Beginning Water & Spirit Doctrine
I reread Christianity Without the Cross by Fudge. Something that I noticed the second time was the start of the Water & Spirit Doctrine.
On page 120.
It appears that this connection of the Oneness Pentecostal soteriological position with conversion can be traced to the Methodist scholar Adam Clark and his widely used Biblical commentary. In their eagerness to demonstrate the necessity of the ‘new issue’ idea of baptism in Jesus Name, men like G.T. Haywood, Frank J. Ewart and Andrew Urshan discovered a ‘new’ revelation in Adam Clark’s teachings. Clarke’s theological musings brought into related considerations the water and Spirit birth idea of
John 3:5 with the water and Spirit baptism idea in
Acts 2:38. Given the imperative sense of the words of Jesus that such birth was essential for entrance into the kingdom of God, Haywood and Ewart drew the conclusion that the elements of their message of salvation were absolutely necessary for salvation.
On page 121 under footnote 7
David Reed who assert that the roots of this idea can be traced principally to Haywood and Andrew Urshan.
On page 332.
There is some evidence to suggest that Ewart confided to friends his doubts even about the veracity of the new birth message he had once espoused.
So this is how we got the Water & Spirit Doctrine?
Does anybody have any evidence or suggestions to the contrary?
Threaded Mode
