Arnold's Proof of Apostolic Doctrine in History

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Charnock

This is the ultracons way of getting around those pesky issues attached to the early 20th century Pentecostals like facial hair, jewelry, Light Doctrine and such.

For all of their talk about the "old paths" they sure do love to throw their forbears under the bus.

What do you mean?

[Sam]

I didn't think anybody took the Arnold book seriously any more.

From what I understand it is based on either very flawed research or outright dishonesty.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by Sam

I didn't think anybody took the Arnold book seriously any more.

From what I understand it is based on either very flawed research or outright dishonesty.

I am sure the fact it is currently being lauded on another forum at the moment helped to prompt its discussion here Sam

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Even the UPCI would not publish or sell this stuff. It's full of holes

The UPC wouldn't publish it because it took the glory from their precious trinitarian Azusa Street revival that they hold so dear.

[Tim Rutledge]

Originally Posted by Revelationist

The UPC wouldn't publish it because it took the glory from their precious trinitarian Azusa Street revival that they hold so dear.

I agree. Br Arnold is from my home church in Buchanan MI and his son still goes there. I cannot say everything is true in his books but he was a true Christian with the utmost integrity. The gates of hell has never prevailed over the Acts 2:38 Church.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge

I agree. Br Arnold is from my home church in Buchanan MI and his son still goes there. I cannot say everything is true in his books but he was a true Christian with the utmost integrity. The gates of hell has never prevailed over the Acts 2:38 Church.

There is no Acts 2:38 Church...and regardless of what you think of the man it doesn't make the nonsense he wrote true.

[DAII]

Marvin Arnold, Chalfant and company are well meaning fictional writers.

[DAII]

Shelby Smith (Adino) helped in some of his work ... and grew up under his ministry ... and when he asked if he could point to a group that had the full package ... Arnold's response was something like "I wish I could".

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DAII

Shelby Smith (Adino) helped in some of his work ... and grew up under his ministry ... and when he asked if he could point to a group that had the full package ... Arnold's response was something like "I wish I could".

What did he consider the "full package"?

[A.W. Bowman]

I have looked through most of the document. It is a true mess.

First, it is nothing more than sorted history of the 'Western Church' with only some lip service to the Hebrew church of Israel.

Second, the author has no concept of what the apostles taught (doctrines) beyond Acts 2:38, and he followed that up with a misunderstanding of De 6:4, adding a lot to that verse that is simply not there!

Third, his history of where the Gentile church idea of the trinity originated might have some validly to it, but he misses the actual history of the Jewish 'unity' concept of God. Why? Because that view of God stands apposed to the 'absolute singularly' of God's deity that is accepted by most Oneness organizations - and rejected by most Messianic Jews.

Fourth, the missive is contains a tremendous number of 'assumptions' stated as 'fact', or left undefined, as when he references (intimates) the 19th and 20th century movements of God as taking place in 'Oneness, Apostolic' churches, not within the Trinitarian assemblies where they actually occurred.

Finally, the bibliography list is impressive, but there is little identification as to what references are cited in support of what statements, nor is there any statement concerning the creditability (validity) of the sources selected.

What the author could have done was to be honest about the purpose of his book. He wanted to 'prove' that there has always been a few folks who baptized people in the name of Jesus and who also believed in the one true God of Israel. Terrific, I can give him that. He could have even included a couple of paragraphs on the doctrines of Messianic Jews, if he could find any substantial historical data concerning their history.

The problem: The entire book is based on the history of the Western church from the Greek and Roman perspectives (cited historians and theologians, etc.), not from the leaders of the church established by Jesus Christ. For example, what happened to the thousands of Messianic Jews after the death of John, the author of the book of Revelation, i.e., where are their letters, histories, and commentaries on the scriptures? What were their personal views concerning the church, its people, its doctrines, and purpose? Where did this original church go?

Answer: Underground.

Conclusion: The author did a rather remarkable job of stringing together a lot of historical events and comments in a manner designed to support his thesis, but, by his own admission, he chose not to include opposing arguments, points of view or opinions. The result being that no objective evaluation is possible concerning his own arguments or position(s). If that is the case, then why bother to expend all of that time and energy in writing this book in the first place? One is left with only accepting or rejecting the author's effort based upon 'feelings' or desired results. I rejected this work based upon the quality of the document. It is interesting, but as a representative of objective (scholarly) writing purporting to 'prove' a position by a person having two doctorates (D.D. & Th.D.) it missed the mark.