Reading Fudge's Book Again - Page 15

BobDylan · #**141** 09-10-2007, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

BD ... separates the aspect of Oneness Christological doctrine w/ Oneness soteriological doctrine ... he feels that the truth of the Godhead has survived through time... the only flaws w/ this argument are:

1. He also maintains that God's full truth has survived the generations ... but his witnesses seem to only have partial truth.

I am primarily dealing with the monarchian doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

2. Oneness PAJC doctrine is by definition linked not only to their view of the Godhead but also by the necessity of Jesus name baptism for the remission of sins.

Well, since I am not PAJC, does that mean that I am not bound by this definition? I do affirm Jesus name baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, but I DO have my own independent ideas about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

3. Many of the examples he gives hold heretical Christological views

This is an unfair statement unless you are willing or able to provide proof that they indeed hold "heretical" christological views. I perceive that if you and I discussed christology, either you and/or I would be accused by the other of holding "heretical" christological views... my point being that simply making an accusation is meaningless without real substance. I suggest that far fewer of their christological views are "heretical" than one might think!

BobDylan · #**142** 09-10-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah really. When did D.A. become the "keep-it-on-topic-thread-police?"

But, getting after my friend Dan would soon lead me off topic as well. So... I found Thomas Fudge's book is available online at this link. I don't know if that's been mentioned before; sorry if I'm duplicating some else's effort. It's a "preview" with about 2/3 of the book missing. I guess Google swallows things up just like the "business administrators in Hazelwood."

I've read the book once, but I noticed the very first sentence anew. It breaks down this discussion rather nicely.

Here he argues against the Chalfants, Weissers and Arnolds.

And here he argues against those who would say Oneness and Jesus Name theology was simply "made up" only about 100 years ago.

I agree that we should be reaching for a more complex understanding than the two extremes. When someone criticizes Oneness theology like these folks do,

We should not respond with,

Baptism "into Christ," "in the name of Christ" and "in Jesus name" did occur quite regularly thoughout history. For example the Old Irish Celtic Church was known to baptize "in Jesus name;" but they were thoroughly Trinitarian in their doctrine. It would be inaccurate to describe them as "Oneness Pentecostals" simply because they baptized in Jesus name.

WHO determined they were truly "trinitarian"? I heard a black baptist on the radio describe the trinity as "three manifestations of Jesus Christ". He called himself trinitarian, but fundamentally he held a oneness view of the Godhead. There may even have been numerous "trinitarian" groups throughout history, that if you were to examine and scrutinize their doctrine, they very well have been oneness...

pelathais · #**143** 09-10-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I am primarily dealing with the monarchian doctrine.

Well, since I am not PAJC, does that mean that I am not bound by this definition? I do affirm Jesus name baptism, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, but I DO have my own independent ideas about that.

This is an unfair statement unless you are willing or able to provide proof that they indeed hold "heretical" christological views. I perceive that if you and I discussed christology, either you and/or I would be accused by the other of holding "heretical" christological views... my point being that simply making an accusation is meaningless without real substance. I suggest that far fewer of their christological views are "heretical" than one might think!

BobDylan, I provided a link earlier to the actual documents of the Albigensians and Cathari. These are people that Chalfant and others have said were Oneness. Read the documents and decide for yourself. Whether we like it or not, Dan is right on this one.

pelathais · #**144** 09-10-2007, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

WHO determined they were truly "trinitarian"? I heard a black baptist on the radio describe the trinity as "three manifestations of Jesus Christ". He called himself trinitarian, but fundamentally he held a oneness view of the Godhead. There may even have been numerous "trinitarian" groups throughout history, that if you were to examine and scrutinize their doctrine, they very well have been oneness...

Who determined that the Irish Celtic Church was thoroughly Trinitarian? Why the Irish Celtic Church themselves. Remember Saint Patrick and the shamrock?

And you are correct about the "may very well have..." part. I have been approached by well meaning Trinitarian type Christians who have asked me to explain Oneness. I'll give some boiler plate type response and I've often had the Trinitarian say, "Well, yeah... that's the Trinity..." God in Christ, Jesus is deity. I make it a point though to expressly not say anything about "Persons." It's funny, but if you leave out the word "Persons" a whole lot of "Trinitarians" probably do believe like we do.

The Celtic Church however, was indeed thoroughly Trinitarian, but they baptized in Jesus name.

Steve Epley · #**145** 09-10-2007, 08:32 AM

No one has to be a scholar nor historian a few hours at a good library today will suffice. I did it myself over 25 years ago when data would have been more limited than today.

Scott Hutchinson · #**146** 09-10-2007, 09:29 AM

Here check these articles out.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm
http://geocities.com/beapostolic/history.html

#**147** 09-10-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Here check these articles out.
http://geocities.com/beapostolic/history.html

see my post on the page before...

this article is the biggest pile of bunk ever posted on the Internet (and that's saying a lot)

BobDylan · #**148** 09-10-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

BobDylan, I provided a link earlier to the actual documents of the Albigensians and Cathari. These are people that Chalfant and others have said were Oneness. Read the documents and decide for yourself. Whether we like it or not, Dan is right on this one.

I will have to check out the link. Was the link on this thread or another one? Let me also ask you to consider, that if in the future, history peered through time at us oneness people today, and only had at their disposal the writings of Teklemarian, would they conclude that the UPCI were divine flesh advocates and therefore heretics?

BobDylan · #**149** 09-10-2007, 03:03 PM

Maybe someone can post the link to the Cathari and Abligensian theology... if you knw where it is... thanks!

SDG · #**150** 09-10-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I will have to check out the link. Was the link on this thread or another one? Let me also ask you to consider, that if in the future, history peered through time at us oneness people today, and only had at their disposal the writings of Teklemarian, would they conclude that the UPCI were divine flesh advocates and therefore heretics?

Exactly do you think Tek's teaching is Oneness as you teach it? I alsothought of this scenario this morning, BD ...

would you like Teks writings to be included with UPCI teaching?

This is what I mean when I say that including the teachings of some of the past witnesses you have provided would mean that you have tacitly accepted their teaching to represent yours.