I just talked with "Thomas Fudge"

[Coonskinner]

TB, here is PastorD's testimony:

I am connected to him through family which includes Thanksgiving meals and such. His conversation is extremely antagonistic and downright disrespectful about people who have given their lives to the church and it's cause. No, these men are not perfect, but their commitment is noteworthy. TF thinks nothing of tearing them down. This man does not attend any kind of spirit-filled church. In fact, has turned family against any kind of spirit-filled church

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

Eyewitness testimony? Hardly.

It's more in line with an anonymous tip emailed to Thad's Tab.

How are we to receive such bitter accusations, even against an Anglican, from a man behind a mask.

[Felicity]

If it was true that TF hates Oneness Pentecost and everything that goes along with it (which I truly doubt by the way) how does that diminish or extinguish or negate the factual history he has provided?

I read books by men who are fervently against the Pentecostal message but there is still a lot of truth and knowledge in what they write and I'm the better for reading some of it.

I learn from some who wouldn't agree with everything I believe including those who would be regarded as more liberal or more conservative than I.

[Coonskinner]

It doesn't diminish the facts or history.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

Actually, I have met both him and his family.

Get the book. It's a good read. Read it with Brother Bernard's and Hall's books in one hand and it in the other and you'll get a pretty good view of UPCI history.

What books by Bro Bernard and Hall?

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Necker,

I have repeatedly stated that I do not either question or object to the history in the book.

But there is more to the book than just the historical facts presented, beginning with the slanderous and totally inaccurate title.

The title of TF's book gets to the core of water/spirit theology. A "Christianity without the Cross" is precisely what you have if the implications of the water/spirit position are carried to their logical conclusions. It is a doctrine which degrades, if not by-passes altogether, the significance of the Cross.

I will use the account of Cornelius as example:

The account in Acts 10 evidences that Cornelius possessed the living Spirit of God prior to water baptism. In fact, in like fashion, evidence of Spirit reception prior to water baptism is said to happen time and time again even today.

If the shed blood of Calvary is for the remission of sins, and sins are remitted in water baptism as the water/spirit position teaches, why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the Holy Spirit could indwell a man without the need of sin remission?

If Cornelius' heart could be cleansed enough for the indwelling of the Spirit of God..... what was the need for Calvary?

If a man's heart can be clean enough for the Holy Spirit to indwell it, why is there a need to further remit sins?

Why was it necessary to shed the blood of Christ if the spirit of man could be quickened to new life by the indwelling living Spirit of God without sin remission?

Those who have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them are no longer under condemnation (Romans 8:1-2,9). That a man can be purified by faith and indwelt by the Spirit of God yet remain in a state of condemnation until baptism is theologically skewed.

The purpose of Christ's death on the cross is negated if the heart can be made alive without sin remission.

The title of TF's book is extremely fitting. In water/spirit theology there is no need for the cross to become spiritually alive, because one can possess the living Spirit of God without sin remission. This is theologically impossible and the title "Christianity without the Cross" points to this very important doctrinal dilemma in the water/spirit rank and file.

[HangingOut]

I think his title describes what he believes as far as oneness doctrine is concerned. He believes that there is a creedence to Acts 2:38 that often times leaves out the actual event of what happened on the cross and more on the attempt to reinact the event than the event itself satisfying salvation. His interview comes out in this if you ever get chance to listen to it. I am not saying it doesn't have a two-fold purpose.

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

For sure every written work has a bias. That goes without saying.

However, let's get real here.

We have a man who gives his book a title that basically, if you consider the fact that words mean things, labels us all a bunch of heretics--claiming Christianity while denying the Cross. That is a pretty damning way to introduce your book.

Furthermore, who do you think reads this book? Who was the target audience?

Jesuits?

Mormons?

Wiccans who are fascinated with doctrinal nuances in the Oneness movement?

No way.

He knew that the people who would read this book primarily would be Apostolics and ex-Apostolics. So his little slap in the face title was intended for us, plain and simple.

Also bear in mind that the author was once one of us, and is now an Anglican priest. He has moved about as far from us doctrinally as you can and still claim Christianity. This is unquestionable evidence that he has rejected the truth he once embraced. His own actions have declared him an apsotate, heretic, and backslider. Worse than just a backslider since he has denied the truth. These are not attacks on his character; they are simply facts revealed by his own choices. The man has become a trinitarian, of all things. He may be a nice person. He might help little old ladies cross the street, give generously to the Salvation Army, and feed stray puppy dogs on his back porch, but spiritually, the man is in gross darkness.

This gives cntext to his bias.

I am not offended by it, since this is the norm and not the exception for those who deny the faith.

I have NO QUARREL with his history and reporting of facts based on interviews, research, etc. The PCI presence was not a secret where I was raised. My pastor told me all about them, the merger, and so forth. There was no cover up where we were.

What I do not appreciate are the droll, subtle digs about our worship, our preaching, and so on.

Read his book, learn about the sweet gentle PCI men and the hateful old PAJC'ers if you don't know about them.

But bear in mind you are reading those facts presented by a backslidden apostate truth rejecting Anglican who has denied the faith once delivered to the saints.

Now go take on the day.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by PastorD

I don't know either of TF's ex-wives. He beat me at ping pong . . . you got me. You must be going to next years Prom.

We all enjoy the shadows here. You keep talking to him and before you know it you will hate what he hates.

I personally won't hate. I am open to point of views.

What I do hate is being cut short on the history of the church that I was in for 40 years.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by HangingOut

I think his title describes what he believes as far as oneness doctrine is concerned. He believes that there is a creedence to Acts 2:38 that often times leaves out the actual event of what happened on the cross and more on the attempt to reinact the event than the event itself satisfying salvation. His interview comes out in this if you ever get chance to listen to it. I am not saying it doesn't have a two-fold purpose.

I think TF is referring to the 3 stepper view, not the oneness view!

[HangingOut]

Thanks for clarifying for me.

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I think TF is referring to the 3 stepper view, not the oneness view!