Fundamental Doctrine

[Sam]

Thank you for the Adino quotes which bring light to the whole Marvin Arnold fiasco. Adino was part of that book being published and lets us know where Bro. Arnold is coming from and is honest enough to admit that the premise of the book is flawed. I'm not Bro. Arnold's judge. I don't know if he meant to deceive or if he just so wanted to find a certain image of "the church" that he stretched and manipulated facts to "prove" that it existed when it really did not.

The book by Bro. Arnold is similar to a booklet I was given when I joined a local Baptist Church. That booklet was titled "The Trail of Blood" and was written to prove that "The Church" had always been around and that "The Church" was the same as present day Baptist Churches.

I have a copy of Bro. Arnold's book in pdf format. I don't remember who sent it to me. It is too large to include as an attachment to this email but I can send it to anyone who contacts me by pm and gives me an email address where I can send it.

I don't have a copy of the Trail of Blood booklet but the text part of the booklet that is found at http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html seems to my memory (it's been half a century since I read it) to be the same as what I read long ago.
There was a chart in the booklet that does not appear at that link.

Both books were written with the same premise: to prove that a certain group/denomination was "The Church" which had always been in existence.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you for the Adino quotes which bring light to the whole Marvin Arnold fiasco. Adino was part of that book being published and lets us know where Bro. Arnold is coming from and is honest enough to admit that the premise of the book is flawed. I'm not Bro. Arnold's judge. I don't know if he meant to deceive or if he just so wanted to find a certain image of "the church" that he stretched and manipulated facts to "prove" that it existed when it really did not.

The book by Bro. Arnold is similar to a booklet I was given when I joined a local Baptist Church. That booklet was titled "The Trail of Blood" and was written to prove that "The Church" had always been around and that "The Church" was the same as present day Baptist Churches.

I have a copy of Bro. Arnold's book in pdf format. I don't remember who sent it to me. It is too large to include as an attachment to this email but I can send it to anyone who contacts me by pm and gives me an email address where I can send it.

I don't have a copy of the Trail of Blood booklet but the text part of the booklet that is found at http://www.biblepreaching.com/trailofblood.html seems to my memory (it's been half a century since I read it) to be the same as what I read long ago.
There was a chart in the booklet that does not appear at that link.

Both books were written with the same premise: to prove that a certain group/denomination was "The Church" which had always been in existence.

Thanks Sam. I had linked to that same "Trail of Blood" work before. It really does come across as a template for Arnold's own work. Most of the groups that are cited (wrongly) as "Baptists" in the "Trail of Blood" are picked up by Arnold and presented as "Oneness Apostolics."

There is a real "trail of blood" that flows throughout human history; and it leads directly to the cross at Calvary. Faith in Jesus Christ is the belief that ties us all together with the saints of past ages, and not the peripheral things that so many like to promote.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Thanks Sam. I had linked to that same "Trail of Blood" work before. It really does come across as a template for Arnold's own work. Most of the groups that are cited (wrongly) as "Baptists" in the "Trail of Blood" are picked up by Arnold and presented as "Oneness Apostolics."

There is a real "trail of blood" that flows throughout human history; and it leads directly to the cross at Calvary. Faith in Jesus Christ is the belief that ties us all together with the saints of past ages, and not the peripheral things that so many like to promote.

I have come to the conclusion (and some here may not agree) that God has always had a church. That church is made up of all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus promised that He would build up/edify His church and the gates of death would not prevail against it (ref Matthew 16:18-19). There is a visible church and there is an invisible church. The visible church is what has been called Christianity over the centuries in its various forms. The invisible church is made up of all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord. Those in the invisible Church may be part of the visible church and may agree with some of its doctrines but they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The visible church has picked up a lot of tradition/errors/etc over the years at times and has shed some of those errors at times. The invisible church may have believed and practiced some of those traditions/errors/etc. but they have continued on trusting in Jesus even when persecuted and fought by the visible church.

We don't have any record in the Book of Acts of the words that were spoken when the baptism/mikveh ritual was performed in the early church. Most of us here assume the name of Jesus was invoked and maybe titles like "Lord" and/or "Christ." Some may believe that words like "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" were spoken. I won't argue over that. It is my opinion that the amount of water and words spoken at water baptism are not as important than the condition of the heart of the one submitting to the ritual. It is my opinion that people in the invisible church may have been baptized in Jesus name, may have been baptized in the FS&HG formula, or may not have been baptized at all.

We do find gifts of the Spirit present in the Church in the Book of Acts and also at times throughout Church history, but it is my opinion that speaking with tongues is not part of a "plan of salvation." It is my opinion that some folks in the invisible church have spoken with tongues and some have not and that some don't even believe that speaking with tongues is a valid experience for Christians in 2010.

It is my opinion that there were people who were considered "Israel" even when they were carried away into Babylon and picked up Babylonish customs, speech, and teachings. In like manner when the visible church had picked up Babylonish customs, speech, and teachings there were still members of the invisible church throughout the ages.

[Scott Hutchinson]

In my opinion one can be a believer,before one has the Holy Spirit indwelling them because receiving the Holy Ghost is for people who believe,because one receives the Holy Spirit after they believe not when they believe because receiving the Holy Ghost comes after repentace.One cannot truly repent without believing in Christ.
In order words not all believers are indwelt by the Holy Ghost.But having true faith in Christ,makes one a candidate to receive the Holy Ghost.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

I have come to the conclusion (and some here may not agree) that God has always had a church. That church is made up of all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus promised that He would build up/edify His church and the gates of death would not prevail against it (ref Matthew 16:18-19). There is a visible church and there is an invisible church. ...

Some really good thoughts. I agree that God has "always had a church." Jesus saves and so far He hasn't sent word that He has ever stopped saving.

My hope and my confidence is in Him.

[pastor febus]

This is smoke and mirrors guys. The main thrust of my post was not the writings of Marvin Arnold. The issue that you all have avoided was the compromised agreement of the upci at its inception and its connection to the Reformation.
To distill what you believe, correct me if I am wrong, are you are saying that Luther inadvertently rescued us?. I say this because I have read upc literature that alludes to his Reformation of the catholic church as the beginning of revival for the church (us).
Marvin Arnold correctly noted the persecutions of that period. Even if you want to believe what a disgruntled friend and those he may have not agreed with. Luther hated and persecuted oneness people, as did Calvin. These were not nice guys neither were they biblical Christians. Luther used filthy language in his writings especially against those who opposed him. I have read some of these passages.

I believe that the reason that Arnold is being discredited here is because his witness strikes to the core of the compromised gospel of the one stepper doctrine.
The one stepper doctrine can be traced to the reformation of the Catholic Church not the Apostolic church. Its roots are clearly Trinitarian, not biblical Christianity.
Arnold still troubles the waters for those who resist the truth, though he be dead and buried. RIP brother Arnold.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

This is smoke and mirrors guys. The main thrust of my post was not the writings of Marvin Arnold. The issue that you all have avoided was the compromised agreement of the upci at its inception and its connection to the Reformation.
To distill what you believe, correct me if I am wrong, are you are saying that Luther inadvertently rescued us?. I say this because I have read upc literature that alludes to his Reformation of the catholic church as the beginning of revival for the church (us).
Marvin Arnold correctly noted the persecutions of that period. Even if you want to believe what a disgruntled friend and those he may have not agreed with. Luther hated and persecuted oneness people, as did Calvin. These were not nice guys neither were they biblical Christians. Luther used filthy language in his writings especially against those who opposed him. I have read some of these passages.

I believe that the reason that Arnold is being discredited here is because his witness strikes to the core of the compromised gospel of the one stepper doctrine.
The one stepper doctrine can be traced to the reformation of the Catholic Church not the Apostolic church. Its roots are clearly Trinitarian, not biblical Christianity.
Arnold still troubles the waters for those who resist the truth, though he be dead and buried. RIP brother Arnold.

Concerning Luther - I haven't said a word. He was an important figure in history, and like many others he behaved as a rascal at times. With regard to his influence on Christian theology most historians sum him up as pointing the way back to Augustine's theology.

To my knowledge, Luther never "rescued" anyone, let alone "us." Jesus saves. I have seen the same literature (I think - SG Norris' timeline for example?). It does lay out a relatively accurate pattern of history. The conclusions along the way are Norris's and are obviously open to continued debate.

Arnold is being "discredited" here because he published a grossly distorted "history." How anyone could possibly say, for example, that the Cathari were "Oneness Apostolics" is beyond me. I offered to take Bro. Arnold along with my father-in-law to the University of Denver's theological library and show him copies and translations of the Cathari writings. He declined.

His attempts to describe every group that the RCC called "heretic" as being an "Acts 2:38 believing church" stand out as possibly one of the grossest "histories" ever published - quite a feat. Even those who worked with him on this tried to dissuade him from publishing.

I have sort of a standing challenge here that has never been met, perhaps you're game? Can you name a single individual who held to the "full package" Three Stepper doctrine and lived between the years of about 200 AD and 1900 AD?

One person? One group? Anybody?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pastor febus

...
Marvin Arnold correctly noted the persecutions of that period. Even if you want to believe what a disgruntled friend and those he may have not agreed with. Luther hated and persecuted oneness people, as did Calvin. These were not nice guys neither were they biblical Christians. Luther used filthy language in his writings especially against those who opposed him. I have read some of these passages.
...

The famous Spanish Unitarian Miguel Serveto suffered horribly at Calvin's hands. There were other individuals who held to a Unitarian outlook on the nature of Deity in that time period as well.

But, can you name a single "Oneness" person? You said both Calvin and Luther "hated and persecuted Oneness people..." I haven't been able to find that any Oneness people even existed at that time. Can you name a single "One God apostolic, tongue talking born again believer who was baptized in Jesus' name" that Calvin and Luther could possibly have even persecuted?

If they did exist they no doubt would have face severe persecution at times; but the fact of the matter is, they simply didn't exist.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The famous Spanish Unitarian Miguel Serveto suffered horribly at Calvin's hands. There were other individuals who held to a Unitarian outlook on the nature of Deity in that time period as well.

But, can you name a single "Oneness" person? You said both Calvin and Luther "hated and persecuted Oneness people..." I haven't been able to find that any Oneness people even existed at that time. Can you name a single "One God apostolic, tongue talking born again believer who was baptized in Jesus' name" that Calvin and Luther could possibly have even persecuted?

Well duh, obviously they killed them all and burned their books.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Well duh, obviously they killed them all and burned their books.

And yet "they" preserved the Cathari libraries? "They" preserved entire libraries of pagan documents, Druidic material, Tarot and astrological texts, volumes of Hebrew mystical lore and alchemy - but not a single record of a single "Oneness" Three Stepper?

We can delve into huge amounts of texts on the old pagan gods - Norse, Celtic, Greek, Roman - you name it. We have the Emperor Julian's (the Apostate) severe personal accounts of how he was going to wipe out the Catholic Faith. We have texts describing sexual congress between humans and animals and "demons."

We have a "wealth" (if it's "wealth" at all) of the most anti-Christian and Anti-Roman Catholic material imaginable - all carefully preserved for posterity. Yet, we have not one single scrap of evidence that a single "Three Stepper" ever existed for the vast, vast majority of the Church Age.

The argument that you offer (with irony) just doesn't seem to hold up. Why was everything else of a "heretical" nature preserved but not the "Three Stepper" creed?