Reading Fudge's Book Again

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Adino

...

I would like to add my "thanks" as well Adino. Please post any other treatments that you have as time permits. Thanks again.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Adino

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.

Very interesting presentation, that very few southern PAJCers have ever heard, much less considered. Thank you.

[commonsense]

I need to read it through. I've scanned it front to back but I need to actually read it for the historical research.
I was surprised at how many of the quoted ministers that I knew; as in had met, spoken to etc.

Looks like I need to find our copy of Thomas Weisser's book also. It has a timeline showing the continuous oneness believer. You mean I can't believe everything I read?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by commonsense

I need to read it through. I've scanned it front to back but I need to actually read it for the historical research.
I was surprised at how many of the quoted ministers that I knew; as in had met, spoken to etc.

Looks like I need to find our copy of Thomas Weisser's book also. It has a timeline showing the continuous oneness believer. You mean I can't believe everything I read?

I no longer have Weisser's, Arnold's or Chalfant's books available to me. All three writers are known for having published various timelines where they purported to show the unbroken existence of the "water/Spirit" or "3 Stepper Plan." Of the three I have met Arnold and Chalfant.

I do remember one occasion at a Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism where Chalfant was challenged about his writings and he responded with real earnest that he was deliberately following a strategy that he called "extrapolation." That is, he felt that the standard historical sources were unreliable even in their description of the "heretics" own message. Therefore, using Matthew 16:18 as his guide he assumed that anyone being persecuted by religious authorities throughout history must have been practicing Acts 2:38 salvation.

This kind of thinking leads to our people making statements like the following:

"The slander and religionists smearing of the ApostolicChurch is the way investigators were able to discover the true church during each century. All that researchers had to do was look at those groups that the Catholic Church were against. Who and what were these HERETICS? They were surprised to find that almost all of them were Jesus Name Pentecostals. These so called Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist, Cathari[,] Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that have been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost."

The last three groups or individuals did appear to practice a "Oneness" type of theology, but their soteriology probably differed. But sprinkling them in among the others is just bad scholarship. They don't belong together, they're entirely different types of beliefs.

We in fact have the actual documents created by many of these groups. Donatist, Albigensians (whose elite were called the Cathari) and Anabaptists. They clearly did not identify themselves with "Sabellianism" or any such teachings. The Albigensians were Gnostic dualists. They rejected the Trinity because they felt that the god who created the material world was evil. That was why Jesus Christ was "manifest" (not born). The immaterial Christ (sort of like 'heavenly flesh') prepared a way for those with the hidden knowledge (Gr. gnosis) to escape the designs of the "evil" Jehovah. This is clearly Gnosticism and not anything even close to Oneness theology.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Adino

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.

Excuse my ignorance or inability to understand you...are you saying that MMA was not always of the PAJC view?!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Barb

Excuse my ignorance or inability to understand you...are you saying that MMA was not always of the PAJC view?!

Oh, yes, he was most certainly of the "water/spirit" new birth view. This was driven into me with the force of an axe and two .38's

Marvin Arnold received his doctrinal position from his pastor, the daughter of a Mr. James Craigen, who was a reporter in California covering the Azusa street revival of 1906. James Craigen's daughter received her doctrinal influence directly from G.T. Haywood of Indiana. She was one of his students/church members.

The doctrinal lineage is Haywood to Craigen to Arnold. What Arnold did not accept was that the newly revealed doctrine he inherited indirectly from Haywood had not existed for nearly 2000 years without a witness. Though Haywood readily admitted a new twist on doctrine, Arnold refused to fully adhere to the "restorationist" position. He instead set out to find support for a "remnant" approach to what he had come to believe was the truth taught by the 1st century church.

His problem was that he chose Haywood's interpretation of truth as that doctrine taught by the Apostles. A witness has yet to surface to support this preconception.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

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.

Adino it is good to see you posting again though we NEVER agree. I have NOT found one iota of proof that Cook was a Campbellite. And I have looked since you brought it up a couple of years ago. What sources are you quoting BESIDES Bernie???????????????????????????????

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I no longer have Weisser's, Arnold's or Chalfant's books available to me. All three writers are known for having published various timelines where they purported to show the unbroken existence of the "water/Spirit" or "3 Stepper Plan." Of the three I have met Arnold and Chalfant.

I do remember one occasion at a Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism where Chalfant was challenged about his writings and he responded with real earnest that he was deliberately following a strategy that he called "extrapolation." That is, he felt that the standard historical sources were unreliable even in their description of the "heretics" own message. Therefore, using Matthew 16:18 as his guide he assumed that anyone being persecuted by religious authorities throughout history must have been practicing Acts 2:38 salvation.

This kind of thinking leads to our people making statements like the following:

"The slander and religionists smearing of the ApostolicChurch is the way investigators were able to discover the true church during each century. All that researchers had to do was look at those groups that the Catholic Church were against. Who and what were these HERETICS? They were surprised to find that almost all of them were Jesus Name Pentecostals. These so called Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist, Cathari[,] Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that have been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost."

The last three groups or individuals did appear to practice a "Oneness" type of theology, but their soteriology probably differed. But sprinkling them in among the others is just bad scholarship. They don't belong together, they're entirely different types of beliefs.

We in fact have the actual documents created by many of these groups. Donatist, Albigensians (whose elite were called the Cathari) and Anabaptists. They clearly did not identify themselves with "Sabellianism" or any such teachings. The Albigensians were Gnostic dualists. They rejected the Trinity because they felt that the god who created the material world was evil. That was why Jesus Christ was "manifest" (not born). The immaterial Christ (sort of like 'heavenly flesh') prepared a way for those with the hidden knowledge (Gr. gnosis) to escape the designs of the "evil" Jehovah. This is clearly Gnosticism and not anything even close to Oneness theology.

Daniel A has asked for BobDylan and me to join the discussion here. I'm not a church historian. But there are some questions we have asked a Trinitarian who has yet to respond. I'd be interested in yours and Adino's imput since your both seem knowledgable and articulate.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

4. What did the early post apostolic church teach on salvation?

5. Can you find your own personal beliefs on salvation and Oneness in history between the times posted in question 1?

[Scott Hutchinson]

I don't own Fudge's book ,but I would read it if I owned a copy.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Daniel A has asked for BobDylan and me to join the discussion here. I'm not a church historian. But there are some questions we have asked a Trinitarian who has yet to respond. I'd be interested in yours and Adino's imput since your both seem knowledgable and articulate.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

4. What did the early post apostolic church teach on salvation?

5. Can you find your own personal beliefs on salvation and Oneness in history between the times posted in question 1?

I am certainly NOT a historian and I was raised to believe the "Reformation doctrine" I heard M. L. Walls teach against it years ago and preach the church has been in existance preaching Acts 2:38 and Oneness from Pentecost onward. I did not believe it and after church I told him so. He challenged me to research it myself. At that time I lived in Owenboro, Ky. they have a Catholic College there I spent several hours a day doing research and came a way convinced I was wrong and Elder Walls was correct. There has always been someone preaching Acts 2:38 salvation and the Oneness of God. Again the little historian that I am I was convinced. The writings against hereticks done by the Roman church as apologists seem to clearly define what the Pentecostal church today teaches. "The gates of hell shall NOT prevail against the church." I believe Jesus even if there was NO history to prove it, however there is plenty.