Reading Fudge's Book Again

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think we're really on the same page here but maybe I'm not articulating very well. I'm not familiar with those groups you described but I do have family in Kentucky and have thought of you fondly for that reason.

I'm certain that there were groups that no one has ever heard from who existed, preached an Acts 2:38 Gospel and then disappeared from the pages of time, remembered perhaps only by God. But I obviously can't prove they existed, so I just have to look at history like I'm looking at the night sky and allow a sense of awe and wonder fill my heart.

What I am speaking up against is the way that we have grouped every "anti-Trinity" movement mentioned in history into the the Apostolic fellowship. This leads to all kinds of confusion- people end up thinking that we're Gnostics, dualists and Arians.

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.

There really seems to be a growing "twoness" or binitarianism movement out there. I know of one man - former UPC - in LA who promotes this.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Barb

I need to do this hurriedly, but first, thank you to Adino and pelathais for your time and efforts, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to this.

I will say again that even without proof, I am of the firm conviction that the Church has always prevailed with a remnant through every period of time.

If I may, I will quote from Bro. MMA's Introduction in Apostolic History Outline, and follow it with a question.

"Heavily documented, this reliable and understandable outline depicts ancient and modern functions of the Jerusalem (Acts 2) Church. Christ’s Church of Matt. 16:18 never died. It was always alive and never ceased to be doctrinally and spiritually intact for all people in all ages…

We have not used suppositional material. We certify that the facts -- dates, figures and quotes are accurate…

The quotes used in this outline are from the most credible of historians -- Heick, Harnack, hogben, Knox, Hayes, Schaff, Langer, Verduin, Bernstein, Geen, Blunt, and many others.”

Are you saying that everything the elder wrote above was not accurate?!

Sorry, Barb, I only just now saw this post. I apologize for not responding to it earlier.

Marvin Arnold never really defines what the church of Matthew 16:18 is. Yes, he points to doctrinal earmarks he had come to believe identified the early church, but he began his research with the assumption that Haywood's doctrine was in fact the doctrine of the early church. He then read back into history his modern theological preconceptions and at times forced historical references to support his modern interpretation when they, in fact, really did not. He did not allow history to speak for itself.

Was he accurate? Yes, he was accurate in recording much of the evidence he came across. He was not accurate in interpreting what that evidence meant. He interpreted the evidence only through the prism of his 20th century theological understanding and in doing so forced his own concepts back into the historical record. This is simply poor research.

I will say though, the man was brilliant at recalling bits of history. He would tell you something then give you the place he found it, the book, the author, the page, the paragraph, the sentence within the paragraph. His retention of some of the data was uncanny. It is a shame he allowed his theological bias to skew his research.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Sorry, Barb, I only just now saw this post. I apologize for not responding to it earlier.

Marvin Arnold never really defines what the church of Matthew 16:18 is. Yes, he points to doctrinal earmarks he had come to believe identified the early church, but he began his research with the assumption that Haywood's doctrine was in fact the doctrine of the early church. He then read back into history his modern theological preconceptions and at times forced historical references to support his modern interpretation when they, in fact, really did not. He did not allow history to speak for itself.

Was he accurate? Yes, he was accurate in recording much of the evidence he came across. He was not accurate in interpreting what that evidence meant. He interpreted the evidence only through the prism of his 20th century theological understanding and in doing so forced his own concepts back into the historical record. This is simply poor research.

I will say though, the man was brilliant at recalling bits of history. He would tell you something then give you the place he found it, the book, the author, the page, the paragraph, the sentence within the paragraph. His retention of some of the data was uncanny. It is a shame he allowed his theological bias to skew his research.

Could it be YOUR bias and NOT his that skews your perception.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Could it be YOUR bias and NOT his that skews your perception.

Not this time. He simply did not approach the evidence with an open mind allowing it to speak for itself. The doctrine he came to know HAD TO BE TRUE. So he found evidences throughout history of people who used familiar terminology in their record, but when closely examined, believed nothing near to Arnold's final doctrinal positions. Although his "witnesses" may have agreed on a single issue of Arnold's theology, they IN NO WAY held to Arnold's full theological package. They would have thought him a heretic.

Much like you and the trinitarians, Steve. While you could certainly find SOMETHING you'd agree with them on concerning peripheral issues (well, maybe) you would reject their overall theology and consider it heresy. You could not go back into history, point to a trinitarian who agreed with you on a side issue and use him as evidence that your overall theological position always existed. This would be a dishonest representation of the historical facts would it not?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Not this time. He simply did not approach the evidence with an open mind allowing it to speak for itself. The doctrine he came to know HAD TO BE TRUE. So he found evidences throughout history of people who used familiar terminology in their record, but when closely examined, believed nothing near to Arnold's final doctrinal positions. Although his "witnesses" may have agreed on a single issue of Arnold's theology, they IN NO WAY held to Arnold's full theological package. They would have thought him a heretic.

Much like you and the trinitarians, Steve. While you could certainly find SOMETHING you'd agree with them on concerning peripheral issues (well, maybe) you would reject their overall theology and consider it heresy. You could not go back into history, point to a trinitarian who agreed with you on a side issue and use him as evidence that your overall theological position always existed. This would be a dishonest representation of the historical facts would it not?

I certainly would concur but however we can only quote what we have. I will give you an example there are many Oneness groups that have teachings I think are heretical but if time progressed maybe history would only say they were Oneness and without other source in which may be very hard to come by one may never know all these heresies they also taught. Does that prove the church did not exist preaching the Acts 2:38 message? No it only proves there were some who preached Acts 2:38 that ALSO taught heresy. I think you used a magnifying glass on Arnold because of personal involvement and might gives others a slide.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I do agree the Sowder's movement which are twoness are very anti-Trinitarian and claim to baptize in Jesus Name and some actually do. I can imagine if time tarries someone could look back into history and mistake them for Apostolic the same with Christ Gospel folks and Branhamites.

Who is Sowder? I know some people in Oklahoma who are "twoness". They believe in holiness standards, many more conservative than UPC, they baptize in Jesus name, but their godhead doctrine is more binitarian than anything else. Is this the same group as Sowder? There are quite a few of them out there if it is!

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I certainly would concur but however we can only quote what we have. I will give you an example there are many Oneness groups that have teachings I think are heretical but if time progressed maybe history would only say they were Oneness and without other source in which may be very hard to come by one may never know all these heresies they also taught. Does that prove the church did not exist preaching the Acts 2:38 message? No it only proves there were some who preached Acts 2:38 that ALSO taught heresy. I think you used a magnifying glass on Arnold because of personal involvement and might gives others a slide.

Steve, Arnold never really defines what the Acts 2:38 message is. He identifies issues involved in the "Acts 2:38 message" but he never really defines what that message is. Jesus name baptism, tongues speech, and anti-trinitarianism were the earmarks he searched for, but he never defined how these issues interwined in his mind theologically. He only tried to point out that these were present issues in the first century church and that they were issues throughout history. Without identifying their consistent relationship in a soteriological manner he was not at liberty to conclude that any of his findings gave evidence of HIS theological tendencies.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Who is Sowder? I know some people in Oklahoma who are "twoness". They believe in holiness standards, many more conservative than UPC, they baptize in Jesus name, but their godhead doctrine is more binitarian than anything else. Is this the same group as Sowder? There are quite a few of them out there if it is!

James Sowders was the leader of a movement that began on the Ohio River beginning in 1914. He drew large crowds first their camp was in Elco, Il. then later they bought a large camp ground at Shepherdsville, Ky. he pastored in Louisville, Ky. The movement spread throughout the nation. Their main doctrine was the church was being restored using typology of the Temple being built on Ornan's threshingfloor. Thus any preacher was allowed to preach any subject but was questioned thus most services became long Bible discussions. Sowders dies in 51 his heir apparent was T. M. Jolly who had a church in St. Louis, Mo. & Eldorado, Il. They were known first as 'school of prophets' later most churches were names Gospel Assemblies or something similiar.
Their main tenets are:
1. Two Gods in the Godhead and yes they use the term Gods.
2. They baptize in Jesus Name however is a man belongs to an organization he cannot baptize in Jesus Name because he is not operating in Jesus Name but in the name of an organization.
3. They are the Body of Christ everyone else is Babylon.
4. They teach must must reach sinless perfection to be in the Bride. At one time this included not having physical relations with your companion.
5. The 144,000 is the Bride.
6. Sowders taught there is NO personal devil only the flesh is the devil.
7. The sin in the garden was sex between Adam & Eve.
8. No hell.
9. Three groups of people righteous- sinner those who have had some religious experience they will be given time to be saved at the White Throne-the ungodly the do not resurrect but die like a dog.
10. No one has the truth today only parts until the truth is completely restored on the threshingfloor then the latter rain will come and bring the church to perfection.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

James Sowders was the leader of a movement that began on the Ohio River beginning in 1914. He drew large crowds first their camp was in Elco, Il. then later they bought a large camp ground at Shepherdsville, Ky. he pastored in Louisville, Ky. The movement spread throughout the nation. Their main doctrine was the church was being restored using typology of the Temple being built on Ornan's threshingfloor. Thus any preacher was allowed to preach any subject but was questioned thus most services became long Bible discussions. Sowders dies in 51 his heir apparent was T. M. Jolly who had a church in St. Louis, Mo. & Eldorado, Il. They were known first as 'school of prophets' later most churches were names Gospel Assemblies or something similiar.
Their main tenets are:
1. Two Gods in the Godhead and yes they use the term Gods.
2. They baptize in Jesus Name however is a man belongs to an organization he cannot baptize in Jesus Name because he is not operating in Jesus Name but in the name of an organization.
3. They are the Body of Christ everyone else is Babylon.
4. They teach must must reach sinless perfection to be in the Bride. At one time this included not having physical relations with your companion.
5. The 144,000 is the Bride.
6. Sowders taught there is NO personal devil only the flesh is the devil.
7. The sin in the garden was sex between Adam & Eve.
8. No hell.
9. Three groups of people righteous- sinner those who have had some religious experience they will be given time to be saved at the White Throne-the ungodly the do not resurrect but die like a dog.
10. No one has the truth today only parts until the truth is completely restored on the threshingfloor then the latter rain will come and bring the church to perfection.

Intriging. How large is this sect today? Do they still shun sex?