Andrew Urshan, Oneness pioneer, on the New Birth:
Andrew David Urshan (1884-1967) conscientiously wrestled with the same issue. In his book Apostolic Faith Doctrine of the New Birth,[lxxiv] he included a set of questions at the end addressing the same basic issue with which Haywood wrestled.
He presents the questions and then follows them with these answers:
Q. What is the position of those who have believed in Christ but have never been immersed in Jesus name, and have not received the Holy Ghost with the sign of tongues?
A. These belong to the kingdom of heaven; these are the good seed in that kingdom; these can go on and be born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus and Cornelius once were of that type of men, also the Ephesians that Paul baptized. See
Acts 19:1-16.
Q. Would these folks be lost if they had not gone on to the water and Spirit birth?
A. No, for when they continued to walk in the light they had, they consequently entered into the deeper and higher divine experiences.
1 John 1:4-7. Also
John 8:31-36.[lxxv]
Q. Can one be called a child of God before he is born of the Spirit?
A. Yes, just as a baby is a child of the parents before birth when conceived, likewise those who have a real conversion or conception of the word in their life. Of these it is said, ‘Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His son into your heart, crying, Abba Father.’ This is the Holy Ghost language. See
Gal. 4:6,7.[lxxvii]
Urshan appears to be making an attempt to explain his position by saying the levels of salvation are like the physical birth process. That is, one who has not followed
Acts 2:38 but has had “a real conversion” is saved just as a child, conceived in the mother’s womb, is still a child. But, the child still needs to be born. Those who are saved by faith prior to the “revelation” of the
Acts 2:38 message are children of God only if they go on to accept the Oneness
Acts 2:38 message. If the childbirth analogy holds true, those who do not go on to follow the
Acts 2:38 steps will be still-born. But, are they the true “Spirit born” children at all?
Q. The folks that believe on Christ’s name and repent but are not baptized by water and the Spirit, where do they stand?
A. They stand on the same ground that the saints of the Old Testament stood; they were saved by faith not receiving the promise of the Spirit. They are not the real Spirit born children of God and adopted children. See
Heb. 11:30, and
1 Sam. 12:20-22, etc.[lxxviii]
This answer by Urshan confounds his answer given to the previous question above. Here he states that those in the Church Age who have not followed the Oneness interpretation of
Acts 2:38 are saved like the Old Testament believers. But, then he states they are not, “real Spirit born children.” This view has people being saved without being the “real Spirit born children of God.” This is because he cannot harmonize his understanding of
Acts 2:38 with the concept of salvation in the Old Testament. The Bible indicates that the Old Testament believers are saved by faith in the promise of the Savior to come (
Gen. 15:6;
Rom. 4:18-25). Those who believe after Christ’s coming are saved by faith that looks back to the work of Christ.
The thing that complicates this issue is that those who believe after Christ’s incarnation are baptized with the Spirit after his Ascension. This is a problematic reality for many Bible readers. They don’t see the Book of Acts as a transitional record - reporting how the Old Testament believers were incorporated into the New Testament Church. They interpret certain occurrences in Acts as universal obligations or privileges for all future Christians. The problem is cleared up when it is explained that those on the Day of Pentecost, in the upper room, were Old Testament believers. They needed to be baptized with the Spirit after believing, because they could not be so baptized with the Spirit until after Christ’s Ascension.
What is remarkable about Urshan’s statements is that he claims that those NOT born of the Spirit could still, 1) have a “real conversion”; 2) be a real “conception of the word”; 3) be a “child of God”; 4) belong to the “kingdom of heaven”; and 5) be “saved through faith.” Yet, those not born of the Spirit are like Old Testament saint. They are “saved by faith not receiving the promise of the Spirit.” Because of this, they are not “real Spirit born children of God and adopted children.” The contradictory statements in these few quotes illustrates the conflicted nature of the UPCI interpretation of
Acts 2:38 with orthodox Christian teaching.
Urshan further remarks:
Q. Can one be saved and not be born again?
A. The word “saved” conveys a greater meaning than generally known. It implies deliverance from sin and also God Himself coming into our life. See
Isa. 12:1. Yes, some can be delivered from hell though not being born of God, just like the Old Testament saints were saved through faith though not being born again. The thief on the cross may represent this class of saved ones who had not knowledge of the doctrine of the full salvation neither had a chance to perform it, his recognition of Christ and faith in Him saved him.[lxxx]
__________________