Quote:
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.
|
The focus of his book was the charge that
some of us deny the cross and some of us, in his opinion do not. He was amplifying a dispute among OP's that goes back to our roots. One that is documented, but that our leadership has gone to great pains to try and hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
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.
|
Again, the "slap in the face" as you've called it, is really
only aimed at a subset of Oneness Pentecostals, not the movement as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
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.
|
So far no one has answered the question directly, and you've asserted the point twice;
is Fudge really an ordained Anglican priest authorized to say mass and consecrate the host? Or is he a history professor who, lacking a church of his own, joined the dominate religion on the campus where he taught? Since we are attempting to uncover motives of bias here, this is a critical consideration.
You appear to push his Anglicism to the furtherest extreme. Do you have grounds for doing so, or are you driven by bias yourself? This is a sincere question on my part because frankly, I don't have the faintest idea what the man believes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
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.
|
That may be the case for you, but we were discouraged from examining the issue in Bible school, at the WEC and in my home church and district. The "PCI" way of thinking was verbotem and CH Yadon's "From Acorn to Oak" was banned locally. Further,
almost all of the PCI material has been deleted from the Pentecostal Publishing House. It has been removed from
all "required reading" and "official" documents. At one time all UPCI ministers were required to at least read the writings of John Dearing; those writings have been removed without comment or footnote.
I was just checking to see if "Acorn to Oak" was still there, I thought that it was, but the PPH site is down right now!
The UPCI manual no longer notes when various changes were made to it, especially the changes made to the Fundamental Doctrine in 1973. The notes on when and what was changed used to be a staple of the manual. Now it's gone without comment or footnote.
That is a cover up of no small proportions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
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.
|
SG Norris seems to get criticized heftily in the book, but Fudge also appears to have missed Norris most famous publication
Where are the Dead and to also have missed that
Norris didn't "send all other Christians to hell." My impression is that had Fudge been aware of that angle, then Norris would have been given a better treatment. Just my take on it.
And the "bad guy" of the whole book,
Leonard Westberg gets high praise in spite of his infamous remark about the "smell" of "liberals." In fact Fudge
goes to pains to try and persuade his readers that Westberg was merely a man who pursued his convictions. The "bad guys" end up being unnamed denominational and institutional leaders. This seems to be a balanced way to approach a controversial topic. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
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.
|
And yet
Fudge makes the same charge of his critics and those who criticize Brother Yadon, Brother Drost, and etc. By charging that there are those who are "without the cross" he would certainly seem to be saying they are "without faith" (infidels) and having abandoned the very place of their hope (and thus apostates).
The unbiased reader is left to search, first for the cross himself, and then to search for those that have also found a place at the cross as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
Now go take on the day.  |
I hope you have a great day yourself, and that you will consider responding to my post. I'm not picking a fight here, I just think that you're a good person who sees somethings differently than I do.
Linear Mode
