
Today, the only thing that the "3 Steps" appear to do for me is qualify me for certain privileges and acceptance among Apostolic people. But for the pain and the sickness in my body, I need the faith. To overcome depression and despair, I need the faith. To see any point in just getting along with my life, I need the faith. What tangible and eternal benefit did I recieve from the "3 Steps?"
Everything seems to point back to the faith I had when I showed up at a Pentecostal church and told those folks to baptize me in Jesus' name.
The just shall live by faith. Everything we do is by faith because we serve an invisible God. We walk by faith and not by sight. Our entire walk with God is a walk of faith. Believing that God is good, just, loving, slow to anger, longsuffering, ready to forgive, compassionate, real, .....if I didn't believe (have faith) in these things I would be miserable.
Sometimes, during the dark trials when I can't see any light, I've found myself clinging to God's word by faith and recalling the times when God saved me and heard my prayer, or when God kept me from a deadly disease, or the God who has been faithful when I haven't been so, or the God who has made a way for me when the sea was in front and the chariots behind me....Its by His grace and through our faith that we are saved when we obey his word. Faith is the starting point and ending point until we see Jesus face to face.
Adino
12-12-2007, 09:36 PM
Catholic, Lutheran, Church Of Christ, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican (ironically) do not make up a majority of Christendom?I've posted Luther's ultimate position on baptism and justification. Baptism, in his mind, had absolutely nothing to do with justification. I do not personally equate Catholics to Christendom. Those saved in their ranks are saved by faith in spite of Catholicism not because of it. Without these, no, not the majority.
pelathais
12-12-2007, 09:53 PM
You lost me with antitype. I don't see a rigid 3 steps in Acts. I never have. I see the need to believe, repent, and be baptized in the water and the Spirit or Spirit and water, which ever comes first, to become part of the body of Christ. The prejudices of the Apostles? toward the Gentiles? and how does that relate to current day apostolics?
The type is Christ's death, burial and resurrection. The antitype is the believer. If we are attempting to ascribe some efficacy to water baptism after the pattern of Christ's burial then water baptism should hold the same place that burial did for Christ. In other words, there should be a sequential order.
The whole point of the Gospel is that Jesus rose from the dead after He died and was buried. There would be no Gospel if He "mixed things up." If we want to ascribe a very strict salvational aspect to baptism, and we do, and if we want to use the pattern of Christ's death, burial and resurrection as a type, then we must accept the sequential order.
The book of Acts, however, seems to make a point of emphasizing that such a sequential order is not necessary. This leads me to question the absolute and unconditional tone that we pronounce judgement upon other Christians. We should follow the example of Christ, but there's got to be a better reason than just our own symbolic reenactment of Calvary.
I suggested the prejudice because it is often said among Apostolics that other Christians don't really have the Holy Ghost or that other Christians are not saved. Peter didn't think the Gentiles could be saved until he himself personally saw God working in their midst. What are we to say when we see God working in the midst of others?
Hoovie
12-12-2007, 10:08 PM
I've posted Luther's ultimate position on baptism and justification. Baptism, in his mind, had absolutely nothing to do with justification. I do not personally equate Catholics to Christendom. Those saved in their ranks are saved by faith in spite of Catholicism not because of it. Without these, no, not the majority.
Regardless of his ultimate position, Luther's position speaks quite strongly through his actions...
...ask the Anabaptists who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died specifically because of their rejection of Luther's baptism.
His justification for doing so was to instill fear for their bodies to and hopefully save their soul.
As to the "in spite of" statement I guess I agree - but feel that way concerning organized religion in general.
The fact is, God can, and does wade through a lot of religion to save the lost.
philjones
12-13-2007, 08:16 AM
All of the "enlightenment" in the posts of the more sensitive and in tune folks amazes me!
thanks for the amazement! :D
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.