In Jesus Name

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Fudge wrote as a historian, not a theologian. He researched, he documented. And was pretty much as objective as one could be. I find charges that he was "slanted" to be shall we say "interesting." Especially since his detractors are unable to give an example.

Having said that I am sure the book Epley is touting is worth reading. Just troubled by the anti-Fudge backlash from people who have never actually read Christianity without the Cross.

I recall Bro Epley writing in a post awhile back that he was reading Christianity without a cross for the second time.

I would say the title of the book is enough proof that the author has a slanted opinion of Oneness Pentecostals.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I recall Bro Epley writing in a post awhile back that he was reading Christianity without a cross for the second time.

I would say the title of the book is enough proof that the author has a slanted opinion of Oneness Pentecostals.

Judging a book totally by its cover? From your posts I would not have guessed that of you. I have never seen any evidence of bias in his writing nor evidence of misquotes or misinformation.

[Encryptus]

Also how can you say he was biased against Oneness Pentecostals even if he were "slanted"?

Are you inferring that PCI view is not Oneness?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Also how can you say he was biased against Oneness Pentecostals even if he were "slanted"?

Are you inferring that PCI view is not Oneness?

I've never read the book. I'm not inferring anything.

Just saying the title could have been a bit more bland like "The History of Oneness Pentecostalism" and less inflammatory and slanted. Perhaps the author let his feelings be known in choosing a derogatory title.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

?????

How strange. Did you actually read Fudge's book??

I have read it a couple times cover to cover and was impressed with how he went out of his way to be fair and balanced.

Could you PLEASE cite ANY incident where his rendering was slanted ?

Did YOU read the book? If so how could you possibly ask this absurd question?
The name of the book itself is "Christianity Without the Cross" which is not only biased but an absolute LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read the book in it' entirety 3 times and read at it several times. I purchased about 25 of these books and gave them away.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I've never read the book. I'm not inferring anything.

Just saying the title could have been a bit more bland like "The History of Oneness Pentecostalism" and less inflammatory and slanted. Perhaps the author let his feelings be known in choosing a derogatory title.

Good another admitted example of judging it without reading it.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Good another admitted example of judging it without reading it.

I know the title isn't true, nor is it a fair representation of OP beliefs. Who's to say the innards are any different? Or that there isn't some bias that you may have overlooked because you agree with the author's conclusions?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Good another admitted example of judging it without reading it.

another?

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Did YOU read the book? If so how could you possibly ask this absurd question?
The name of the book itself is "Christianity Without the Cross" which is not only biased but an absolute LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read the book in it' entirety 3 times and read at it several times. I purchased about 25 of these books and gave them away.

Have to join in. It is excellent you actually read it. Glad you are the exception. Now instead of engaging in hyperbole perhaps you would care to give a single example? Fudge did exhaustive research, pointed out the efforts made to keep it balanced. It is an accurate, and so far totally irrefutable historic rendering. Please please pretty please, point out an inaccuracy!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Have to join in. It is excellent you actually read it. Glad you are the exception. Now instead of engaging in hyperbole perhaps you would care to give a single example? Fudge did exhaustive research, pointed out the efforts made to keep it balanced. It is an accurate, and so far totally irrefutable historic rendering. Please please pretty please, point out an inaccuracy!

The LIE is that Pentecost does not preach the cross and the blood. From the time of Haywood until the present sermons-printed material-songs show the opposite. I called the guy and told him just that. I have heard Calvary-the blood-redemption-the cross all my life. It is good historical refernce book concerning the merger and the PCI side of the merger and their beliefs. But to paint Oneness Pentecost as not preaching the cross and the blood is a LIE. And I told Mr. Fudge the same. I think his name fits him he fudges on the truth. It is an agenda driven book. Again I bought about 25 of these books and gave them away. I think it is a necessary history of one element of the Oneness movement that men today need to understand.