Christianity without the Cross: A review...

[Hoovie]

"I don't base doctrine on being a sympathist"

Interesting - and I do understand what Legal is saying... but in a sense God has done just that. He so LOVED the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish...

Sounds like sympathy, pity, mercy...

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

"I don't base doctrine on being a sympathist"

Interesting - and I do understand what Legal is saying... but in a sense God has done just that. He so LOVED the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish...

Sounds like sympathy, pity, mercy...

Sympathy doesn't change law nor did God's sympathy. He went about doing what he MUST DO by law to obtain salvation for those who would believe in him. Thus God was lawful in his actions. My sympathy doesn't change truth by which we all will be judged.

[Hoovie]

Just sayin, it seems God's dealings with His creation is entirely sympathetic in nature, while the creation often hails sympathy as a weakness. Personally I think we could all use more (practically speaking).

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Just sayin, it seems God's dealings with His creation is entirely sympathetic in nature, while the creation often hails sympathy as a weakness. Personally I think we could all use more (practically speaking).

I would agree but involving sympathy has no place in discerning doctrine. Truth is truth whether I have sympathy or not. Understanding "sympathy" is part of discerning doctrine as it is a component of love but to discern doctrine BY sympathy.....NO! Because I see things I wish where not true doesn't change the reality of truth. Thus by being sympathetic I change truth to fit my agenda and I am compromised. This is sadly how many people judge truth or factor in what is right. They don't want to be the "Bad" guy or bearer of bad news etc... Thus they soft coat there thinking so they don't feel bad and like a bad and mean person. Truth hurts and divides as well as heals.

[Hoovie]

I understand Legal - not wanting to argue the point, but even in doctrine I believe we do well to "err" (if there is any question) on the side of mercy.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I understand Legal - not wanting to argue the point, but even in doctrine I believe we do well to "err" (if there is any question) on the side of mercy.

Yep... which would be law.

Mat 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

[jasondulle]

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.

That's exactly right. I knew of the perspective, but I had always thought it was a very small minority who held to it. I did not realize the contingent was as large as it was in the beginning of the merger.

[missourimary]

I'm reading Fudge's book now.

A person's perspective is always somewhat influenced by their own experiences and beliefs. That may explain part of Fudge's "reason" for titling the book as he did. The title is simply a statement of his perspective. However, that said, the title does ring exceptionally true in some circles. I think the last time I really heard a message on the cross preached in an Apostolic church was during a communion service 11 or so years ago. It was on the gore and what our sin did to Him, though, not His mercy and grace. I've also seen very little discussion of repentance. The focus is on the Holy Ghost and/or baptism. The concept is that they have obviously repented if they got the Holy Ghost. This should be true. But all too often, the person was just emotional-they did not get a life changing experience.

For that part of the Oneness movement, the title seems apt.


As far as whether or not the resolution is contending to the disunity of the body or defending the faith depends on what "the faith" is considered to be.

Those who participated in the merger appear to have believed, for the most part, that no matter when a person declared that salvation actually occurred, if all believed in repentance, Jesus' name baptism, and the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, and Oneness, they could stand together. LEW, author of the resolution, believed wholeheartedly, from what I knew of him and the messages I heard him preach, that three step was part of "the faith". He was defending what he believed was Bible.


I do think that the recent history of the KS district is interesting in light of Fudge's book. LEW's church (under pastorate of someone who was pastored by LEW since the 70s) pulled out of the UPC about two years after his death. Many other KS churches did the same. When they left, they appeared fairly unified. Today, that unity seems disputable at best.

JMO

[DAII]

Originally Posted by missourimary

I do think that the recent history of the KS district is interesting in light of Fudge's book. LEW's church (under pastorate of someone who was pastored by LEW since the 70s) pulled out of the UPC about two years after his death. Many other KS churches did the same. When they left, they appeared fairly unified. Today, that unity seems disputable at best.

JMO

The irony of it all is that many of these 3 step churches ... including his have pulled out as a result of an affirmation statement that they felt was not enforced ... or unhappy with the UPCIs direction

The AS may have resulted in more cons leaving over the years than libs ... if not ...just as many.

He reaped what he sowed, imo.

[missourimary]

The saddest part is that they don't realize that they reaped anything. They seem to truly believe that the boat just keeps getting smaller.

I wonder what will happen when they either find out the boat leaks, or they are the only one left on it?