Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

by Jason Dulle.

What I found so surprising in Jason's review is his surprise at what he read. Here is a small excerpt:

This comes from a graduate of CLC in Stockton and a student of Daniel Segraves.

You can read the entire review on his blog and the discussion that follows.

http://theosophical.wordpress.com/20...ism/#more-1958

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Another interesting discussion of the book can be found on Amazon.com. I'm going to link JR Ensey's review but the comments following his review are interesting as well (keep scrolling down after you read Ensey's review)...

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3E9M08...R3E9M08ZOUGVVF

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I thought Christianity Without the Cross was a great book. It helped me to see that I really am Apostolic and believe like lot of the old timers did that I was saved before I was ever baptized in Jesus name and before I was baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

The attempts by Fudge detractors is predictable

Here is Bernie Gillespie's review of Norris 2004 review:

http://inchristalone.org/Cross%20In%...pse%20Main.htm

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

And here is Norris' review from Ninety and nine:

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.

http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archive...823/review.htm

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

The review by Norris was interesting and I can sympathise with some of what he said. In fact I do agree the title of the book seems unwarranted and in fact a pejorative. Misleading.

However I take issue with Norris's defense of the 3 steppers "consolidating". That was in fact against the spirit of the merger.

Those that hold to a 1 step view are not just in the minority but due to the consolidation spoken of would really be seen as unwelcome and Im sure many of them feel that way, unwelcome.

The message is that this is OUR organization, not yous.

That was the spirit of the Affirmation statement too...to root out a segment of the UPC...

BTW the "UPCI" view that baptism results in remission (forgiveness) of sins contradicts the articles of faith, which state forgiveness is obtained by genuine repentance

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Much of the original UPC Manual was written based on the PCI manual.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

and the orignal 3 steppers were ok with it.......hmmmmm

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

The greatest question I have about the Fudge book is still concerning the title.
Even after having read Fudge's response, I cannot understand why he would bias his work with such an accusation.

Had he chosen something less inflammatory (as Bernie Gillespie suggests) , he would have automatically expanded his audience within the Oneness Pentecostal community. While, the material contained within stands on it's own, I must believe TF desired a large audience outside the movement over setting the record straight to those within the movement including his own father.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

If he is surprised by this he should have listen better in class. I was at CLC during the same time he was and I heard it.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I think he is surprised to find there was a quite large minority who believed water and Spirit baptism followed the New Birth, rather than just a few dissidents.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I believe Loren Yadon was gone by the time JD was there but I know Raymond Crownover was there and he wasn't shy about discussing this.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I used to have a copy of Justification by Faith by Bro. Segraves but I have misplaced it.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Jason has an article on Jusification by faith
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/justification.htm

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Surprising indeed for one apparently so well studied. I was a young man about 27 years old, a Trinitarian seeking truth about the Godhead. With no ties to the UPC at all and hardly any knowledge of modern Oneness history just by reading a UPC book called "United We Stand" I came to see the fact that many of its early founders and members were one step believers.

Really hard to understand someone of his learning would be surprised by this.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Hi Mizpeh,

I have a question: I realize hindsight is 20/20, but did the two original organizations (PCI, PAJC) simply underestimate the impact that differing soteriological stances would have on their new (UPC) organizational unity? Was it naive and unrealistic for them to expect it wouldn't have an impact on unity?

It appears to me that ANY such fundamental difference in ANY religious organization would produce just such a natural evolution over time that has occurred in the UPC: one view prevails, one does not.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

As a Onestepper I am not overly concerned that there are those with a differing interpretation of what it means to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus. Both views are OP and preach the need for baptism and infilling of the Spirit.

It is the other side who cannot seem to recipicate the same courtesy toward the Onestep group.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

IMO, they (both sides of the UPC) should have fellowshipped the things they had in common in conferences and organization functions and left the differences for the individual churches with their pastoral leadership. More effort should have been spent by leadership on teaching love, peace, and unity within the body of Christ.

Did you read any of Scalia's comments to Jason and to Dan on Jason's blog? Interesting stuff.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

This is copied this from one of Scalia's responses to Dan Alicea on Jason's blog. It seems there really is two sides to every story:

Scalia Says:

February 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Daniel wrote,
I was reminded of this just the other day by AG minister recently remarked: “The doctrinal statement of the PCI and its view of salvation at repentance would have kept the UPC more in step with the broader evangelical world.”
Yes, and a repudiation of sola fide would have kept Protestants “more in step” with Catholicism too. Being “in step” at the expense of truth is no virtue.

There would have been no UPC if the PCI had insisted its view of salvation prevailed. It was foolish of both organizations, as Jason rightly observes, to believe such a foundational issue could be swept under the rug.

Insofar as the AG is concerned, do you not recall that prior to its adoption of an explicitly Trinitarian position, many Oneness ministers were members thereof? They walked away because the AG forced (stamped?) them out with their pro-Trinity resolution. From their standpoint, that was a good thing, for it is foolish to think such disparate views of the Godhead could be compatible. Of course, there doesn’t appear to have been an official avowal to avoid contention, but it was precisely because Oneness preachers (several later joining the PCI) kept preaching Oneness and Jesus’ name baptism that the more numerous Trinitarian preachers felt compelled to force them out. So it is rather odd for an AG minister to criticize doctrinal clarification when his own organization clarified its own position knowing full well it was giving the boot to over 150 ministers.

This “AG minister” really thinks Oneness churches are compelled to march “in step” with the evangelical world? Why?? Because they’re more numerous? Why doesn’t the AG march “in step” with Apostolic churches? The salient point is it is absurd to think such a thing can be accomplished with major foundational issues dividing us.

Many Oneness ministers walked out of AG (naturally) and joined or formed fellowships. In 1918, the GAAA merged with the PAW and out of the PAW came the PMA (1925) which later changed its name to PCI (1932). And, of course, the PCI merged with the PAJC in 1945 to form the UPCI.

It is as foolish to think Oneness doctrine can co-exist with Trinitarian doctrine and it is to think completely disparate soteriological views can co-exist. And if one laments the UPC’s Affirmation Statement, one should also lament the AG’s Trinitarian one.

At bottom, folks are crying foul over the message itself, or how it came about in an organization. If one doesn’t like the message, then another venue will be sought (as Oneness ministers did in 1916); and if one doesn’t like the method (violating the merger agreement), then one is being naive to think such a thing could ever work.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

His second response to Dan A:

Scalia Says:

February 14, 2010 at 12:02 am
Daniel, thank you for the link to Mr. Gillespie’s paper. I read every chapter hoping to find something to validate the central topic of this thread: PAJC ministers broke their vow to keep the merger agreement. Maybe I was too tired when I read it, but I somehow missed that in his presentation.

Gillespie calls Norris his friend, but again I must have missed the part describing his phone calls to Norris discussing their differences prior to writing his paper. I would never publish a paper attacking the conclusions of a friend without giving him the opportunity to rebut what I intend to publish prior to the publication thereof.

Gillespie finds fault with the UPC’s selective and misleading use of quotations from scholarship because those scholars do not specifically endorse Oneness doctrine. I found that rather amusing since none of their writers, to my knowledge, stated those named scholars were Oneness believers. For example, if I cite a Lutheran scholar in support of the necessity (for salvation) of water baptism, my citation only relates to the issue of the necessity of baptism itself. I am not asserting said Lutheran scholar believes in immersion, nor that baptism should be administered in Jesus’ name. What should Oneness writers do, cite only Oneness scholars? Oh yes, that would fly the kite. That’s like Catholic scholars citing other Catholics to prove Catholicism.

There are a host of other problems with Gillespie’s presentation, but since it is off-topic, I’ll defer comment.

By the way, lest anybody think I’m a UPC apologist, I have never been a member thereof nor do I ever intend to be.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I agree.

Don't contend for individual opinions.
Agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Well he is wrong that there would be no UPCI. But before that, does it sound like he is saying the reason to be a three step organization is to be unlike other groups?

Many Oneness ministers walked out of the AOG NOT because they were three steppers and wanted to be different, The AOG voted in language that would require the to either submit to their Trinitarian views or leave. They were essentially forced out.

The UPCI,teaching baptism in Jesus name, Tongues as evidence of the Holy Ghost and Oneness, would still be the UPCI since those doctrines are unique to Oneness and not to the AOG and other groups

Also the AOG is not the only Trinitarian Pentecostal organization and it still stands as the AOG

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I agree, it's an absurd argument to claim a UPC member can't quote a non Oneness person as a resource. How elitist is that?

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Why have an organization if you are not in agreement? Why even have one?

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Seriously this well these two agreed to come togethor and one forced the other out whine.... sheeesh I am amazed how anyone could believe the two drastic beliefs could be a group in the first place. Sure fellowship "might" be possible but nothing on a technical basis when it came to doctrine.

Also I could careless what xyz believed because he was part of the original org or whatver. What does that have to do with truth. I don't base truth on someone else nor a org. The mindset I see around here by many makes me just sit back and shake my head over the 100's of threads claiming some type of justification on EITHER side. If you are basing your doctrine on mom, dad, org, history of good people and what they believed. Well your in trouble as they have become the master and the source and not the Word of God or the Spirit leading you.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

It was not he steps of salvation that gave them common ground it was the belief of One God in Christ Jesus.. They thought common ground would bring together the divisions...

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I sometimes wonder if 3 steppers really are 3 steppers...when a Pastor will put off baptism for the next service for whatever reason...

When Nathaniel Urshan is reluctant to tell Walter Martin they are lost and not brothers in Christ.

On the other hand I find it interesting the 1 steppers of the Trinitarian kind are many times of the opinion that even a 1 step Oneness Pentecostal is lost and going to hell.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

11 hours ago I had a convo with my aunt. She was recommending a church Trinity Worship Center. I said "I do not believe in a trinity." She had a scared look in her eyes. She said "You don't believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." I affirmed that I did. I said "I do, but I do not believe they are three people." She replied,"They're not! They are one. I believe just like you do..." Then she goes on to say,"I believe in a move of God... a lot of people don't. I'm pentecostal." My Catholic aunt just stared at us. LoL.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Very well stated, indeed! And I could not agree with you more!

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

It showed stupidity reigned then as well as now.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

The two groups came together and that is pretty amazing. But just because it is amazing doesn't mean it didn't happen. Fellowship would have been more than possible than on a technical basis also. In fact the only thing that would need to be different would be that the exact moment of salvation would not be mentioned at major conferences or by visiting preachers. In fact that sounds very doable to me. So them coming together and thinking the merger would succeed doesn't sound really that amazing after all.

I find it strange that 3-steppers who make claims about history, that there have always been people who believe like them, would say history just doesn't matter. In fact it seems that the only history that doesn't matter is the history that doesn't go along with their beliefs. So I say at least be consistent. If you are going to say the history doesn't matter then don't cite history to try and prove there was some kind of unbroken chain of Apostolic believers from 1st century to now. But you can't really drop that claim can you? Otherwise you must contend with the assertion that your belief means that not one person was saved in the last 1700+ years. So it seems history is important and no amount of saying it doesn't matter can change that because the moment you make that claim, I'm just going to ask you about the salvation of all those people who lived before the 1900s.

It's also strange to hear a 3-stepper talk about not basing doctrine on anybody or any organization. Aren't yall the ones who constantly remind the rest of us about the old paths? Aren't yall the ones telling us that we should base many of our doctrines and beliefs on our pastor?

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I never said history doesn't matter but that is not the ultimate judge of truth and how you walk. Sorry but making BAPTISM not the point of coming into the body of CHrist is nothing short of the highest heresy. THink about it! To make it just a symbol with NO TRUE spiritual realization, is the ultimate slap in the face if it is when you are unified with Christ.

So somehow your "what about these people" is verification of what you believe? LOL! Nice! I stick with what the Word says. History has some powerful points but in the end history that we see never gives the complete picture as it depends on the hands of man to tell us everything and that is the worst case you can have. God will be the ultimate judge and he is just. My job is to preach what is the truth and not worry about Luther, Calvin and whoever else. Anyone can get into a isolated history pointing session. Truth is truth is not bound by human doctrines and falling away from the truth. It doesn't change and if you are going to depend on well you have "million and billions in hell" over what you teach. That is a attempt to be compassionate and feel good like many do. I can yell about the Oriental nations who never heard the Word... THis type of stupidity can go on forever. Truth is truth! Either you defend it or you subject what the Word of God is to some lame subjective standard that makes it a lie. Continue on but I will have no part with lame arguments that don't prioritize the Word FIRST and subject the Word to some ratio of saved vs unsaved.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I have never argued anything like that. Subjective standard that is related and a application of Didactic doctrine vs a Standard from didactic teaching is two different things. There should be order in the church though. Just like the early church had council. If you go to a church it is YOUR CHOICE to subject yourself to whoever is pastor. IF you don't like him go to another church. Nobody is making you go to that church. ALso I am not affiliated with the UPCI org.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

This is the source of the controversy in a nutshell!!!

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I haven't seen that here, on this forum, by either side, actually.

I believe that we hold our individual truth with a passion to also die for it, if necessary. I think there may be some disagreement and disunity involved because of that. JMHO.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Really?

I have NOT seen a 1-stepper tell a 3-stepper they are going to hell for believing that way. Yet, 3-steppers have told 1-steppers they are hell bound.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

I've never said that to anyone and I don't recall ever reading it from anyone else. But, there is so much to read, I could have missed it.

Mocking either view is just as bad and I have seen that from both sides.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

You act as if one steppers don't believe the bible and that they validate their beliefs by everything but the bible. Don't ya know, there's bible for the one stepper side too? And don't ya know that saying anything beyond Christ's blood is needed for salvation is really the ultimate slap in the face...

As far the 2nd paragraph: I'll drop the history stuff because one steppers have just as many problems saying what happened to all those native americans and asians that never heard about Jesus and never had the chance to believe on him and be saved.

EDIT: In fact from now on, thats the exact question you 3 steppers should ask the one steppers that try to say so many are damned under your beliefs. You should say, I'll tell you if they are damned if you will answer but one question, "Are those Asians and Native Americans that never heard the gospel in hell?" If the one-stepper says that God will be the judge as they are likely to do then you can say that God will be the judge for those people he is asking you about also. If the one-stepper says yes they are damned, then you can say what is it to you if a few more are damned under my beliefs then.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

Just reading the title makes the book sound interesting. But if it is just a historical documentation of 3 vs. 1 step within the UPC I would not be interested in reading the book. However, an observation I have made is that the church I attend, though independant, is 3 step in doctrine, and the pastor and many of the memebers have attended apostolic churchs all their lives, yet until I started ministering at their church they had NEVER HEARD messages preached solely on the blood of Jesus. When I proved by the sciptures that salvation is by the blood, IT WAS NEW to them, they had been preaching the water. And sadly, many who had gone to the water never experienced true salvation by evidence of a change in their lives.

Re: Christianity without the Cross: A review...
 

No they misread and put there own thoughts into what the Word says clearyl concerning baptism and many other things. Bible for onesteppers.... Misused Bible scripture. By this arguement everyone is just in interpretation. LOL

Your point on "anything beyond Christ's blood is needed for salvation" is about as vague as it gets. It also is not true in whole. You cannot be saved without obedience. The "source" of our salvation is the justice and authority of Christ by his sacrifice but salvation is not just about the blood of Christ. It's about your response to him as well.

Again.... I don't care about numbers. If numbers are the issue I would be a universalist. I don't want anyone to go to hell PERIOD. God is God and he is just. What he said is true. The rest I don't worry about as truth is the only thing that matters. If truth puts people in hell (which it does) then whom am I to say different. If scripture says it's difficult to get to heaven and many fight to enter but won't. Who am I. I don't base doctrine on being a sympathist.