Christianity without the Cross: A review...

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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.

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.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

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.

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.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

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.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sam

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

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

[Michael The Disciple]

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.

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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

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.

[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.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

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.

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.

[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.

[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.