Christianity without the Cross: A review...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

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.

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.