Christianity without the Cross: A review...

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.
...

I agree.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

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?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sam

I agree.

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

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

[TheLegalist]

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.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

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

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...

[Praxeas]

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.

[berkeley]

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.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

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.

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

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Neck

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...

It showed stupidity reigned then as well as now.