Tragedy of War RECOVERED! LISTEN!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

In the next chapter, John 4, Jesus tells us what the water is, the Holy Spirit being placed within, springing up unto everlasting life.

Again, this view of John 3:5 does not negate other verses , such as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, which clearly teach that baptism is essential.

But, wouldn't Jesus then be saying, "Except a man be born of water and water"?

In John 3:22, right after the account of Nicodemus, it says - "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized."

Isn't he speaking of both in a purifying sense, yet distinctly separate? Such as in Matthew 3:11?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's actually my point. The Water and Spirit crowd DO in fact believe in what Jesus did on the cross, but perhaps because they also believe in baptism and receiving the Spirit with tongues Fudge is making the classic argument I hear often "So you don't believe in the cross" all because they believe baptism is essential.

You didn't read what he write did you.

You guys are amazing at surmising when the facts are right there for you to read.

I did consider other titles for the book and as the introduction to the book states I was well aware that the title would cause some discomfort. Two points: One, I like attention getting titles. Second, it is my firm belief that the title is accurate. In terms of the doctrine of salvation, I could find little evidence that the preaching of the message and work of the cross figures centrally in a context dominated by water and Spirit. At one point I thought about just using the subtitle, or substituting "Water and Spirit" for "Christianity Without the Cross". In the end, I stayed with the latter."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

You didn't read what he write did you.

You guys are amazing at surmising when the facts are right there for you to read.

I did consider other titles for the book and as the introduction to the book states I was well aware that the title would cause some discomfort. Two points: One, I like attention getting titles. Second, it is my firm belief that the title is accurate. In terms of the doctrine of salvation, I could find little evidence that the preaching of the message and work of the cross figures centrally in a context dominated by water and Spirit. At one point I thought about just using the subtitle, or substituting "Water and Spirit" for "Christianity Without the Cross". In the end, I stayed with the latter."

This man's book and opinion are supposed to be "gospel" to everyone? He's just another man and just another author of a book. Much like you are just another attorney.

[kclee4jc]

I am not UPCI and have little interest in the UPCI. I will say this. It appears to me that the UPCI was built on compromise from the beginning. In my opinion, the merger never should have happened..salvation is simply too big of an issue.

There are many wonderful men of God in the UPCI, however I could never be a part of an organization that is build on such shaky ground. Doubtless, it has done much for the Kingdom.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Funny years ago I talked to my old pastor and he asked me where I was going to church and I told the Assembly of God, all he could say was why the Assembly??? I told him because it was not UPC, and all he said was yea I know that but why the Assemblies???

Navy!
When I told my family about leaving Oneness, that is THE EXACT same question my Mom had?

She was very disheartened that of all the churches to attend, I had decided to attend an AG church!

She had a couple other questions too, but your old Pastor's wording and her wording were exact matches.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Oh, ok, lets think about this for a moment....how did the generation of Oneness Pentecostals react to the Assembly of God general conference of 1916?

They moved on and started their own orgs. They did not demand the AoG change to accomodate them.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

They moved on and started their own orgs. They did not demand the AoG change to accomodate them.

Ooops....

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This man's book and opinion are supposed to be "gospel" to everyone? He's just another man and just another author of a book. Much like you are just another attorney.

Right. no qualifications as a historian at all.

Dr Thomas A Fudge undertook his research leading to a PhD in medieval history under the direction of R.W. (Bob) Scribner at Cambridge where he wrote on the subject “Myth, Heresy and Propaganda in the Radical Hussite Movement, 1409-1437”. He has worked in many monastic libraries, in archives in eastern and central Europe, and in some of the world’s great academic libraries such as the Bodley in Oxford, Harvard, and the Vatican. He is one of the founders of the biennial conference The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice which also publishes a journal by the same name. Volume 10 in that series is currently being edited. Prior to taking up his appointment at UNE, he taught at Warner Pacific College (Portland Oregon), Clark College (Vancouver), the University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand) and in the Texas prison system. Appointed to a university professorial chair in 2003, Dr. Fudge joined the UNE faculty in 2012.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Right. no qualifications as a historian at all.

Dr Thomas A Fudge undertook his research leading to a PhD in medieval history under the direction of R.W. (Bob) Scribner at Cambridge where he wrote on the subject “Myth, Heresy and Propaganda in the Radical Hussite Movement, 1409-1437”. He has worked in many monastic libraries, in archives in eastern and central Europe, and in some of the world’s great academic libraries such as the Bodley in Oxford, Harvard, and the Vatican. He is one of the founders of the biennial conference The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice which also publishes a journal by the same name. Volume 10 in that series is currently being edited. Prior to taking up his appointment at UNE, he taught at Warner Pacific College (Portland Oregon), Clark College (Vancouver), the University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand) and in the Texas prison system. Appointed to a university professorial chair in 2003, Dr. Fudge joined the UNE faculty in 2012.

"I could find little evidence that the preaching of the message and work of the cross figures centrally in a context dominated by water and Spirit."

The message of his death, burial and resurrection is the whole idea behind the New Birth. His death (Cross) was necessary in order for the Resurrection to take place. The Resurrection was necessary in order for the Holy Ghost/the Comforter to come dwell in us.

That is the recurring theme (aside from also being buried with him in Baptism) and message I have been hearing for 28 years.

His "little evidence of the cross" is bogus.

He is just another man with a book.

[Esaias]

The idea that apostolics don't preach the cross is ridiculous. What is really being said is that apostolics don't preach a particular view of salvation, a particular view of the gospel.

It's no different than when Calvinists accuse everyone else of not believing in or preaching 'grace', or when they accuse everyone else of preaching that man saves himself... all because those others don't subscribe to Calvin's pet theories.