[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Jason, let us consider the historical aspect.

It's 1530-1540. Martin Luther comes along challenging the Catholic Church. He says to be saved one must believe in Jesus ALONE. Nothing else.

He is told by many that no one in Church history has taught such a thing.

The Catholic way is to believe and be baptized (Father, Son, Holy Ghost, sprinkled or poured) and receive the Holy Ghost by laying on of a priests hands at confirmation and taking communion.

It has been taught that way for a thousand years! And now YOU tell us all we have to do is "believe"?

But what about Evangelical doctrine? Where can we find widespread groups of teachers historically who were leading large numbers of people who believed in "the finished work on the cross doctrine" before Martin Luther? If they were out there what makes Martin Luther so famous?

Does the Evangelical faith ALONE doctrine find support among the famous "Church Fathers"?

Is it not a doctrine that finds practically NO SUPPORT HISTORICALLY AMONG CHRISTIANS?

But the modern day Evangelical will say "But we go to the Bible to find it"!

Mike, I'd agrue you are greatly mistaken. History shows many Christians believed in justification by faith, all through the centuries. In particular though since you are concentrating on Martin Luther and suggest he came up with a brand new unheard original doctrine, and that's why he was so famous, John Wycliff, John Hus, Savanarola, the Hugenots and many teachers and groups believed "protestant" doctrine prior to Luther. Luther is "so famous" because while others took on the Catholic church, it was Luther's 95 Theses that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Essentially from the outset of the Catholic church you have people who are opposing its doctrine very early in history, Helvidius, Vigilantius, Aerius (not to be confused with Arias), and many more. SO this idea that justification by faith has no historical support is unfounded, and more than that, I affirm that yes it is a scriptural doctrine, and that's what really matters. But the difference in my position and yours is not that we both claim Biblical support for our views, but one view is established through history, the other is new fangled in the 20th century.

Please allow me to add a comment though, I'm not sure what you are defining "evangelical" doctrine, I'm particularly talking about protestant doctrine in general (all protestants except SOME oneness pentecostals and Church of Christ believe in justification by faith). It has become accepted in the easy believism "evangelicalism" of the day (over the last 50+ years) to diminish baptism to the point that people are "saved" and put off baptism for years, or never get baptized. This goes side by side with the doctrine of the carnal Christian, both strongly refuted by "conservative evangelicals" (if you want to make a distinction).

As we see in all the church Fathers, and in all the Reformers, and those who followed after them, despite the fact they believed in justification by faith, they all strongly affirmed the necessity of baptism. To refuse baptism was to essentially deny the faith.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Were all of those ignorant Catholics for a thousand years lost in such a scenario? Many Catholics had pressed into other nations preaching Jesus had they not? Many of them were martyrs killed by savages such as the Vikings.

Were they all now counted as sinners because they "added to the finished work of Christ"?

Prayed to Jesus through Mary? Believed the Pope was the vicar of Christ on Earth while they slaughtered millions who disagreed with points of their doctrine or committed sins?

I don't believe all of those Catholics were lost, but probably a vast majority were. I suppose one could make the argument they all were. It's possible some had genuine faith in the Savior, and I'd suggest likely. In which case such a person would be saved in spite of the church, not because of it. As for adding to the work of Christ, I think oneness pentecostals do the same (especially by standards-and I think you'd agree, for example those who teach you can't grow a beard and be saved). I don't think someone's ignorance or lack of theological understanding will necessarily condemn. This is very speculatory, and assumes that someone is a "Catholic" because it is the only expression of Christianity available to them. And its possible in God's Providence that there were underground churches where people had more choice than we realize. Certainly this was the case with groups we've come to know such as the Hugenots, Lombards, Waldenses, etc (all predate the Reformation).

As for "practicing Catholics" I can see Catholicism being a big hindrance to salvation, in my view it promotes idolatry, most believe Mary is exalted above Christ, kissing the popes feet, being involved in the crusades, etc. So how many Catholics would be saved in my view? I don't know, probably a very small percentage.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And for us right now we are told that our doctrine cant be found in a widespread way in history. Not until perhaps 1908.

This is true, particularly of the initial evidence doctrine.

I think a very strong case can be made for oneness through the centuries.
(Have been reading Servetus' On The Errors of the Trinity the last two days, he certainly is very close to oneness. That's just a side note become some people deny this).

Certainly you can make a case there were people baptizing in Jesus name.

There were instances of tongues speaking, and mentions by various church Fathers as late as Augustine in the 4th century, and then again in the 17th and 18th centuries.

But amongst all those groups who claimed speaking in tongues, NO ONE ever taught the initial evidence doctrine. It is in very point of fact a completely new doctrine.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In the Evangelical system they make EXACTLY the same claim as to HISTORICAL RECORDS as do the Apostolics!

No, for the reasons I just mentioned. The initial evidence doctrine is very different from justification by faith.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

"It does not matter what Church history or historians think what does the Bible say"?

True, but Church History can be a helpful, even though its not authoritative.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Why is it true for THEM but it is not true for US?

It is. Remember, Christians have always condemned each other or pronounced anethemas on one another, sadly this goes all the way back to the 2nd century. Who cares what trinitarians say? They are the majority, but not the authority.

I believe oneness people should be more assertive in apologetics to show people that are not heretics. There need to be more oneness books than "The Oneness of God by Bernard" (which I actually think is a very good book). I know there are a couple more , but they have a small distribution, and are marketed basically only to oneness pentecostals.

There is not a single oneness pentecostal systematic theology (Bernard's series is the closest thing, and isn't even close to a systematic theology). There are no Histories written by oneness pentecostals (except Bernards-again it makes the movement look bad when all its works are by Bernard. I like his stuff, and think if oneness provided more even keel people like Him it would make the Christian world take notice that there is a lot of bad information out there).

But what holds oneness back is not only the slew of misinformation about it, but the doctrine of the initial evidence and the legalism of standards (a third thing would be SOME pastors are abusive and cult like-and when EX-OPs leave and tell the Christian world what they've experienced, its a huge black eye on everyone in the movment-even though I admit, there are a great many OP pastors who are not abusive. Yet there are enough who are for the criticisms to be justified-and many times they are "big names").

I honestly think that the Christian would would be accepting of oneness if they could get to know oneness pentecostals, and hear what they believe from their own mouths. Right now they tune it out because all the information they read about OPs is bad, and because OPs don't fellowship with them, they don't get to know your faith, hope, and love.

Since I began fellowshipping with trinitarains, we've discussed oneness and trinity many times, with many people (some people are influential, as I said this past week I was speaking with James White. I've had a chance to meet John MacArthur and discuss this briefly. But I'm discussing it now as "one of them" rather than a oneness pentecostal, and even though I am still oneness in Christology, I am accepted, because when it comes down to it, there's not big differences.) I do think that many sincere people would accept oneness, because the FACT is they already believe it. Last Saturday night that was one of James White's opening points. He began by saying that many analogies of the trinity are wrong (he gave the example of water, steam, and ice and of the three leaf clover). He said what these actually teach is modalism (by which he means oneness) and admitted that many trinitarians have that view of God. Calvin Beisner stated the same thing in the opening of his book God in Three Persons, Wayne Grudem stated essentially the same thing in his book "Bible Doctrine" (a condensed form of his Systematic Theology). So my point is here is that the common "trinitarian" is more likely to have a oneness view of God than a classical trinitarian view of God, but they call themselves "trinitarians" because they don't even know the term oneness, and think any denial of the trinity (such as the big two JW and Mormonism) is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.

Also, even as trinitarians, many are not opposed to Jesus name baptism, even Chruches of Christ in their early days baptized in Jesus name many times, and charismatic churches are very open to it, or use a hybrid formula combining Matt 28:19 w/Acts 2:38 (which I don't advocate, but you guys ought to concede to since the name of Jesus is spoken). Either way, in point of fact, I think the case for Jesus name baptism is strong enough that if oneness people did a better job of getting the message out, people would respond. In many ex-upc churches that are now "mainline" they continue to practice baptism in Jesus name, and with little complaint.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

So considering these things is not our bottom line.....yours and mine that the Bible is sufficient to show us the way of truth EVEN IF 99.9 PER CENT OF EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH WHATS WRITTEN IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN TRADITION?

Agreed.