Inside the Mind of a Reformer

[RunningOnFaith]

Originally Posted by Adino

My home church, deemed COAR (Church of Adino's Revelation), hereby restores the first century teaching that no one can be "saved" IF A GROUP of people are not present. All accounts in Acts show groups present and not a single person received water baptism or spoke in tongues without others watching. Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19 cleary mention the presence of at least half a dozen peers. While others are not mentioned in Philip's encounter with the eunuch it is most logical to realize this eunuch, guardian of Ethiopian Queen Candace's treasure, was traveling with an entourage because of his high status and importance (hey, if others can assume tongues happened here I can certainly assume he was not traveling alone). I recognize that this doctrine is not mentioned in the epistles, but we, of course, have to realize Paul wrote to those who were already saved. The truth stands.

This doctrine is what the early Church really taught. It is first century TRUTH and I hereby restore it today (I may even add the necessity of only wearing sandals and a robe for a valid saving experience at a later date). While I realize no historical witness can be found throughout the ages confirming the continuation of this doctrine I realize the gates of hell have never prevailed against God's true Church and blindly trust that the TRUTH has been alive somewhere since the first century. I simply restore it to greater awareness and proclaim its TRUTH to you heretical nonbelievers who are on your way to hell until you accept it.

If you're nice and you find me in a good mood I might even consider you saved up to this time because you have walked in the light you have been shown. I now reveal new light from God...... accept it or go to hell.

Sound familiar?

Anyone willing to heed the call? I still have room at the top in the administration.

First of all Luthers doctrine of Justification by faith alone was not taught by ANYONE, prior to Luther in Church history with the possible exception of Huss. Norman Geisler admits this in his book "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals", Allister McGrath admits the same thing in his book on justification, which is considered to be the master work on the history of justification. Both of them contend that we have to go BACK to the bible rather then to Church history on this issue. Now Luther considered justification the article on which the Church stood or fell. If the great Reformer was willing to jump over the centuries to obtain great truths from the word of God, please tell me what is wrong with Oneness Pentecostals doing likewise.

Concerning the issue of following NT patterns.

1. The essentiality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit- This is the historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position. With this most Oneness people agree as opposed to the rest of Pentecostalism who adhere to the Second work of grace view.

2. Speaking in tongues as the intial evidence- If you denied this your problem would be with the exegsis of Pentecostalism in general, not just the majority of Oneness believers. When a movement as large as Pentecostalism embraces the intial evidence doctrine, its highly unlikely that this doctrine can be dismissed as silly as you seem to insinuate.

3. Oneness/Modalism. This has been what Trinitarians have considered to be a problem down through Church history. If no one has believed this, then why would have all the great Systematic theologians down through the years addressed it. People interact with ideals because other people who they consider to be in error believe them.

4. Baptism in Jesus name- Barth, Kung, F.F. Bruce and yes, even Martin Luther recognized the early Church used this formula.

So all of the ingredents of modern Oneness Pentecostalism have been around somwhere. Trying to find a group that held all these doctrines as a coherent whole would be more difficult, but you can't find an institution that had a coherent doctrine of Justification by faith Alone down through the years either! Also Calvin's standards in Geneva would probably make even a Conservative Oneness Pentecostal Pastor like Bro. Epley look like a libertine!

[Adino]

First of all Luthers doctrine of Justification by faith alone was not taught by ANYONE, prior to Luther in Church history with the possible exception of Huss. Norman Geisler admits this in his book "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals", Allister McGrath admits the same thing in his book on justification, which is considered to be the master work on the history of justification.

Have you read Thomas Oden's relatively new book called The Justification Reader in which he offers translations of Latin documents released by the Vatican teaching many appearances of the position prior to Luther?

[mizpeh]

The bottom line is that Dr. Oden's book is a shoddy piece of propaganda alleging a continuity between the Early Church and the Protestants which did not -- and does not -- exist. I think he wrote this book in an irenic spirit similar to that of Daniel William's book "Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants." Unfortunately, this book will not serve to broaden the horizons of rank-and-file Protestants as Dr. William's did. Rather it will be used by those very narrow minded propangandists who are still trying to convince themselves (and others) that Baptists were not Protestants, that St. Thomas Aquinas was not a "Romanist", and that the Reformation was a return to historical "biblical" Christianity.

This is part of one reviewer's opinion at Amazon.com of Oden's book. Sounds similar to what folks here think of Chalfant's book.

BTW, I bought the book months ago but haven't looked at it yet.

[Adino]

1. The essentiality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit- This is the historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position. With this most Oneness people agree as opposed to the rest of Pentecostalism who adhere to the Second work of grace view.

Yes - but be sure to recognize that early Pentecostals spoke of 2 spirit baptisms: One at conversion and one subsequent to salvation. It was the second spirit baptism they connected to tongues and it was this second spirit baptism Haywood mistakenly drew back into the conversion experience when he realized Spirit baptism took place at the birth of the Spirit. He completely ignored a Spirit baptism at the moment of faith.

2. Speaking in tongues as the intial evidence- If you denied this your problem would be with the exegsis of Pentecostalism in general, not just the majority of Oneness believers. When a movement as large as Pentecostalism embraces the intial evidence doctrine, its highly unlikely that this doctrine can be dismissed as silly as you seem to insinuate.

When the "father of Pentecostalism", Charles Parham, taught tongues at his turn of the century mission, he taught them as xenolalia. He understood the miracle to be that power which was to enable the Church to evangelize the world prior to the second coming. The reception of "real languages" was called the "missionary tongue." When "missionary tongues" failed in practical application it was abandoned by many. Parham's student, William Seymour of Azusa fame, dropped the idea of the missionary purpose of the gift and took it to a much more general level of personal prayer and edification. Parham later said the type of tongues spoken by those at Azusa were of the devil. Whether Parham was right or wrong is not the issue but Seymour's type of tongues is that which became most connected to Spirit baptism in the movement.

The doctrine of evidential tongues as a whole is an assumed doctrine. There is no prooftext stating it as the only unique evidence of Spirit filling let alone Spirit baptism.

3. Oneness/Modalism. This has been what Trinitarians have considered to be a problem down through Church history. If no one has believed this, then why would have all the great Systematic theologians down through the years addressed it. People interact with ideals because other people who they consider to be in error believe them.

I believe a correct understanding of imputed righteousness makes one far less concerned with a perfect understanding of the nature of God. I trust in the righteousness of God to cover any ignorant shortcomings we may have in perfectly defining his nature. Both sides of the matter have serious issues.

4. Baptism in Jesus name- Barth, Kung, F.F. Bruce and yes, even Martin Luther recognized the early Church used this formula.

I believe that believer's should be baptized in Jesus Name. I believe baptism in Jesus Name is an important part of the Christian walk in that it openly declares salvation and incorporation into the Church community. It is simply not important for salvation before God.

So all of the ingredents of modern Oneness Pentecostalism have been around somwhere. Trying to find a group that held all these doctrines as a coherent whole would be more difficult, but you can't find an institution that had a coherent doctrine of Justification by faith Alone down through the years either! Also Calvin's standards in Geneva would probably make even a Conservative Oneness Pentecostal Pastor like Bro. Epley look like a libertine!

I was raised under Rev. Marvin M. Arnold (even proofed and suggested edits to his book on Nicaea). I certainly realize the failure of men to find a single witness. I point you to Oden's Justification Reader for witnesses prior to Luther of the justification by faith position.

[Adino]

Mizpeh, I certainly understand there will be many, especially of Catholic connection, who'd come strongly against Oden's position. We could take the issue directly to Augustine and work from there I suppose. I remember reading the quote you posted several years ago when I first purchased the book.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pelathais,

You're saying that the truth of God, who He is and his plans for man, has endured through all generations by being passed down in the Bible but men have not known it.

This would mean that all that Christ went through to bring salvation to man was for nought for many generations while the "church" languished in carnality and error because no one knew the true and living God, the One that seeks to be worshipped in Spirit and truth.

I would be very wary in trying to set up my own standards that determine the "success" or "failure" ("for naught") for "all that Christ went through."

Christ freely chose to do what He did. If He did it only for Peter's sake then I trust He succeeded. If no one after 100 A.D. believed and was saved (by anyone's standard of salvation) then Hell did not prevail. Christ has His own standards for the success of His work.

Adding post hoc conditions and stipulations to the Gospel and then demanding that Christ meet those conditions is not something I want to even try. This path inevitably leads to fabrications and falsehoods being "extrapolated" from the historical record.

This is what Chalfant ran into. I watched the man flounder in a room full of his own brethren who were tossing him softballs. His best argument was that he had some gift for "extrapolating truth" from the "lies" of the historical record. In other words, he made it all up.

You will run afoul in the same way when you approach any topic with such an a priori point of view. Your doctrine demands that you find these "hidden believers" in the pages of history; and guess what; you will "find" them because you believe that your salvation depends upon it.

But it is far better to have faith in Christ and let the chips fall wherever they will. In the end, even though you may not have the historical record that you wanted, you will still have Christ.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If no one, not one person, knew the truth but were unwitting guardians of the truth only, then they could not obey it, and they were not saved. Then the church was prevailed against because it lied dead and nonexistent.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the church or the body of Christ)" Mt 16:18

Jesus tells us that the God of Abraham had said, "I AM the God of Abraham..." and thus He is the God of the living and not the dead.

If He could say that of Abraham more than a millenium and a half after the death of Abraham, then I feel that we can say the same thing of the same God today.

Again, if Peter were the only person that was "saved" and "in the Church" following the discussion recorded in Matthew 16, then Hell did not prevail. I obviously don't think Peter was the only person saved; but to emphasize the strength of my argument I'm willing to advance the idea hypothetically, so great is my confidence in Christ.

If Peter alone was the sum and total of the Church, then Hell failed and continues to fail today. Jesus Christ IS (not was!) the savior of Peter. Peter is saved, is being saved and shall be saved on the last day. Hell failed and continues to fail, even if Peter was the only one.

We don't need to try and promote the Cathari or the Waldensians or any other group as Oneness Apostolics when their own writings show that they were not. We don't need to deal in fables and endless genealogies when our own faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient.

Jesus Christ saves today, yesterday and forever. Specifically who gets saved is something I need to wait and find out. Sufficient for the moment is the idea that He can save me today.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Adino

Mizpeh, I certainly understand there will be many, especially of Catholic connection, who'd come strongly against Oden's position. We could take the issue directly to Augustine and work from there I suppose. I remember reading the quote you posted several years ago when I first purchased the book.

Adino,

Times sure flies by quickly for you, Adino! It has been a little over a year since I've been involved with this forum... which includes a few months on NFCF and then here from the time AFF opened. I stayed in the "deep water" (can't remember it's real name) section on NFCF for a good two months before joining in the main discussion area.

Just curious, what quote did I quote from Augustine?

I agree the critic on Amazon sounded like he is a Catholic but there are other reviews of non Catholics who didn't think Oden accomplished his goal. I'll find out when I read it for myself.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RunningOnFaith

First of all Luthers doctrine of Justification by faith alone was not taught by ANYONE, prior to Luther in Church history with the possible exception of Huss. Norman Geisler admits this in his book "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals", Allister McGrath admits the same thing in his book on justification, which is considered to be the master work on the history of justification. Both of them contend that we have to go BACK to the bible rather then to Church history on this issue. Now Luther considered justification the article on which the Church stood or fell. If the great Reformer was willing to jump over the centuries to obtain great truths from the word of God, please tell me what is wrong with Oneness Pentecostals doing likewise.

Concerning the issue of following NT patterns.

1. The essentiality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit- This is the historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position. With this most Oneness people agree as opposed to the rest of Pentecostalism who adhere to the Second work of grace view.

2. Speaking in tongues as the intial evidence- If you denied this your problem would be with the exegsis of Pentecostalism in general, not just the majority of Oneness believers. When a movement as large as Pentecostalism embraces the intial evidence doctrine, its highly unlikely that this doctrine can be dismissed as silly as you seem to insinuate.

3. Oneness/Modalism. This has been what Trinitarians have considered to be a problem down through Church history. If no one has believed this, then why would have all the great Systematic theologians down through the years addressed it. People interact with ideals because other people who they consider to be in error believe them.

4. Baptism in Jesus name- Barth, Kung, F.F. Bruce and yes, even Martin Luther recognized the early Church used this formula.

So all of the ingredents of modern Oneness Pentecostalism have been around somwhere. Trying to find a group that held all these doctrines as a coherent whole would be more difficult, but you can't find an institution that had a coherent doctrine of Justification by faith Alone down through the years either! Also Calvin's standards in Geneva would probably make even a Conservative Oneness Pentecostal Pastor like Bro. Epley look like a libertine!

As Adino responds with great flair, I will stumble into the fray.

1. Do you confuse the definitions on purpose here? The "historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position" on Spirit baptism bears absolutely no resemblance to what "Oneness people" advance. None. To even try and connect the two is disingenuous at best!

And I see your point on the "other Pentecostals" and their "second work" belief; however "the historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position" never once mandates speaking in tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. To try and tie ourselves with their history is weak.

2. Combining #1 and #2 would negate both arguments.

3. I don't see Adino or anyone else saying "no one believed this" (Oneness). The fact that you have to break down all our distinctives seems to show that you yourself find no Oneness Pentecostals existing in an unbroken chain throughout Church history. You may pick up scattered bread crumbs along the way, but you can't find the loaf until you get back to the first century.

4. See above.

"you can't find an institution that had a coherent doctrine of Justification by faith Alone down through the years either"

Excellent point; and as I have pointed out, you don't need to.

But even still, McGrath's point concerned a "change in language" during the Reformation period and not the absence of justification in earlier writers. Augustine's "salvation by grace" was doctinally on a par with Luther's "justification by faith." In fact Luther was so dependant upon Augustine's writings that he was primarily credited with "bringing the Church back to Augustine."

And Calvin was a brute. Comparing his "standards" to Oneness Pentecostals is kind of like telling me that your grandmother was a sweet old lady because she was "no Jeffery Dalmer." I hope that you've got nicer things to say about her than that.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by RunningOnFaith

First of all Luthers doctrine of Justification by faith alone was not taught by ANYONE, prior to Luther in Church history with the possible exception of Huss. Norman Geisler admits this in his book "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals", Allister McGrath admits the same thing in his book on justification, which is considered to be the master work on the history of justification. Both of them contend that we have to go BACK to the bible rather then to Church history on this issue. Now Luther considered justification the article on which the Church stood or fell. If the great Reformer was willing to jump over the centuries to obtain great truths from the word of God, please tell me what is wrong with Oneness Pentecostals doing likewise.

Concerning the issue of following NT patterns.

1. The essentiality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit- This is the historical Protestant, Baptistic, and Reformed Position. With this most Oneness people agree as opposed to the rest of Pentecostalism who adhere to the Second work of grace view.

2. Speaking in tongues as the intial evidence- If you denied this your problem would be with the exegsis of Pentecostalism in general, not just the majority of Oneness believers. When a movement as large as Pentecostalism embraces the intial evidence doctrine, its highly unlikely that this doctrine can be dismissed as silly as you seem to insinuate.

3. Oneness/Modalism. This has been what Trinitarians have considered to be a problem down through Church history. If no one has believed this, then why would have all the great Systematic theologians down through the years addressed it. People interact with ideals because other people who they consider to be in error believe them.

4. Baptism in Jesus name- Barth, Kung, F.F. Bruce and yes, even Martin Luther recognized the early Church used this formula.

So all of the ingredents of modern Oneness Pentecostalism have been around somwhere. Trying to find a group that held all these doctrines as a coherent whole would be more difficult, but you can't find an institution that had a coherent doctrine of Justification by faith Alone down through the years either! Also Calvin's standards in Geneva would probably make even a Conservative Oneness Pentecostal Pastor like Bro. Epley look like a libertine!

This is a very good point. I totally agree with your thought here.

The key is that elements of our current belief system have been present throughout history, but not as a codifed bundle.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Herein lies another dilemma among those who believe the bulk of the Christian world is in apostasy...

when the Word of God and the plan of salvation become so cryptic that we believe we are the sole holder of the keys and the decoder ring to unlocking it then the number of the redeemed becomes smaller and smaller ...

John said he saw millions upon ... millions.

But surely you realize that these men, inluding Luther, Calvin and Wesley, would not recognize modern Christianity?

They would be repulsed by the lack of devotion and carnality that American Christians display. None of those men viewed God as a piggy bank. None of the reformers viewed the Church the way we do.

Luther felt he had unlocked something special. As did many other Protestant reformers at different junctures in history.