Reading Fudge's Book Again

[Felicity]

Hey there Adino!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

And some "out-of-steppers!"

And, Bro. Epley, over the years there have been "one-steppers" that you have highly respected.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Sam in the country I was raised there were PCI roots however a great number of folks did believe a person was saved at repentance and that baptism did not remit sin and the Holy Ghost was extra power but not essential. I fussed with them as a boy then fought them as a young preacher.Everyone had a relative or friend that was saved without obeying the gospel I NEVER believed that. I just thought most of them were good folks but ignorant. Many were illiterate.

Let's not credit ignorance and illiteracy to being one steppers, the two are not necessarily synonymous. Just as the with the ignorant and illiterate three steppers, doesn't make them one and the same.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Adino

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Hey there Adino!

Hello, Felicity!

Hope all is well with you and the gang. Everyone here is well. My girls just turned 17 and 13.... yikes!!! Lori's a senior in high school this year.... Mahala (Haley) is now in 8th grade. Julie and I have a 20th wedding anniversary coming up in a couple of days on the 12th.

Don't post nearly as much as I used to... too many things on the plate lately. The Lord is certainly good. Great to see you.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Adino

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

Please give us the proof of your statement. Thanks.

MMM ....absolutely ... in another thread ... BD tried to assert that William Penn was Oneness ... only to find out he and many Early Quakers didn't practice water baptism among themselves ... let alone be be baptized in Jesus name ....

This "remnant history" is a blatant falsehood.

[Bishop1]

What About The Hugenots ?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Bishop1

What About The Hugenots ?

Are you suggesting that French Calvinists believed like today's OPs ... NOT.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Light

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.

The point is that your interpretation of the new birth does not have a single historical witness. I can easily give you alternative interpretations of all the core passages you would use as prooftext to support the water/spirit new birth position. There is far more proof that the Apostles held to these alternative views than there is for the newly concocted water/spirit position.

It cannot be proven that anyone in history ever interpreted the new birth in Scripture as do those who hold to the water/spirit new birth doctrine. We can see the development of the doctrine in the writings of Ewart, Haywood, Urshan and a few others. To say the apostles held the interpretive position of these who admitted a new revelation from heaven in the early 20th century demands an extreme dose of wishful thinking.

No one has ever supplied a single witness who has held the new birth doctrine as was newly revealed to early 20th Oneness Pentecostal preachers. Light, with all due respect, you need to come to terms with the actual history.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Light

I use the bible as proof.

[Mat 16:18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If there was a time after the day of Pentecost that the truth was void on this earth, then hell prevailed.
Read Rev. Thomas Weissers books.

Herein lies your dilemma ... you believe the bible teaches the Church would prevail .... throughout ....

and claim that Acts 2:38 as you interpret has been preached and practiced in every generation

and the Church is the Church if they adapt the W&S PAJC view of salvation ...

but there are no examples until this century ...

Either the Church doesn't fit your definition .... or your doctrine re-appeared after years of apostasy ... kinda like the Mormons say.

------------------------------------------

This remnant "Oneness preservation throughout history" doctrine is extremely flawed ... especially since most traditional Oneness believers tout a 3 step process to salvation ... REPENTANCE, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST W/ EVIDENCE IN SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES as requisites to be FULLY SAVED and RAPTURE READY ... as the truth to obeying the Gospel

Some have made a futile effort to align today's Oneness movement w/ various individuals, who may have or may have not, held similar views to today's Oneness movement.

One problem w/ this approach is that some of these "Oneness" individuals held heretical views regarding the Godhead and other issues that would not be accepted or tolerated by either Oneness or Trinitarian believers today.

Others are equated to being Oneness believers ... with the suggestion that God has preserved his Truth through the generations through these men and those that followed them ... yet apparently THE CHURCH varied wildly on their views on salvation? .... can't be ... either they had THE TRUTH OR DIDN'T. EITHER THAT TRUTH SAVED THEM OR DIDN'T ....

For example, BD presents William Penn as a Oneness adherent ... therefore we are to believe he was in THE TRUTH [albeit as perceived by PAJC Oneness believers]...

REALLY?

Early Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, did not practice water baptism AT ALL... let alone did a baptizer utter the proper name of Jesus over a believer for the remission of sins ....

which means they weren't saved as many OPs would define saved .... and of course we know they didn't all speak in tongues ... although some believe they did.

Wiki states:
----------------------------------------

Early Friends did not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments, believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life—all of life is sacred. They experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit as an inward, transforming experience and knew communion with Christ in the midst of gathered worship in the expectant silence. Thus they did not perform baptism as a rite of membership. These Friends also believed that any meal with others could be a form of communion.


At various times some individuals or small groups of Friends have published corrective cautions against adopting the prohibition of some rite as itself being creedal. The focus should be upon God as Present Teacher, rather than on some human ritual, or the absence of a ritual. Most Friends therefore do not prohibit rites or ceremonies, but they do counsel against allowing these human inventions to take the place of direct experience and leading by God.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends
--------------------------------------------

Here are William Penn's own words on Water Baptism:

--------------------------------------------

Perversion 14: The Quakers deny the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper.

Principle: Whatever is truly a Gospel ordinance, they desire to own and practice. But they observe no such language in the Scriptures as in the reflection. They do confess the practice of John's baptism and the Supper is to be found there; but practice only is no institution, nor a sufficient reason for continuation. That they were then proper, they believe, when the mysteries lay yet couched in figures and shadows. But it is their belief that no figures or signs are perpetual or of institution under the Gospel administration, when Christ, Who is the Substance of them, is come.

It were to overthrow the whole Gospel dispensation, and to make the coming of Christ of no effect, to render signs and figures of the nature of the Gospel, which is inward, spiritual and eternal. If it be said, but they were used after the coming of Christ, and His ascension too: they answer, so were many Jewish ceremonies. It is sufficient to them that water baptism was John's, and not Christ's; that Jesus never used it; that it was no part of Paul's commission, which if it were evangelical and of duration, it certainly would have been; that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith, and one Lord; and that baptism ought to be of the same nature with the kingdom of which it is an ordinance, and that is spiritual The same holds also as to the supper, both alluding to old Jewish practices, and used as a signification of a near and accomplishing work, namely, the Substance they represented.
If any say, but Christ commanded that one of them should continue in remembrance of Him, which the apostle to the Church of Corinth explains thus: that thereby they do show forth the Lord's death till He comes. We allege that He said so. told His disciples also He would come to them again; that some should not taste death till they saw Him coming in the kingdom: and that He Who dwelleth with them, should be in them; and that He would drink no more of this fruit till He should drink it anew with them in the kingdom of God, which is within. He was the heavenly bread that they had not yet known, nor His flesh and blood as they were to know them. So that though Christ came to end all signs, yet till He was known as the Great Bread of life from heaven, signs had their service to show forth in remembrance of Christ. Paul says expressly of the Jewish observations, that they were shadows of the good things to come, but the Substance was of Christ.


Hence it is that the Quakers cannot be said to deny them, but they, truly feeling in themselves the very thing which the outward water, bread and wine signify, leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, Who is in them the hope of their glory, and henceforth they have but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one bread, and one cup of blessing, and that is of the kingdom of God, which is within.

http://www.tractassociation.org/AKey.html#SEC10