I just talked with "Thomas Fudge"

[Adino]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I've often wondered about the element of sympathetic magic at work here.

"Sympathetic magic" was a practice among many cultures where if a person wanted something, they had to do something similar. For example, if a wife wanted a baby but seemed to not be able to conceive, she would still dress up in maternity garb and act as if she were pregnant.

In the Bible we also find "examples," though many would obviously object to the association. When Jacob wanted "ringstraked and speckled" cattle, he carved the bark off of branches of wood to make the branches "ringstraked and speckled" (Genesis 30:31-43 and Genesis 32:1-12). When an iron axe head fell into the water, sank and was lost, Elisha spread wood over the site and the iron floated as if it were wood (2 Kings 6:1-7). These could be examples of "sympathetic magic."

We might also say that the so called "magic hair" doctrine is another example among some Oneness folks. When you want your prayers to get the attention of angels and heaven itself, why not put your prayers down on paper and mingle the paper with a woman's uncut hair? Sympathetic magic.

What of baptism? Why are to be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism, so that as Christ rose from the dead, so also will God quicken our mortal bodies. There is an obvious identification with Christ that comes through Christian baptism, particularly baptism in Jesus Name. Are some wanting to carry that act of identification forward to the point where it is no longer an act of identification, but it becomes a form of sympathetic magic?

And remember, I haven't even ruled out the possibility that sympathetic magic can at times be valid. I'm just wondering how far are we comfortable in carrying this point about water baptism? Is it "magic?"

Pelathais, you have put your finger on one of the issues which helped formulate the new birth doctrine of Frank Ewart. There is evidence that Ewart's understanding of a legal vs a vital side of justification came from E.W. Kenyon's doctrine of "Identification." Your post on "sympathetic magic" comes very close to the experiential/vital side of Kenyon's (and ultimately Ewart's) view of salvation coming through "identification" with the Spirit's work in justification.

The following excerpt from one of Bernie Gillespie's articles is relevant:

The adoption of Kenyon’s ideas into Ewart’s thought is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it dispels any notion that Ewart’s doctrine was a direct revelation from Scripture. Not that Ewart expressed that this part of his theology was direct revelation from Scripture, but because those who are influenced by Ewart often claim as much about his distinctives. Obviously, he was working with the text of Scripture throughout his arguments. But, he was doing it under the influence of Kenyon’s thought. He read Scripture and came to conclusions looking through the Bible-reading lens of Kenyon. Second, Kenyon’s distinction between legal and vital provided Ewart with the rationale for including the experience of being Baptized with the Spirit with the experiential and physically objective manifestation of tongues speech. By splitting the forensic side of salvation – justification by faith – from the experiential side – the Baptism of the Spirit (evidenced by the experience of speaking with tongues), Ewart put forward a need for a more “full salvation” than that presented by the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. Beyond simple faith in the finished work of Christ on the Cross (legal) a person needed to obtain and “experience” the indwelling work of the Spirit in the human heart (vital).

Here we see Ewart’s misunderstanding of the orthodox view of Justification by Faith and the adoption which takes place through it. He considers adoption as “purely legal.” This reductionism has serious consequences for his doctrine of salvation. The thrust of Ewart’s argument is that since sinners have a satanic nature, a purely legal declaration by God, e.g. that one is the child of God, is not sufficient because it does not change the sinner’s nature. That is why the New Birth, as Ewart understands it, is necessary for one to be truly saved. Otherwise, the proclamation by God that one is righteous or adopted is only a legal statement with no real change affected in the heart of the sinner. This is a failed understanding of the biblical doctrines of justification and adoption.

Excerpted from Bernie's paper "The True 'Plan of Salvation'"

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

A poster on this forum ... once said on another forum .... ALL SCRIPTURE POINTS TO ACTS 2:38 ....

I ALMOST FELL OUT.

One of the things I enjoy most about a oneness pentecostal service is the Christocentric worship. I wish the doctrine was just as Christ centered.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Adino

A fundamental difference, indeed. Acts 2:38 should point to the Cross.

The water/spirit position has unfortunately assumed that the cross's work climaxes in a "plan" found in Acts 2:38. It incorrectly takes the position that the Cross points to Acts 2:38. In reality, the plan of salvation was hanging on the cross.

The Cross does not point to a saving formula in Acts 2:38; Acts 2:38 should point to the saving work of the Cross.

Christ's work was finished on the cross. The Lamb was slain and the blood of atonement was shed. The price for our sin was paid. If we leave it there then what does it accomplish? Without faith in that sacrifice and repentance (change of mind that leads us to turn away from darkness and sin to God) Christ sacrifice would be fruitless. Our repentance is a type of dying to sin and to our old sinful lifestyle..the old man dies. Baptism is a type of burial of the body of the sins of the flesh and being filled with the Spirit a type of resurrection in which we rise in newness of life. We have the life of God in us. It's more than a symbolic association with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. There are actual Spiritual processes taking place. The work is the Spirit's. It's the process of new birth. God is birthing us not we ourselves as many would have us to believe. That we are saving ourselves apart from the cross, the blood, and the Spirit.

Now this is the part that none of you have been able to explain from the scriptures except in abstract concepts or figures of speech.

When do we receive the Spirit of Christ? What does the Bible say?

When are our sins remitted/washed away? What does the Bible say?

The Spirit of God is involved in water baptism directly performing an act of circumcision see Romans 2:28-29 NASB and Colossians 2:11-12. The Spirit of God fills us, baptizes us in His ownself. We receive the gift of the Spirit by faith (the means is faith) when our hearts are made right through repentance.

Explain if you will why after our new birth, if and when we sin, we are advised to confess our sins and the blood of Jesus Christ will cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I'm assuming you do not take this literally. But there is a washing available even after our initial cleansing when our sins were first remitted.

I guess my experience influences my thoughts on this subject as well. When I was baptized in Jesus name, I felt clean on the inside and while under the water I had an overwhelming sense of peace with God. Something happens spiritually when we are baptized.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Christ's work was finished on the cross. The Lamb was slain and the blood of atonement was shed. The price for our sin was paid. If we leave it there then what does it accomplish? Without faith in that sacrifice and repentance (change of mind that leads us to turn away from darkness and sin to God) Christ sacrifice would be fruitless. Our repentance is a type of dying to sin and to our old sinful lifestyle..the old man dies. Baptism is a type of burial of the body of the sins of the flesh and being filled with the Spirit a type of resurrection in which we rise in newness of life. We have the life of God in us. It's more than a symbolic association with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. There are actual Spiritual processes taking place. The work is the Spirit's. It's the process of new birth. God is birthing us not we ourselves as many would have us to believe. That we are saving ourselves apart from the cross, the blood, and the Spirit.

But what happens when our experience is out of step with the sequence of events that Christ experienced? One also thinks of Cornelius and the Gentiles in his household. They were "resurrected" before they were "buried." This is an obvious case where the pattern of salvation at least appeared to fail to follow the example of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

The fact that the type we are to follow (Christ's death burial and resurrection) would be a ridiculous event if it occurred out of sequence would seem to impy that if a literal following of that type were necessary, then there would be no Biblical examples of other than the sequential occurrence of the "3 steps."

In other words, if the antitype must follow the type in order for there to be salvation, then we should find that point emphasized in the experiences of the New Testament church. Instead what we find is a group of Apostles (Apostolics?) who are reluctant to ascribe salvation to others and only the manifest evidence of God's Spirit overcomes their reluctance.

Could it be that in trying to be "Apostolic" that we have also managed to obtain the prejudices of the original Apostles. Prejudices for which they were continually rebuked by others among them and by the Lord Himself?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by PastorD

Neck...all respect for you and your post, but to compare Fudge to King David????? Please.....

I know you talked to TF for 2 hours and maybe you are a little 'star struck' and feel like you just got kissed at the Prom, but let's not go overboard.

He has called men's character into question. Many feel they were mis-quoted and until we hear those interview tapes we will not know. I am not against the history or his interpretation of it. But when you ask us not to look at the author.....just not possible.

Many? I don't know about that. I have yet to see any accusation of a misquote which would have made a difference in the substance or premise of the book.

This is indeed though, why the tapes/intereveiws should be made public.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

He is connected by family, and has shared holiday meals, etc. with him and heard him discuss the Apostolic movement and our doctrines.

he has personal knowledge of Fudge swaying family to leave Spirit filled churches.

I have never, ever, objected to or questioned the history Fudge has written. I even agree that the story needed to be told.

I just wish he could have done it without the digs at Apostolics sprinkled throughout the book, beginning with the title.

See... when ya say it that way - I agree. You ARE a reasonable guy.

PS Do you kill the coons before you skin them?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Adino

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.

This becomes a bit circular though, since the three steppers do not believe true repentance and Holy Spirit baptism occurs apart from the cross.

I have and enjoyed the book but, I have a question regarding the title Adino. Do you lend the same support to the many other churches who see baptism as effectual, efficacious or regenerative to salvation?

By far the majority of todays Christians fall into these catagories. I wonder why the crossless Christianity vitrol is reserved for the UPC?

The book would have been more effective with a different title.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

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

This is true, and it does come through in the book and when I heard him interviewed.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I've often wondered about the element of sympathetic magic at work here.

"Sympathetic magic" was a practice among many cultures where if a person wanted something, they had to do something similar. For example, if a wife wanted a baby but seemed to not be able to conceive, she would still dress up in maternity garb and act as if she were pregnant.

In the Bible we also find "examples," though many would obviously object to the association. When Jacob wanted "ringstraked and speckled" cattle, he carved the bark off of branches of wood to make the branches "ringstraked and speckled" (Genesis 30:31-43 and Genesis 32:1-12). When an iron axe head fell into the water, sank and was lost, Elisha spread wood over the site and the iron floated as if it were wood (2 Kings 6:1-7). These could be examples of "sympathetic magic."

We might also say that the so called "magic hair" doctrine is another example among some Oneness folks. When you want your prayers to get the attention of angels and heaven itself, why not put your prayers down on paper and mingle the paper with a woman's uncut hair? Sympathetic magic.

What of baptism? Why are to be "buried with Christ" in the waters of baptism, so that as Christ rose from the dead, so also will God quicken our mortal bodies. There is an obvious identification with Christ that comes through Christian baptism, particularly baptism in Jesus Name. Are some wanting to carry that act of identification forward to the point where it is no longer an act of identification, but it becomes a form of sympathetic magic?

And remember, I haven't even ruled out the possibility that sympathetic magic can at times be valid. I'm just wondering how far are we comfortable in carrying this point about water baptism? Is it "magic?"

Pelthais,

What you have described in the beginning of your post as "sympathetic magic" is, according to Hebrews "faith"... Now faith is evidence and substance of that which is not seen and that which is hoped for. Am I missing something here? Is not living as though the answer has already come when it has not "faith", i.e. evidencing that which you have not yet seen and showing substance of that for which you hope?

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by PastorD

I'll start reading through your posts and threads with the forum and hopefully I won't find any "personal judgements passed."

This forum may be a poor place to discuss, but someone needs to tell the other side of the story as some of you making him out to be the Apostle Paul's twin brother. King David even...

I feel sorry for anybody that feels they have to read even one of my posts.

If you find any harsh personal judgements, let me know, and I'll do my best to try to make it right.