Quote:
Originally Posted by Barb
Respectfully, I have Apostolic History Outline and have read it through many times.
As I told someone last night, I may not be the brightest bulb in this chandelier, but I thought Bro. A showed that there was a continuation down through every century.
|
Hello, Barb. I began sitting under Marvin Arnold around 1968-69. I stayed in the church he founded in Utica, Michigan until about 1995 without interruption. In fact, I proofread some of his work.
While Marvin Arnold was able to find traces throughout history
(some highly questionable at times) of certain doctrinal distinctives used in the development of the water/spirit new birth position, he was never able to find the water/spirit doctrine as it is presented today.
Marvin Arnold saw the shortcomings of the "progressively revealed light" theory taught by early Oneness pioneers like G.T. Haywood and Frank Ewart. This theory taught that God chose to progressively disperse varying degrees of spiritual understanding during seven dispensational periods of human history. Haywood believed the newly revealed truth given to 20th century Oneness pioneers was the climax of this dispensational dispersion of spiritual light from heaven.
Haywood states,
"Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."
Frank Ewart said it this way:
"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."
Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.
His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism,
he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.
Yes, he did find throughout the ages adherents to anti-Trinitarian theology holding views of the nature of God similar to views held by early Oneness pioneers
(Though other historians agree that some, if not many, of his examples were a bit of a reach and contrived).
Yes, he did find people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by full immersion
(Yet it must be conceded that Trinitarians did this as well. In fact, the sermon on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which prompted Frank Ewart to more deeply study the nature of God was preached by R. E. McAlister, a Trinitarian man, hoping to head off the growing heresy of requiring people to be dipped three times at baptism).
Yes, he did find historical witness of groups who spoke in other tongues and experienced other Spirit manifestations in their Christian walk. He even found historical examples of people who combined two or more of these doctrinal distinctives found in modern Oneness Pentecostalism.
So, again, how did he fail? He failed just as all others who made the attempt have failed.
Marvin Arnold was never able to provide historical witness prior to G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan of anyone ever teaching that man must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and be Spirit filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved. The record of history shows these doctrinal tenets were not connected as components of the new birth until Haywood and Urshan began teaching their newly revealed doctrine from heaven.
Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and others of their time greatly influenced current Oneness Pentecostal soteriology. Their writings show a progressive development in their thinking concerning the new birth.
Frank Ewart began to redefine the new birth by rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness at conversion and by demanding a secondary experience of the Spirit which he called "the vital side of redemption" because he believed all men were "born of Satan." He also strongly promoted the "new issue" which forced a split from those who went on to form the Assemblies of God in early American Pentecostalism.
Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of
Acts 2:38.
G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He ultimately arrived at a mistaken view of the new birth when he tried to repair a misuse of the terms "baptism of the Spirit" and "birth of the Spirit" in American Pentecostalism. In his noble attempt he erroneously drew speaking in tongues into the conversion experience and began to promote the new "walking in the light" theory of dispensational salvation.
Andrew Urshan did his best to explain the whole mess and came up with the "kingdom of God" VS "kingdom of heaven" controversy.
Does the absence of a historical witness and the questionable beginnings of the "three step" view in America prove it to be wrong? No, it does not, I believe an objective look at Scripture does this, but any serious study on the issue should begin with a proper understanding of this view’s heritage.
Linear Mode
