I’ve read a good number of books since my last “What I’ve Been Reading” post, but have failed to write about them. I hope to write about these books in the coming days or months, but for now I’ll just write about my most recent reading escapades.
I recently finished reading Christianity without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism (thank you Michael for purchasing this for me from my Ministry Resource List!). Historian Thomas Fudge has written a well-researched history on the history of the doctrine of salvation in the United Pentecostal Church.[1] Fudge documents the evidence that those involved in the merger of the Pentecostal Church International (PCI) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ (PAJC) into the United Pentecostal Church (UPC) in 1945 held two different views of salvation. The majority believed that one is born again only after they have repented, been baptized in Jesus’ name, and baptized in the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues. A sizable minority (mainly from the PCI), however, believed one was born again at the point of faith/repentance. While they believed in baptism in Jesus’ name and receiving the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues, they understood such to be the result of salvation, not the cause of salvation. The two groups agreed to fellowship their soteriological differences, not contending for their own views to the disunity of the new fellowship.
Fudge contends that there was a concerted effort within the UPC to stamp out the PCI view of salvation (in violation of the spirit of the merger), and that such efforts have largely been successful—so much so that today the soteriological perspective of nearly all the UPC constituency is that of the PAJC. The evidence he presents for both the historic presence of the PCI view, as well as the efforts to stamp it out is compelling. He documents how a series of political moves (yes, politics exist in the church too) and changes to the Articles of Faith have been instrumental in accomplishing a more monolithic view of soteriology within the UPC (something Fudge laments).
I am a relatively young man (34) who has only been in the UPC for 18 years. I was largely ignorant of the history of this organization, so I found the information both relevant and enlightening. I have to admit that given my experience, it was quite a shock to learn that in days past, many in the UPC believed in salvation at repentance. In 18 years I have never been part of a church or personally known a minister who held to such a soteriology. Reading Fudge’s book was like meeting an organization I never knew.
I do not agree with all of Fudge’s assessments of the data, and cannot say my experience with the UPC has been one of a “Christianity without the cross,” but I do think this book is a gold mine for historical information on the UPC. And given the fact the author was an insider-turned-outsider makes his perspective quite unique. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning about the history of the UPC, or anyone who doubts the diversity that exists/existed within our ranks. Contrary to what many believe, the movement is far from monolithic, even if we have been moving in that direction over the years, particularly in our soteriology.
P.S. You can read some of this book online at Google Books.
[1]It’s important to note that Fudge fellowshipped in UPCI circles for 20 years, but has since left the organization (his father, however, continues to minister in the UPCI). His history with the organization, however, does not appear to have overly colored his research.
Thinking to Believe 
February 11, 2010 at 9:18 am
Jason, I generally don’t like to comment about a book I haven’t read, and I don’t intend to read this one. By way of balance, Brother Ensey has written a decidedly contrary review HERE.
I might ask, Jason, since the UPC is a political organization, how is one to accomplish anything organizationally without politics? If one believes the new birth is explicitly defined biblically as encapsulated in Acts 2:38, why wouldn’t one try to eradicate what he considers false teaching in that regard? For example, let’s say you believe salvation is at faith alone (sans baptism). Wouldn’t you object to a rising chorus that “works” are necessary? And if it were within your means to prevent the organization from adopting what you consider an unscriptural stance, wouldn’t you at least attempt to do so? The former PCI brethren were very political, too, but they were outnumbered.
I’ve known practically all my “Oneness life” the details of the merger because it has been freely discussed among the ministry for years. And I personally know many of the ministers Fudge apparently refers to in his book. They are good, clean, godly men. If Fudge consistently presents “conservatives” in a bad light, then perhaps Bro. Ensey is correct that he (Fudge) has an ax to grind — even if he is grinding it in a scholarly manner.
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 8:12 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
My take is this: The UPCI is not a direct descendant of the original church started on the day of Pentecost due to the fact that their teachings (in their entirety) contradicts the sacred scriptures which means it founded upon sinking sand which will surely fall or collapse at the hour of the Lord’s return or even before his return. For a true church will not consider a belief that states that conversion is not according to the holy scriptures particularly Acts 2:38. And that one would be justified to be divorced and then remarried while their first companion still lived. And that the holy scriptures only consist of 66 books contrary to holy scripture. This is the reason that I left the UPCI and am now fellowshipping with a church whom is teaching the apostle’s doctrine in its orthodox perspective namely First Church of our Lord Jesus Christ under the leadership of the Holy apostle Gino Jennings.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth mercy, grace, and wisdom upon your soul to lead you to the truth. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 8:25 am
Bro. Ensey said:
This book is another in a series of efforts to move Pentecostals away from the ancient apostolic landmarks. This mauling attack on fundamental Bible doctrine will result in another broken hammer to join those over in the corner. The anvil of truth is undented.
I have to agree with Bro. Ensey on this. Though I am interested in reading the book, I think Fudge does have an ax to grind and as so many are doing at the present want to move people away from the essentials of salvation which will result in a powerless Christianity.
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Scalia and Tiny,
Whether Fudge has an axe to grind none of us can know for certain, but given the fact that I am the only person here who has read the book, I am in a better place to assess that possibility. And I can say, having read the book, that if he had an axe, it is quite dull!
Given the author’s religious beliefs, there is no question that he disagrees with the PAJC view of salvation, and agrees with the PCI view. I think it goes without saying, then, that he personally laments how the PCI view of salvation has been virtually eliminated from within the UPC. But his work simply seeks to balance the historical record by showing that the saved-at-repentance soteriological perspective was much more prominent in our early history than modern UPCI historians are willing to admit (indeed, our first general superintendents held to this perspective), it does not demonize anyone. While there is no question that it was the minority view, it was a sizable minority, not a negligible minority.
He also shows how this viewpoint was progressively eliminated from within the UPC. One of the ways it has been “eliminated” is through politics. You objected to my mention of this on the grounds that the UPC is a political organization, and politics are needed to accomplish things. But I don’t disagree. I don’t consider “politics” to be a bad word, so saying that this is how it was done was not a slam. With that said, there were some shady politics going on that Fudge brings to light, particularly surrounding the passage of the Affirmation Statement in 1992.
You asked why one wouldn’t try to eradicate false views from their organization. They would, and depending on the view in view, they should. But in this case the view that people attempted to eradicate from the movement was a view that was initially fellowshipped at the formation of the movement. The PCI view of salvation was explicitly tolerated in the merger. Indeed, the merger would have never occurred had tolerance for the differing soteriological perspectives not been enshrined in the Articles of Faith. The PCI guys came on board only because the PAJC was willing to fellowship the differences. What Fudge shows is that over time, the PAJC guys made a decision to ignore the conditions of the merger to contend for their own view of salvation to the disunity of the UPC, whereas the PCI guys remained content to fellowship the difference. And given the evidence, I don’t think it can be denied that this is what the PAJC guys did. Why they did so is an open question. Some appear to simply be ignorant of the merger agreement. Others seem to have willingly disregarded it as unimportant.
I do understand why some decided to contend for their views even if it meant disunity to the body: because the matter at hand was so important. After all, we’re talking about what is necessary for salvation. But what I think this shows is how ill-conceived the merger was in the first place. I think it was foolish of the founders to think that two groups of people with very different views on salvation could somehow function together in the spread of the Gospel. They can’t. And our history proved that. Just like in marriage, if two people don’t see eye-to-eye on important matters, you can almost ensure it will end in divorce. And yet, because the two made vows they need to make it work. The same is true of organizations. Fudge contends that when the UPC was formed, both parties made a vow to make the relationship work knowing full-well the theological differences between them, but the PAJC broke their vows in that they decided to contend for their views anyway, even though they promised not to do so. I look at this and say, “The two should have never gotten married in the first place!”
I don’t think Fudge painted conservatives in a bad light. He didn’t demonize anyone. But in some cases, the public record didn’t necessarily put some of these men in a good light either.
I will review Ensey’s review in a separate post.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Ensey begins his review by saying, “This book by Thomas Fudge posits that United Pentecostals have erred in embracing essential doctrines beyond faith and repentance. Our insistence that baptism in the name of Jesus is involved in remission of sins, or that the Holy Ghost infilling is the birth of the Spirit, is a violation of the 1945 merger agreement between the PCI and the PAJC.” This is not true.
Yes, as a theologian Fudge thinks the PAJC view of salvation is in error, but he was not writing as a theologian (although there were occasions in the book in which he did so) who was trying to show the exegetical superiority of one view over another. He was writing as a historian. And as a historian, that was not the issue he was exploring. He was exploring the history of soteriology in the UPC, seeking to demonstrate that there were two different views on this from the beginning, that the two organizations agreed to fellowship the difference without contending over it, and that this agreement was eventually broken by the PAJC. And Fudge does not claim the belief that salvation comes through Acts 2:38 is itself a violation of the merger agreement. It was one of the views involved in the merger.
I agree with Ensey regarding Fudge’s assessment of the PAJC position as a “Christianity without the Cross,” as I noted in my original post.
As for the rest of what Ensey says, there’s no question that there is subjectivity and selectivity involved in Fudge’s account of the history. But the same is true of Bernard’s et al. The marked difference, however, is the sheer number of interviews and documents that Fudge used for his reporting. That amount of research seems to be unparalleled to others. Is Fudge biased? Surely he is, just as I am and you are. Did he make decisions of what to put in and what to leave out that made one side look better than the other? I don’t doubt that he did. But we still have to account for what is in the record of our history, and I have yet to see another account that is as well-researched as this one that paints a radically different picture. Ensey himself seems to admit that the PAJC ignored the merger agreement when he said, “
Ensey said, “Statements credited to particular individuals are presented as historical fact when they are merely stating an opinion or describing an event viewed from the perspective of their own involvement.” I don’t necessarily agree with this. Part of Fudge’s approach was to get the perspective of typical ministers, not just the organizational heads who are responsible for press reports. What the organization is saying, and how they perceive an event may be quite different from what others in the organization are saying and how they perceived an event. Fudge is recording both perspectives.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Regarding painting convervatives in a bad light, let me also say that some within the UPC didn’t help themselves much in this regard. The UPC denied Fudge access to documents, and when he showed up at the UGST Symposium for a presentation on his book, I am told that he was not allowed to speak in his own defense. Whatever the reasons were for such actions, these do not look good on our part. It makes it look like there is something to cover up.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Jason wrote,
My comments in this regard are conditional.
Like this is a raging controversy? If your summary of his book is accurate, if this isn’t “officially” well-documented, it is very well-known in the circles I run with.
I know you’ve had what you call an “enlightening” experience reading it; and if reading it has helped broaden your understanding of the merger, then I’m thankful it has served its purpose.
This is how you characterized the “PAJC” political moves:
Before this, you relate how Fudge describes the efforts to “stamp” out false doctrine in violation of the spirit of the merger; and the above quotation relates how they used politics to accomplish that “violation.” You even add the qualification, “yes, politics exist in the church too,” as if anybody should be surprised at that. I accept your insistence you meant nothing negative, but it was certainly couched in that context, albeit unintentionally.
If this is an accurate description of Fudge’s argument, then it is only half correct. While it is true PAJC ministers made a conscious decision to push their new birth beliefs, they were also reacting to public statements made at fellowship meetings and conferences by PCI ministers about the salvation of their trinitarian brothers and other matters of theology which directly questioned the necessity of water and Spirit baptism. Ministers were collared for preaching the necessity of Jesus’ name baptism with admonitions like, “Remember the spirit of the merger.” In other words, we can preach our views, but keep you mouths shut. I know this can break down to a who-fired-the-first-shot argument and I certainly won’t settle that here. Suffice it to say the “pushing” wasn’t on a one way street.
Agreed.
Yes, according to Fudge. If that is how he presents the issue, then he is definitely being one-sided. I have personal experience to the contrary. The PCI pushed too; and, as you point out, they had significant representation in leadership. Some of the brethren said, “Well, if you want to fight, let’s get on with it.” Others, as you note, were not fully appraised of the implications of the merger; and when they found out, they objected vociferously. It was bad from the start and it never should have happened; but there’s plenty to blame for ceasefire violations. It is pure fantasy to blame it all on one side.
If he’s only blaming the PAJC, he most certainly is.
LikeLike
February 12, 2010 at 11:46 pm
SCALIA’S REVIEW OF JASON’S REVIEW OF ENSEY’S REVIEW OF FUDGE.
Brother Jason quotes Brother Ensey and then says,
If the “occasions” you mention where Fudge waxes theological serve to attack the UPC’s current soteriological posture, then Ensey is correct. When Ensey says “our insistence,” he is speaking about the UPC’s official “salvation” stance which Fudge criticizes as a violation of the original merger agreement. How, then, is that not true?
Your following explanatory paragraph avers Fudge is writing as a historian, not a theologian; and that history proves the efforts of PAJC ministers violated the merger agreement. But I read Ensey as saying the same thing. Ensey says, “Fudge posits…United Pentecostals have erred in embracing…doctrines beyond faith and repentance…Our insistence…is a violation…of the 1945 merger…” According to your review of this book, Ensey’s encapsulation looks accurate to me. Fudge disagrees with the UPC’s soteriology and insists its current position violates the merger agreement. I don’t see where Ensey goes astray here.
As to the rest, that’s a matter of perspective between you and Bro. Ensey. As I said, I haven’t read the book and I don’t intend to. Both of you have read Fudge’s book and you both come away with different opinions. Nothing new here. From what you’ve both written, it doesn’t look like it will tell me anything I don’t already know — even the part where he (Fudge and his kind) blame everything on the other side.
LikeLike
February 13, 2010 at 8:21 am
The big problem exposed by this book is that the UPC is not the true church with an unbroken line back to the apostles. It is a political organization started in the early 1900s with doctrines changing over time and forced through by those in power.
LikeLike
February 13, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Jason,
Thank you for a fair review of the book. I too have read it, and found a wealth of knowledge there. The title is provoking and misleading in my opinion, and really is counterproductive given the book’s otherwise scholarly content.
I too am something of a newcomer to the UPC (1986). I have not however, accepted the more predominate soteriological view of the organization.
For me this question effects how I relate to other Christians and allows me to be more transparent concerning our faith and even our differences with the larger Evangelical denominations.
Steve Hoover
LikeLike
February 13, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Hello Jason,
CWTC was an eye opener as a preacher’s kid … who simultaneously was re-examining some of the things we had been traditionally taught.
Honestly, I too wonder how such a marriage was consumated and saddened by what it has wrought in the light of the spirit of the merger.
I also wonder “what if” it hadn’t happened ?…. I was reminded of this just the other day by AG minister recently remarked: “The doctrinal statement of the PCI and its view of salvation at repentance would have kept the UPC more in step with the broader evangelical world.”
The attempts to poison the well by Fudge detractors by the likes of Norris and Ensey are predictable and Orwellian. I recommend reading Bernie Gillespies paper responding to the 2004 David Norris’s paper, “Is Oneness Pentecostalism Really Christianity without a Cross?” presented at the Urshan Graduate School of Theology Third Annual Symposium, “Exalting the Name,” in March, 2004.
http://inchristalone.org/Cross%20In%20Eclipse%20Main.htm
I will email you a copy of PCI manual, Jason.
LikeLike
February 13, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Daniel wrote,
Yes, and a repudiation of sola fide would have kept Protestants “more in step” with Catholicism too. Being “in step” at the expense of truth is no virtue.
There would have been no UPC if the PCI had insisted its view of salvation prevailed. It was foolish of both organizations, as Jason rightly observes, to believe such a foundational issue could be swept under the rug.
Insofar as the AG is concerned, do you not recall that prior to its adoption of an explicitly Trinitarian position, many Oneness ministers were members thereof? They walked away because the AG forced (stamped?) them out with their pro-Trinity resolution. From their standpoint, that was a good thing, for it is foolish to think such disparate views of the Godhead could be compatible. Of course, there doesn’t appear to have been an official avowal to avoid contention, but it was precisely because Oneness preachers (several later joining the PCI) kept preaching Oneness and Jesus’ name baptism that the more numerous Trinitarian preachers felt compelled to force them out. So it is rather odd for an AG minister to criticize doctrinal clarification when his own organization clarified its own position knowing full well it was giving the boot to over 150 ministers.
This “AG minister” really thinks Oneness churches are compelled to march “in step” with the evangelical world? Why?? Because they’re more numerous? Why doesn’t the AG march “in step” with Apostolic churches? The salient point is it is absurd to think such a thing can be accomplished with major foundational issues dividing us.
Many Oneness ministers walked out of AG (naturally) and joined or formed fellowships. In 1918, the GAAA merged with the PAW and out of the PAW came the PMA (1925) which later changed its name to PCI (1932). And, of course, the PCI merged with the PAJC in 1945 to form the UPCI.
It is as foolish to think Oneness doctrine can co-exist with Trinitarian doctrine and it is to think completely disparate soteriological views can co-exist. And if one laments the UPC’s Affirmation Statement, one should also lament the AG’s Trinitarian one.
At bottom, folks are crying foul over the message itself, or how it came about in an organization. If one doesn’t like the message, then another venue will be sought (as Oneness ministers did in 1916); and if one doesn’t like the method (violating the merger agreement), then one is being naive to think such a thing could ever work.
LikeLike
February 14, 2010 at 12:02 am
Daniel, thank you for the link to Mr. Gillespie’s paper. I read every chapter hoping to find something to validate the central topic of this thread: PAJC ministers broke their vow to keep the merger agreement. Maybe I was too tired when I read it, but I somehow missed that in his presentation.
Gillespie calls Norris his friend, but again I must have missed the part describing his phone calls to Norris discussing their differences prior to writing his paper. I would never publish a paper attacking the conclusions of a friend without giving him the opportunity to rebut what I intend to publish prior to the publication thereof.
Gillespie finds fault with the UPC’s selective and misleading use of quotations from scholarship because those scholars do not specifically endorse Oneness doctrine. I found that rather amusing since none of their writers, to my knowledge, stated those named scholars were Oneness believers. For example, if I cite a Lutheran scholar in support of the necessity (for salvation) of water baptism, my citation only relates to the issue of the necessity of baptism itself. I am not asserting said Lutheran scholar believes in immersion, nor that baptism should be administered in Jesus’ name. What should Oneness writers do, cite only Oneness scholars? Oh yes, that would fly the kite. That’s like Catholic scholars citing other Catholics to prove Catholicism.
There are a host of other problems with Gillespie’s presentation, but since it is off-topic, I’ll defer comment.
By the way, lest anybody think I’m a UPC apologist, I have never been a member thereof nor do I ever intend to be.
LikeLike
February 14, 2010 at 7:38 am
Violating the merger agreement was a dishonorable thing to do. It is the same as breaking a covenant. You may think it was unrealistic that two groups with different soteriological beliefs could coexist in unity but it will happen in heaven. It is sad that it couldn’t have happened here on the earth.
LikeLike
February 14, 2010 at 2:07 pm
The issue seems to get even more complicated when one explores the diversity which exists within the so-called “Three Step” group. There appears to be a rather large element who still adhere to a “Light Doctrine” of varying sorts. While many have not verbalized this, others like French I believe have.
Seems odd that those holding a LD are welcomed while a mainsteam doctrine found in and out of Oneness Pentecostalism is squelched.
LikeLike
February 14, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Carol said,
If it was dishonorable, then let’s make certain blame is given where blame is due. The attempt to put the black hat on one side only is also dishonorable, in my estimation.
That said, remember it wasn’t clear to every member just what the merger agreement was, especially with the passing of time. Recall the fundamental doctrinal statement:
Although I was never a member of the UPC, I was saved in a UPC church and we thought the fundamental doctrine included the belief that obedience to Acts 2:38 is necessary for salvation. Who believes in “partial” salvation? We thought a person was violating the fundamental doctrine by pushing differing views on prophecy or by attempting to generalize a local church standard. At the very least, the fundamental doctrine, as written, lends credence to those views.
As I got older and entered into the ministry, it became clear the fundamental doctrine wasn’t what it appeared to be; and I heard first-hand statements made at fellowship meetings and conferences that were very different from what I thought the fundamental doctrine was. It seemed clear to me those ministers didn’t believe the Acts 2:38 message as I believe it and that suspicion was confirmed by direct dialog and other experiences.
They (UPC ministers) had but two options: Leave it alone or clarify their doctrinal stance. By leaving it alone, no organizational publication could consistently contain articles defending the necessity of water/Spirit baptism, neither could any organizational book affirm those views. Preachers were pressured to excise the “mandatory” element from their sermons. The upshot of all this is such an “agreement” was found to be unworkable. As one minister said, “I’d rather obey the Spirit of truth than obey the spirit of the merger.” “Conservatives” used the political process to clarify the UPC’s soteriological stance and they were successful. Many ministers who weren’t even alive at the merger agreed such an arrangement was absurd and jointed the majority in affirming the new birth as defined by Acts 2:38.
As Bro. Ensey noted, I seriously doubt Fudge would have written his book if it had gone the other way. That notwithstanding, I hope we can all agree with the Apostle Peter and say, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 8:18 am
Scalia said: “Conservatives” used the political process to clarify the UPC’s soteriological stance and they were successful. Many ministers who weren’t even alive at the merger agreed such an arrangement was absurd and jointed the majority in affirming the new birth as defined by Acts 2:38.”
He also said: “They (UPC ministers) had but two options: Leave it alone or clarify their doctrinal stance. By leaving it alone, no organizational publication could consistently contain articles defending the necessity of water/Spirit baptism, neither could any organizational book affirm those views.”
Other than adding “for the remission of sins” in 1973 can you show give any examples how the AOF have been “clarified”?
Or how the affirmation statement “clarified
any previous position?
The “for remission of sins” clause was supported by WM Greer in 1973 (a one stepper) … and seconded by NA Urshan (a 3 stepper, son of a light doctrine adherent) on the GC floor….
I cannot find one example of soteriological clarification in either, Scalia. Adding this “eis” clause only added biblical language that has been debated by baptismal remissionists/regerationists and others alike for centuries.
The affirmation does not state the Acts 2:38 is the new birth … nor does the Fundamental Doctrine … nor is such a statement on our regeneration present in the AOF today, post the Westberg resolution.
The language of the AOF according to Bernard and Fudge remains over 75% PCI in flavor… being that entire chunks came from the PCI manual.
Christianity Without the Cross, Thomas Fudge, page 148
“ … one factor acknowledged by all that the PCI was by far better organized of the two merging bodies. Therefore, it made sense not only to adopt certain doctrinal positions but also much of their polity and discipline as well. On the article, ‘pertaining to repentance and conversion’, 3 of the 4 statements therein can be traced to the PCI. The statement on ‘water baptism’ is also PCI in origin. On the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, all 9 statements in these articles are derived from the PCI. Three of four statements likewise come from the PCI, with the fourth statement previously alluded added in 1954. All of this means that of the 18 statements in these [original] articles, 16 are PCI in origin, one from the PAJC, and one was added after the merger.”
Footnote: David Bernard has done his denomination a great service by tracing out the origin and development of the “Articles of Faith”. While I do not always agree with the conclusions he draws, his work on this aspect of Oneness Pentecostal history is to be commended. See his Understanding the Articles of Faith, 26-39. In the terms of the entire Articles of Faith it can be shown that 75% of the statements come from the PCI. Of the 73 separate identical clauses the breakdown of origins is – PCI: 55, PAJC:5, New/Other: 13. It is worth pointing out that many of the clausal statements are effectively citations of the Biblical texts and are not to be understood as 20th century theological statements.
Futhermore, Bernard effectively argued this very point in his circulated essay supporting the Westberg resolution in 1992 … that this was an affirmation of existing articles.
Your inability to state what Fudge’s position is on the aggregious nature of affirmation statement and why it violated the terms of the merger seem to be made more stark by statements like the ones you’ve made above…
Please elaborate on your position on the affirmation statement.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 9:28 am
The notion that Westberg somehow “clarified” a soteriological position or that the AOF has somehow been amended to support an Acts 2:38 is the New Birth position is unfounded and demonstrates perpetuated ignorance of the dynamics at play as described by Fudge in CWTC.
I believe the Westberg resolution only underscores and highlights the schizophrenic nature of the Articles of Faith. A schizophrenia that shows itself even in the varying views on justification as evident by the divergence between Bernard and Segraves on the issue of justification … (not addressed at all in the creedal statements of the UPCI).
In a 1990 symposium, Elder Segraves, in responding to good friend, a former 3 stepper evangelist, sounded the alarm about a handful of blatant soteriological contradictions/problems still exisitent in the AOF as it is worded:
The Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International, under the heading “Repentance and Conversion,” presently reads: “Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins:1
The context concerns conversion, not the obtaining of forgiveness by a born-again believer, says nothing about water baptism, and would lead one to believe that repentance alone is sufficient to produce forgiveness of sins.2
A study of the Greek text would indicate that “forgiveness” and “remission” are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.3
Does the assertion that, on the one hand, forgiveness is obtained by repentance alone and, on the other hand, remission of sins is obtained by baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ present a contradiction in the Articles of Faith of the U.P.C.I.?
Should there be an examination of the somewhat popular teaching that sins are forgiven at repentance but are not remitted until water baptism?
The Articles of Faith offer no Scripture to support the statement that “pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance.”
While the author thoroughly examined the relationship of both repentance and water baptism as they relate to remission of sins in the text of Acts 2:38, he did not discuss the fact that the Fundamental Doctrine of the U.PC.I. does not necessarily endorse this idea.
The Fundamental Doctrine reads, “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:’4 The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction “and” but. are instead separated by a comma.
Neither did the author discuss the significance of the word “full” in the Fundamental Doctrine. (“The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation…:’) At the merging conference, “a motion was made to take the word `full’ out of the Fundamental Doctrine, but was defeated:’5 The significance of this is obvious. Without this word, the Fundamental Doctrine would have read, “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of salvation. ..:’ The word full is an adjective which modifies the noun salvation.
While it may be difficult for those who were not present to understand or appreciate the importance of this word to those involved in the merger, it obviously suggests that the majority present and voting viewed “full salvation” as one thing and “salvation” as another. A discussion of this element of U.PC.I. history would be a worthy subject for a subsequent symposium.
————–
I submit further that the present positions held predominantly by Bernard and at times by Segraves in the literature … that aphesis/forgiveness/remission are not obtained until after repentance and a properly administered baptism is not in full alignment to the Articles of Repentance and Water Baptism of the UPCI.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 10:00 am
Daniel, thank you for your message. To repeat, I have not nor do I intend to read Fudge’s book. My comments relate to Jason’s post, what others have posted and my own experiences with the UPC.
Jason wrote,
I take from your message you contend there were no “changes” to the Articles of Faith (AOF) other than the addition of for the remission of sins in 1973, correct? You thus disagree with Jason’s summation of Fudge’s book?
Daniel wrote,
“Inability” is a rather loaded word. I don’t pretend to know what Fudge’s position is on anything, let alone the Affirmation Statement (AS). I am only responding to what others have said.
The fact Brother Westberg’s resolution substantially restates the (predominantly PCI) AOF renders immaterial his (and those allied with him) real or perceived motives behind the resolution.
Anybody reading this may perhaps be unfamiliar with the resolution and AF. Here they are:
From what I’ve been told, there was a raging debate prior to the passage of this resolution. Several ministers protested an oath of allegiance violated the spirit of the merger since diversity was tolerated. Liberty of conscience with respect to salvation and standards of holiness were evidently prerogatives jeopardized by the AF.
Daniel wrote,
The clarification is that the AOF aren’t empty statements; they are requirements for continued membership. The UPC made clear it would not tolerate ministers who do not believe in, embrace and teach the AOF. The logical consequence of this is, among other things, the soteriological “liberty” previously tolerated and/or winked at is over with respect to the UPC.
As I noted above, there is no such thing as “partial” salvation. You either believe in, embrace and teach obedience to Acts 2:38 is full salvation or you do not. If not, find another fellowship compatible with your beliefs. That’s how the UPC “clarified” its previous position.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 10:08 am
Daniel, your observation that the word “full” was retained at the merger is well taken; but as you know, Westberg, et al, did not interpret “full” the same way. This is further evidence of clarification with respect to salvation.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 10:53 am
I hate to quote the bloward of hate talk radio but I will … Scalia, “words mean things” … an affirmation is not clarification. Again, the assertion that the New Birth was somehow clarified in the AOF during the political posturing of the last decades is ERRONEOUS – no such affirmatin or clarification was made.
Again, reiterating, in 1992, the passage of the Westberg resolution instituted an affirmation statement to be signed every two affirming by minister to affirm just two of the Articles of Faith, namely the Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness articles. Some say it was adopted (based on the perceived dishonesty of a high official and questionable parliamentary procedure) to further single out, categorize, minimize, trivialize, demonize and ostracize any of the ministers who still held divergent views.
As the debate raged prior, during and after the 1992 Salt Lake City conference which instituted the Affirmation Statement many seasoned ministers spoke out against the requirement as an “oath of doctrinal allegiance”. Men like Robert Sabin, Jack Dehart, CG Jabo Green, CH Yadon , Charles Colgrove, Corliss Dees II, Wayne Nigh, Loren Yadon, Bud Yadon, John Nordstrom, Bernie L. Gillespie, V. Arlen Guidroz, Raymond Beesley, WM Greer, David Wasmundt and various others were among the dissenters. Some stayed despite being called weak on the message, others would leave as a result of its passage.
Guidroz argued that this requirement was a direct violation of the merger agreement which never required doctrinal purity. In his 1992 letter to the General Board, Guidroz, furthered his argument asking in regards to this unity clause: “Have we this part of the statement? In 1945 at the merger there were many who did not agree on the New Birth issue. Diversity was tolerated at that issue. Those who were ‘divisive’ about it kept silent so that peace and brotherhood could reign. Is it contrary, to our Manual for one minister or group to force an issue which is now dividing us?” Guidroz, continued, asserting, “The net effect of placing these two Articles of Faith above the others is to lower the other other Articles of Faith to a position of non-importance.”
It passed despite these protests.
Apostolic great, James Kilgore, former UPCI general assistant superintendent initially supported the Westberg resolution and expressed his support of the measure on the conference floor, in 1992. Yet, following the proceedings, Kilgore soon modified his stance. After determining the identity of the resolution authors and their motives he admitted in an interview, ” He is one of those who preaches truth with harshness and hardness, and I don’t want to be identified with the spirit in which he preaches.” As to the root of divisiveness behind this resolution that spawned the affirmation statement Kilgore added, ” I did not know at the the time. I wished I had done more research”. Kilgore would also share with a ministerial peer in a letter, ” To me those who brought this resolution, did so in an unloving and uncompassionate manner”.
At issue here was not a disagreement over the “biblical standard of full salvation” but the abrogation of trust and the integrity of the Fundamental Doctrine’s unity clause ‘NOT TO CONTED TO THE DISUNITY OF THE BRETHREN’ with a documentable persistent trend to be divisive over an issue that to this day is tolerated on paper, or theoretically.
WT Witherspoon’s (a light doctrine adherent) role in brokering and formulating this unity clause “served in signficant ways by preserving latitude. Put simply, the Unity Clause of the Fundamental Doctrine covered a multitude of misunderstandings and rendered null and void any ulterior political motivated theological agenda or doctrinal conviction. In theory it did not make a particular statement of salvation paramount. Technically, gave no weight of interpretation either to the general doctrinal view within the PAJC or that embraced within the PCI”. (Fudge, 100).
Yet, contempt for those “weak on the message” continued in many form and venues … including in the literature and in communications among the ministerial ranks.
This is not to say that these views were not to be discussed but rather contending to the disunity over such issues is as much part of the Fundamental Doctrine as is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
This is exemplified, by the then editor of of the nascent Pentecostal Herald, Oscar Vouga who stated: In the 1945 issue, page page 4 of the file, in the article “Our Paper, The Pentecostal Herald”: “Articles on such subjects as The New Birth, will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, orthat the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit…..”
We find Howard Goss, first General Superintendent of the UPC, stated in an PH article that appeared on pages 6 and 10 of the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald, doing just this …. in submitting a “minority” view on baptism and the doctrine of regeneration linked to baptism, saying:
“The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. ”
As time has progressed, this type of tolerance toward an accepted “minority” view would not be published but rather has been sanitized and misrepresented by the official organ.
We find evidence of this type of misrepesentation of Goss’ view on the New Birth .. by on pages 54-59 of the December 2009 issue.
Those pages contain Bro. Ken Haney’s sermon which he delivered at the recent General Conference.
The sermon is titled “The Seven Locks of the Apostolic Church.” ( Read it here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=27700)
It is the spirt of Westberg not the language of the affirmation statement that is the issue. Their very right to exist was perceived by many … even many 3 steppers like Guidroz and Pugh … was threatened ….
(to be continued …)
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 11:21 am
Daniel wrote,
I agree, words mean things. And I respectfully disagree with your definition of “clarification.” The word clarify simply means to make clear. The resolution clearly stated there were those holding a license who departed “from the faith” and threatened legal action if they were “dealt with.” What is meant by “departing from the faith”? There were UPC ministers who no longer believed Jesus’ name baptism was legitimate? UPC ministers no longer believed in speaking in tongues? Knowing Brother Westberg and many of those supporting the resolution, that is not at all what was meant. It specifically refers to ministers who did not make it mandatory.
Then nobody should have left. Arguing “spirits” or motives is ad hominem. If the words are fine, then nobody should have a problem signing it. Those leaving the UPC did so irrationally because they didn’t like the “spirit” of the resolution’s author, even though, according to you, nothing really changed.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 11:33 am
Fudge asserts: “What has been overlooked or ignored entirely is the fact the Westberg Resolution does not change the United Pentecostal Church, not in a minor sense, but in a signficant way. Robert Sabin made this point in writing Nathaniel Urshan shortly after the ratification of the resolution. The consequences liek principally in the PREAMBLE of the Westberg Resolution and directly to bear upon the merger agreement. The preamble alleges that there are ministers performing their functions not in concert wit the “the faith” codified in the Articles of Faith. Such indivuals constitutute taxonomies of “false prophets”, “false Christs”, “seducing spirits”, holding “doctrines of devils’, “grievous wolves” “speaking perverse things”, ” teaching false doctrines”, “as seductive spirits rampant throughout the earth”, ” EVEN WITHIN OUR FELLOWSHIP”, “disorderly” and persisting in a manner “contrary to the doctrine ye have learned”.
Fudge continues: “It is instructive to compare once more the second paragraph of the Fundamental Doctrine, a philosophical conviction systemized in 1945”
He goes on to quote the UNITY CLAUSE.
“… Theological differences, especially relating to the new birth, existed in 1945 and persisted. Tolerance was mandated and all who entered the United Pentecostal Church in 1945 and thereafter were enjoined to observe this cardinal of BONA FIDE. The preamble to the Westberg resolution appears antithetical to the spirit of the merger agreement”
Speaking of Westberg dissenters, Fudge writes “Once again, the unity clause legitimated their perspective. The sole requirement for protection was that said individual not contend to the point of disunity and disruption”.
“The merger was was born in the the cradle of tolerance, out of strength. The Westberg Resoluton was born out of intolerance, out of weakness. Ministers may have called each other “compromiser” and “weak on the message” in 1945 but such behavior and attitude received no official approbation, was deplored by men like Howard A. Goss and was in fact explicitly condemned by the provisions of the unity clause”.
“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the the exclusion of the other. Agreement on unity precluded formal motions and movements toward disunity This was challenged in 1992 by the Westberg Resolution …”
——————————————————
It is the disunity of the Fundamental doctrine that many see was threatened by the Westberg preamble …
I submit, that it is STILL against the Fundamental Doctrine for any minister to seek disfellowship over their views on the New Birth … and reinforced by the “oath of allegiance” to it when they sign the AS bi-annually.
Yet even today we find General Board members like Chester Wright who in 2007 wrote a letter contending to the disunity of brethren against his ministerial peers who believe we are saved at repentance in this letter that has made the cyber-space rounds:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=17986
Or the recent ’emegent theology” heresy hunters … who commissioned a recent General Board committee, headed by the likes of Paul Mooney and Arthur Hodges, to inquire about those who have allowed “watered down the message” to creep into the org’s ranks:
http://www.sbupc.org/uploads/Emerging_Church.pps
Someone once aptly defined integrity as — “Integrity is what we do, what we say, and what we say we do”.
Without getting into the issues of men signing the statement and not being in full compliance of the amended 1954 Holiness Article … what of the men who continually contend to the disunity of the brethren in seeking to disfellowship men over the tolerance for views on the New Birth systemized at the merger?
In my opinion, the very AS condemns them. There is to this day no codified view in the UPCI on the New Birth and when we are saved but some are willing to disfellowship over what is to be tolerated. Irony of ironies.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 11:41 am
Daniel, I readily acknowledge UPC-published literature stressing the necessity of the new birth is extensive. The word I used was “consistently.”
Recall the Magee/Toddy debate. Toddy called Magee’s position “false doctrine.” Magee objected (I do not recall his exact words) to the effect Toddy’s remark violated the spirit of goodwill Magee wanted to maintain. Toddy shot back with something like, “If this isn’t about false doctrine, then why are we debating? Both views cannot be true.” Toddy then repeated several inflammatory things Magee said and he thereby questioned Magee’s commitment to goodwill. This illustrates perfectly what many PAJC ministers experienced at the hands of PCI ministers. I personally know preachers who were attacked by PCI ministers for preaching the necessity of obedience to Acts 2:38. As I said, they were pressured to excise the “mandatory” element from their sermons and were admonished to refrain for calling other views “false doctrine.” It is obvious two trains were on a collision course. One could see that a long way off.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 11:55 am
Scalia, I think the varying views on the New Birth and Holiness remain the white elephant in the room … the perceived attempt by Westberg “to clean house” or as some on the GC floor remarked about purging the fellowship with a “bowel movement” … has only caused more contention and schisms in the last 15 years on all sides of the spectrum.
Some got tired of the in-fighting in 1992 and walked … like Jabo Green, Jack Dehart, Charles Colgrove making residence with Hardwick in Global Network of Christian Ministries … because just like in any marriage … one does not need an invitation to leave to know when one is not wanted.
While others like Greer and Yadon … remained.
Yet the very tool used to promote doctrinal purity remains the source of contention and hypocrisy of many …
The WPFers, in 2007, got tired of the lack of enforcement over the Holiness article’s TV clause despite the bi-annual affirmation of preachers who claim to preach and teach against it.
The UPCI has had a strong stand against television shows and movies made by Hollywood for decades. Its ministers are forbidden by the manual to have a television in their homes. Moreover, the Holiness article makes a clear statement of disapproval on not only the displays of ungodliness on television but the disapproval of any of it’s people having television in their homes.
The last paragraph of the Holiness Article, added several years after the merger, reads:
“We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music.
Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes.
We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”
Tangentially, members and ministers were retold of opposition to the viewing of Hollywood films and videos via video transmitting devices in a 1982 position paper found in the manual:
Be it further resolved that we restate our strong opposition to the viewing of all worldly motion pictures and video films as are being shown commercially in theaters and on television for entertainment purposes for the ungodly masses, and the use of them in any form for God’s people.
Be it further resolved that all video receivers be so altered as to be unable to receive television channels.
Be it further resolved that none of our ministers use video in any way except as herein provided.
Despite these stipulations, an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence and the integration of technology in the 21st century seems to show that a sizable group of ministers have a television-ready device which is able to receive television programming in their home. This type of tv programming and Hollywood films and videos can now be streamed to the home of preacher or believer via internet streaming on their home computer, or even a cell phone and other tv-ready devices/sets.
Is this not a clear violation of the manual and the affirmation statement?
Neither does concealing television-ready devices in armoires, basements, and vacation homes remedy this situation.
Also, if the Holiness Article is to be preached and taught as the Affirmation clearly indicates , it would seem, that all ministers who attest to it, are to teach and preach their disapproval of their people having television sets in their homes, too.
A fair question to ask is: Minister, are you actively teaching and preaching the disapproval of television sets in the homes of the church people?
Does the spirit of the last paragraph of the Holiness Article which disapproves of theaters, and the position paper on videos, tell us that the watching of any Hollywood film for entertainment purposes is ungodly and should be taught and preached against actively?
These are fair questions considering that our word has significance.
Jesus said:
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Or perhaps this requirement must be re-examined …. and biblical holiness principles for governing our time and what we bring before our eyes stressed?
Before you sign it, ask: Do I believe, embrace, practice, teach and preach the same?
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 11:57 am
Daniel wrote,
Of course, I disagree.
Daniel, if “words mean things,” then we either go by the words or we go by intent. If you appeal to intent with respect to the word “full,” then consistency dictates you allow intent to carry the day with Westberg’s resolution. And it is clear the intent was to proscribe soteriological views that did not affirm full obedience to Acts 2:38.
If intent is set aside in favor of “what words mean,” then there is no such thing as “partial” salvation. When the Fundamental Doctrine asserts “full salvation” is repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking in other tongues,” it is referring to what is necessary to be saved.
You cannot consistently appeal to intent in 1945 and then ignore intent in 1992. And of we go by the words they used, the PCI view was precluded from the beginning — only they didn’t realize it.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Daniel, regarding Post 25, I won’t be commenting because Jason did not raise “holiness” issues. I will only say I agree with what I think you meant that the “white elephant” is the holiness affirmation.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I’m sorry but to sit behind a computer, in 2010, and make a faulty assumption that the men who signed on the dotted line at the 1945 were somehow hoodwinked in not understanding the term “full salvation” in the Fundamental to mean to “obtain salvation” smacks of Monday morning quaterbacking.
The FD wording states “the Bible standard of full salvation” … not in order to be saved.
I am fully aware that Westberg’s views on obtaining “full salvation” differed greatly to let’s say Goss’ view of the biblical response/standard of a believer who is fully saved” … or because of salvation.
That is exactly the rub.
This goes back to the differences over “eis”, Scalia … which have again, persisted over centuries … and the founders of the UPCI were fully abreast of when they deliberated at the merger. As Stanley Chambers wrote: “One of the greatest problems for them to consider was the Fundamental Doctrine”
Goss in his 1954 Herald article posits the “because” view in the PH in 1954, when he states:
The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS
Segraves, in the previously quoted 1990, symposium writes:
Neither did the author discuss the significance of the word “full” in the Fundamental Doctrine. (“The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation…:’) At the merging conference, “a motion was made to take the word `full’ out of the Fundamental Doctrine, but was defeated:’5 The significance of this is obvious. Without this word, the Fundamental Doctrine would have read, “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of salvation. ..:’ The word full is an adjective which modifies the noun salvation.
While it may be difficult for those who were not present to understand or appreciate the importance of this word to those involved in the merger, it obviously suggests that the majority present and voting viewed “full salvation” as one thing and “salvation” as another. A discussion of this element of U.PC.I. history would be a worthy subject for a subsequent symposium.
Understanding that saved person obeys Acts 2:38, still by no means supports or indicates a 3 step “Water and Spirit” view of our regeneration found in the AOF or Fundamental Doctrine ….
Again, seek high and low but the AOF does not explicitly address the New Birth … and this WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY.
The vagueness of “the bible standard of full salvaion” was very much systemized at the merger to broker a deal.
The issue of “full salvation” was sought to be clarified on various ocassions with various proposed resolutions as discussed by Fudge … but each time struck down by the constituents.
Furthermore, idea of full salvation, or the “full gospel” is not new or unique to the UPCI of the 1940’s.
It permeates through the literature of mainstream Pentecostalism and even the Holiness movement of the 19th century, Scalia. I recommend some of Gillespie’s works on the topic:
http://inchristalone.org/TheFullGospelError.htm
http://inchristalone.org/WasAbrahamSaved.htm
What is painfully obvious is that the men of the pioneering modern Oneness pentecostal movement do not share the radicalized view of “full salvation” only obtained through a Westbergian view on the New Birth. Whether they were onesteppers like Yadon, Goss or Gurley … or light doctrine Water and Spirit adherents like GT Haywood, AD Urshan, and PAJC men at the merger like WT Witherspoon, SG Norris … they did not view others in the Body of Christ … as eternally lost.
Your view on “full salvation” was not shared line by line by these men. Nor can it be argued that they somehow didn’t capture your meaning of “full salvation”.
Albeit, I agree with you, even if we disagree on the when of our New Birth that there is no such thing as “partial salvation”. 🙂
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Whether you disagree or not … you can offer no evidence of an explicit clarification of “full salvation” in the AOF or AS … much less that obedience to repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost baptism as expressed in the FD constitutes the New Birth. The language is not there.
The faulty assumption, from a poster, sitting behind a computer in 2010 that somehow the PCIers were hoodwinked by the language that states the “biblical standard of full salvation” means “in order to be saved” is naive at best and nefariously revisionist at the most.
Honestly, Scalia, it smacks of Monday morning theological/political quarterbacking.
Surely, both sides went into this merger understanding the importance of the language that would broker a deal.
When Stanley Chambers writes that among hardest deliberations at the merger was the Fundamental Doctrine: ” “one of the greatest problems for them to consider was the Fundamental Doctrine.”
No one was coereced into ultimately accepting a view but rather the vaguenesss of such a statement … the biblical standard of full salvation … is very much in line with the “eis” debate that has endured over the preposition for meaning “in order to” or “because” or “in view towards” … and proceeding the Unity clause allowed for tolerance of these divergent views.
This is exemplified, in Goss’ 1954 article when he adroitly states the “because” view:
“The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. ”
Segraves again points out the divergence in the understanding of “full salvation” in his 1990 symposium quote above.
Also, the concept of “full salvation” or the “full gospel” in not unique to the Oneness movement or UPCI of the 1940’s, Scalia. This concept permeates throughout the mainstream Pentecostal movement and Holiness movement of the 19th century. Mostly linked to the idea of “entire sanctification”.
For example, we find literature pre-New Issue that indicates that some mainline Pentecostals believed the baptism of the Holy Ghost as “full gospel” but by no means meant to say it was “in order to be saved”.
Lastly, the notion that the pioneering modern Oneness Pentecostal leadership was lockstep point by point “full salvation” with Westberg… ranging from the one-steppers like Goss, Gurley and Yadon … to light doctrine adherents like Haywood, Ewart, AD Urshan … and light doctrine PAJCers at the merger like WT Witherspoon and SG Norris
indicates more of the revisionism that 3 step radicals frequently engage in.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Albeit, I agree with you, Scalia, that there is no such thing as “partial salvation” …
I recommend Gillespie’s articles on the topics of the error of the “full gospel/salvation” movement such as:
http://inchristalone.org/TheFullGospelError.htm
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 1:29 pm
As an addendum, Fudge discusses subsequent resolutions throughout the years that were struck down by the UPCI constituents to clarify “full salvation” and even delete “full” from the record … all struck down. (pages 154, 155)
Which I believe only strenthens the arguments that “biblical standard of full salvation” was meant to be vague and open to interpretation.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Daniel wrote,
I never said I was offering “explicit” clarification of “full salvation.” I merely (correctly) used the word “clarify.” I think I have clearly shown that. You disagree.
Legislators have never made textual mistakes? History is replete with examples of very educated legislators writing things they did not intend. You are the one arguing that “words mean things” and I correctly observed that the FD clearly makes Acts 2:38 mandatory.
For example, if a PCIer believes Billy Baptist is “saved” when he accepts Christ as his personal savior, is Billy Baptist “fully saved” or “partially saved”? If the PCIer believes Billy Baptist is fully saved, then his affirmation that “full salvation” constitutes obedience to Acts 2:38 is incoherent — as a matter of textual analysis alone.
You’re still appealing to intent, Daniel. You can write a thousand more paragraphs about intent, but you don’t appear to realize you are undercutting your own argument. I repeat, if intent defines 1945, then intent defines 1992. And if intent defines 1992, then the AOF was most certainly “clarified” in a major way. You cannot have it both ways. And if we only abide by the words they USED, without regard for intent, then the words they used makes Acts 2:38 mandatory.
By the way, I don’t at all mind a disagreement with you here. I am not at all bothered by your accusation that my “assumptions” are “faulty” or just plain wrong. Injecting the possibility I may be “nefarious” is a little over the line and demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along — the pushing was from both sides. I’ve never questioned your motives nor have I implied you are dishonest. I’ve expressed my disagreement with you and questioned your consistency. The fact you hint I may be wicked shows you’re running out of ammunition. Let’s keep this above the belt.
This snippet doesn’t directly accuse me of this, but as you do not identify by name anybody else, I assume you’re talking about me. You’ll search my posts in vain for an assertion that “pioneering modern Oneness Pentecostal leadership was lockstep” with Westberg. One more time: If we go by the words of the FD without regard for intent, the WORDS affirm Acts 2:38 is mandatory. If we go by intent, then you must accept the intent of 1992.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Daniel, gotta scoot for now. My family beckons! Thanks for the lively discussion. Talk later! 🙂
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Scalia, ammunition stockpiles remain all-time highs … 🙂
What has been undercut thus far is your original assertion that somehow the AS clarified the New Birth when all it did was re-affirm the Fundamentel Doctrine of the UPCI while using ad-hominem attacks on those Westberg disagreed.
Scalia, originally, contended: ““Conservatives” used the political process to clarify the UPC’s soteriological stance and they were successful. Many ministers who weren’t even alive at the merger agreed such an arrangement was absurd and jointed the majority in affirming the new birth as defined by Acts 2:38.”
This position has now been twisted and contorted to mean that full salvation must somehow mean the New Birth while seeking for textual analysis of the this term to demonstrate the weakness of the PCI position in this political game despite nothing in the affirmation statement explicitly defining or clarifing full salation …
So now the trail forks to disregarding the documented intent of the framers …. as shown by your disregard to the wealth of anecdotal evidence and primary documents that demonstrate the intent of the framers of the Fundamental Doctrine ….
you would rather now remain fixated on what you perceive strict contructionism of “full salvation” in the FD to be linked to what the Word says in Acts 2:38 as the “smoking gun” that would legitimize the Westberg Resolution and the attempts to disfellowship those with the “minority” view:
So lets analyze the text ….
A. With the Fundamental Doctrine stating full salvation being:
repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance
and
B. Acts 2:38 reading: 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)
The obvious question to most evangelical Christians would be is if statement one is in full alignment with statement B … and the intentions of the apostles as expressed in their didactic writings on salvation… but of course we must assume our audience are Oneness Pentecostal .. don’t we?
Your analogy to legislators reminds of the function of our judicial branch who even among strict constructionists … appeals to the works of the framers, such as the Federalist Papers of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay to decide on intent and spirit of our constitution and other precedents when technical issues arise that can swing in many directions because of language.
So … let’s disregard what the framers of the UPCI intended … as evident by the record and testimony of men of God on all sides of spectrum like Guidroz, Kilgore, Greer, Yadon et al.
And so let’s examine your new found rabbit trail and vein of “textual analysis” of the AOF to prove the soteriological views of the framers.
I think the literature and “consistent” view is that both repentance and water baptism relate to remission of sins in the text of Acts 2:38, but a TEXTUAL ANALYSIS of the Fundamental Doctrine of the U.PC.I. does not necessarily endorse this idea.
As Segraves pointed out in 1990, “The Fundamental Doctrine reads, “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:’
The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction “and” but. are instead separated by a comma.” (Segraves)
When a minister affirms, bi-annually, this first clause of the FD does this mean as Segraves points out that the these men believe that only water baptism effectuates aphesis/remission/forgiveness?
And who would an arbiter who is seeking to keep this strict constructionist posture reconcile this with another Article of Faith, namely the Repentance Article, that strictly states that “Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins” …..
while the Water Baptism article that would seeeindicate that baptism is to be performed in His name for believer who have already obtained forgiveness when it states:
“The scriptural mode of baptism is immersion, and is only for those who have fully repented, having turned from their sins and a love of the world.”
And so if we keep to your new ground rules to understanding and legitimizing Westberg of keeping to textual analysis as grounds for proving or disproving a soteriological view:
Which one of the schizophrenic and contradictory soteriological statements from the AOF do you want to go with, Scalia?
The hodgepodge of views expressed in the AOF, zero statements on the New Birth, with predominantly PCI statements prevailing this only seems to accentuate that there is no prevailing concrete soteriological positions other than saved folks necessarily repent, are water baptized, and baptized with Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues but by no means states with certainty when we are saved, forgiven, regenerated, justified or any other soteriological issue but by no means indicates these are done TO BE SAVED.
In the Caribbean, we call this “sancocho” or “stew”.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm
* Jason, please delete post 33*
Scalia, ammunition stockpiles remain at all-time highs …
What has been undercut, imo, thus far is your original assertion that somehow the AS clarified the New Birth when all it did was re-affirm the Fundamental Doctrine of the UPCI while replete in it’s pre-amble iwth ad-hominem attacks against those Westberg disagreed with
Scalia, originally, contended: ““Conservatives” used the political process to clarify the UPC’s soteriological stance and they were successful. Many ministers who weren’t even alive at the merger agreed such an arrangement was absurd and jointed the majority in affirming the new birth as defined by Acts 2:38.”
This position has now been twisted and contorted to mean that full salvation must somehow mean the New Birth while seeking for textual analysis of the this term to demonstrate the weakness of the PCI position in this political game despite nothing in the affirmation statement explicitly defining or clarifing full salvation …
So … now the trail forks to disregarding the documented intent of the framers … as shown by your disregard to the wealth of anecdotal evidence and primary documents that demonstrate the intent of the framers of the Fundamental Doctrine
you would rather now remain fixated on what you perceive strict contructionism of “full salvation” in the FD to be linked to what the Word says in Acts 2:38 as the “smoking gun” that would legitimize the Westberg Resolution and the attempts to disfellowship those with the “minority” view:
So lets analyze the text ….
A. With the Fundamental Doctrine stating full salvation being:
repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance
and
B. Acts 2:38 reading: 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)
The obvious question to most evangelical Christians would be is if statement one is in full alignment with statement B … and the intentions of the apostles as expressed in their didactic writings on salvation… but of course we must assume our audience are Oneness Pentecostal .. don’t we?
Your analogy to legislators reminds of the function of our judicial branch who even among strict constructionists … appeals to the works of the framers, such as the Federalist Papers of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay to decide on intent and spirit of our constitution and other precedents when technical issues arise that can swing in many directions because of language.
So … let’s disregard what the framers of the UPCI intended … as evident by the record and testimony of men of God on all sides of spectrum like Guidroz, Kilgore, Greer, Yadon et al.
And so let’s examine your new found rabbit trail and vein of “textual analysis” of the AOF to prove the soteriological views of the framers.
I think the literature and “consistent” view is that both repentance and water baptism relate to remission of sins in the text of Acts 2:38, but a TEXTUAL ANALYSIS of the Fundamental Doctrine of the U.PC.I. does not necessarily endorse this idea.
As Segraves pointed out in 1990, “The Fundamental Doctrine reads, “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:’
The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction “and” but. are instead separated by a comma.” (Segraves)
When a minister affirms, bi-annually, this first clause of the FD does this mean as Segraves points out that the these men believe that only water baptism effectuates aphesis/remission/forgiveness?
And who would an arbiter who is seeking to keep this strict constructionist posture reconcile this with another Article of Faith, namely the Repentance Article, that strictly states that “Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins” …..
while the Water Baptism article that would seeeindicate that baptism is to be performed in His name for believer who have already obtained forgiveness when it states:
“The scriptural mode of baptism is immersion, and is only for those who have fully repented, having turned from their sins and a love of the world.”
And so if we keep to your new ground rules to understanding and legitimizing Westberg of keeping to textual analysis as grounds for proving or disproving a soteriological view:
Which one of the schizophrenic and contradictory soteriological statements from the AOF do you want to go with, Scalia?
The hodgepodge of views expressed in the AOF, zero statements on the New Birth, with predominantly PCI statements prevailing this only seems to accentuate that there is no prevailing concrete soteriological positions other than saved folks necessarily repent, are water baptized, and baptized with Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues but by no means states with certainty when we are saved, forgiven, regenerated, justified or any other soteriological issue but by no means indicates these are done TO BE SAVED.
In the Caribbean, we call this “sancocho” or “stew”.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Your appellation to intent and motives here are indeed curious and rely on us taking your “word for it”:
Scalia said: “There were UPC ministers who no longer believed Jesus’ name baptism was legitimate? UPC ministers no longer believed in speaking in tongues? Knowing Brother Westberg and many of those supporting the resolution, that is not at all what was meant. It specifically refers to ministers who did not make it mandatory.”
While many of his saved and sanctified contemporaries who lived through this pogrom – 🙂 – testify to the contrary .. but you would have to read the book.
But of course there is the “full salvation” gotcha … that you propose which offsets everything.
Inconsistency, thou art a jewel!
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Daniel, since you’ve asked Jason to delete Post 33, I’ll ignore it and move to Post 34.
No twisting at all here. I stand by my “clarification” comments. The preamble makes clear ministers holding credentials did not believe the FD and the AS is designed to “clarify” it will not be tolerated.
You have stated unambiguously you do not believe in partial salvation. Consequently, the text, AS WRITTEN mandates obedience to Acts 2:38.
You argue the “framers” intended the word “full” to allow for differences of soteriological opinion, and that the “not contend” follow-up was designed to preserve the latitude of the preceding paragraph.
You then argue the AS merely restates the AOF and that nothing with respect to salvation changed.
I countered your argument fails on both counts. If we follow your first line of reasoning (intent), then your contention nothing changed fails because consistency dictates intent equally modifies the 1992 resolution.
Setting aside intent (your other argument — words mean something), the FD always stated full salvation (remember, you don’t believe in partial salvation) is obedience to Acts 2:38. Either way your conclusion (FD grants latitude) does not follow.
I disregarded nothing. If your argument is intent, then stick with it and quit appealing to “words mean something.”
I accept the fact there was an “understanding” (that is not justified by the text) of soteriological latitude. I have stated the PCI brethren were as political as their PAJC counterparts. The differences are substantial and you even agree you find it difficult to understand how they thought they could make it work. And as I said, it was easy to see the differences were on a collision course.
I heard Bro. Westberg and his allies time and again at fellowship meetings and conferences read from the manual that, as written mandated Acts 2:38. They clearly wanted to force ministers to sign statements stating they believed in, embraced and preached that, or be guilty of lying.
Again, who were those “departing from the faith”? Were UPC preachers preaching a three-person godhead? Were they sprinkling their converts in the titles? If they were, this is the first I’ve heard of that. No, they targeted Jesus’ name preachers who did not believe it its essentiality.
So no, my argument hasn’t changed. I’m merely reacting to your argument.
Again (and again), I’m not trying to “prove” the views of the framers. How many times do I have to repeat that? If you want to rebut my argument, go ahead, but at least get it right.
I don’t think anybody is obligated to take my word for anything. I knew Bro. Westberg and know his allies. I was present when they preached about this issue and in many conversations leading up the the GC when the AS was passed. Believe what you want to; I am merely stating what I have seen and heard.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Your argument falls flat when you are unable to show any mention of Acts 2:38 in the Fundamental Doctrine … nor is it cited … nor does the language of the FD fully align as written with the “majority” view as demonstrated by Segrave. It is by it’s very nature … either poorly worded, ambiguous or intentionally vague.
What we do know Scalia, is that various interpretations even among Oneness believers persisted and remain as to it’s interpretation and the interpretation of Acts 2:38
… if the intent of Westberg resolution was to ensure in your words: “as written mandated Acts 2:38. They clearly wanted to force ministers to sign statements stating they believed in, embraced and preached that, or be guilty of lying.”
Then all of Christianity has their take on how this looks when Acts 2:38 obeyed but will not quibble with any of us that it must be obeyed.
If it was simply to assure compliance to various benchmarks or a standard that this group believes … the FD states “biblical STANDARD of full salvation” is displayed and obeyed by believers whether the believer believes it is to be saved or because they are saved … many of his peers interpreted the resolution language and intent of the resolution writer to be “redundant”, “accusatory”, “unloving” (see Kilgore) and/or “contentious” because of the expressed intent in the preamble.
So, as not to confuse the reader, I stand by statement that words mean things when speaking about the difference between the words “clarify” and “affirm”.
The Westberg resolution clarifies the intent of the writer, Westberg, as to what he perceived as the reasons for such a resolution … while the minister is simply compelled to re-AFFIRM only 2 of the existing Articles of Faith … bi-annually.
As for the effectiveness of his pogrom, in 2010, I am glad to report there are growing numbers of young ministers within the UPCI who believe in Acts 2:38, believe in the benchmarks set forth in the FD, and believe we are saved at repentance … while in no way … contradicting the Articles of Faith or breaching the Fundamental doctrine.
I wonder if your textual analysis litmus test also applies to Jesus’ conversation about our New Birth in John 3 when no mention of water baptism or tongues is remotely expressed or when teaching your view of Acts 2:38 … or do you appeal to authorial and apostolic intent citing other sources and passages?
Or why you cannot demonstrate any textual evidence within the FD, or the Articles of Faith to support a prevailing view on what is meant by “full salvation” or “when we are saved”, “the New Birth” and much less support why most preachers sign an Fundamental Doctrine that does not align with when our sins are forgiven in view of Acts 2:38
… Keeping in mind that in sound hermeneutic, scripture interprets scripture … and how precedent, related evidence, and existing law helps interpret law and ultimately, intent.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Also, your focus and emphasis in micro-analyzing on the first clause of the FD while ignoring it in context of the second clause regarding unity and divergence of views is ample evidence, to a casual observer, that you fail to see the big picture.
I enjoyed hearing your view … I have heard this before from the likes of Ensey and Wofford. Thankfully, the interpretation as to what went down in 1992 is a “minority” in the grand scheme of things within the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 7:30 pm
The only verse in the Bible that comes remotely close to the FD is Acts 2:38. Of course the FD does not merely quote that verse. It says, as we all know, “The Bible standard of full salvation…” When I say it mandated Acts 2:38, I am referring to its interpretation as set forth in the FD.
The basic and fundamental doctrine of the UPC is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is:
a) Repentance.
b) Water baptism in Jesus’ name (for the remission of sins).
c) Baptism of the Holy Ghost initially evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Textually speaking, all three constitute “full salvation.” And if there isn’t such a thing as partial salvation, then the only textually faithful interpretation is that these three things are necessary for salvation.
Of course, but disagreement, in this context, must be textually justified. Merely saying, “I disagree” doesn’t change the meaning of the text.
Yes. If Acts 2:38 is merely quoted word-for-word, I doubt any Christian group will quibble about it. That said, I doubt the FD would stand a chance at the Southern Baptist Convention, or the AG, for that matter.
And I acknowledged that disagreement and showed why I disagree — respectfully.
And the preamble made clear to the entire voting constituency why it was brought to the floor. If they didn’t bother to read it or understand why it was being presented, that’s their fault.
And all this fuss is merely about ONE MAN’S MOTIVES? Again I ask why anybody left and why in the world would Fudge or anybody else invest all that time to write a book about one man’s motives? You reply the ministers that left could see they were not welcome. If that is the case, then you cannot blame it all on Bro. Westberg. If Bro. Westberg’s faction is a “minority” one, then again there was no reason for anybody to leave.
If most of the brethren passing the ’92 resolution were merely doing spiritual push-ups for no reason, and if the majority of them were merely reaffirming the ’45 merger, then again I ask, what is all the fuss about?? What it boils down to is a now-deceased minister and former district superintendent had a little hissy-fit and people let him have his way just to humor him, so that he could say he got the organization to reaffirm something they really weren’t; they really affirmed the opposite — everybody was free to disagree about salvation.
Sorry, Daniel, but that doesn’t make sense. If that is the case, we can all just chuckle that somebody pulled the wool over Bro. Westberg’s eyes and move on.
If John 3 is our only statement of faith, yes (although I disagree with your insistence He wasn’t referring to water baptism); but John 3:3-5 isn’t our only statement of faith.
I’ve already done that.
Thanks for the reminder, although it wasn’t necessary. A statement of faith doesn’t require a full-blown Bible study. The FD says what it says. Three steps are required for full salvation. You either believe in, embrace and teach that, or you don’t.
Your only justification for signing the AS is that the intention of the framers allowed latitude and the ’92 convention’s intent was to reaffirm the ’45 merger agreement. You deny the majority that passed the ’92 resolution intended to force out “one-steppers”; thus the Westberg faction had to be a minority and its intention has no bearing on the resolution itself.
As stated above, that makes little sense and the person you should really critique is Fudge for wasting his time writing an irrelevant book.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 7:37 pm
The last sentence of Post 39 should read:
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Daniel wrote,
If you’ve read every one of my posts, I didn’t ignore the “not contending” statement. I stated I was saved in a UPC church and we interpreted the FD as written. We thus concluded the “not contending” statement referred to differences of prophecy, local standards, etc. We never dreamed Apostolic folks didn’t believe Jesus’ name baptism wasn’t essential for salvation. I only found that out later.
For the umpteenth time, the FD, as written, makes no allowance for latitude with respect to salvation. That interpretation can only be justified by demonstrating the intent of the framers. I came to understand the unwritten agreement the longer I was associated with the fellowship.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Here is where you are stuck, Scalia:
The only verse in the Bible that comes remotely close to the FD is Acts 2:38. Of course the FD does not merely quote that verse. It says, as we all know, “The Bible standard of full salvation…” When I say it mandated Acts 2:38, I am referring to its interpretation as set forth in the FD.
The basic and fundamental doctrine of the UPC is the Bible standard of full salvation, which is:
a) Repentance.
b) Water baptism in Jesus’ name (for the remission of sins).
c) Baptism of the Holy Ghost initially evidenced by speaking in tongues.
Textually speaking, all three constitute “full salvation.” And if there isn’t such a thing as partial salvation, then the only textually faithful interpretation is that these three things are necessary for salvation.
1. I absolutely agree that the FD tries to encapsulate the biblical standard/benchmarks of Acts 2:38 as understood by Oneness Pentecostals in the PCI or PAJC but it in no shape or fashion does not set forth an interpretation of when or how we are saved … no amount of verbal, linguistic or theological gymnastics can force this into the text of the FD.
There is more than sufficient data to support that this statement was intentionally ambigous.
Simply put it is a the “biblical standard of full salvation” and not an interpetation of Acts 2:38 or the New Birth.
2. For the umteenth time, everything about the AOF allows for latitude with respect to the how and when of salvation and the schizophrenic nature of its wordings in the FD, the unity clause and Articles of Repentance and Water Baptism in its entirely mirror the divergence and latitude with respect to salvation and soteriological issues. Also, the lack of language on our regeneration, New Birth, and our justification either show ambivelence to these core soteriological subjects or authorial intent.
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
BTW, obviously Westberg had supportors for his resolution otherwise it would not have passed … however, there is also the issue of questionable parliamentary procedure and Kilgore’s mistatement that 99% of the General Board supported the measure …
Something he regrets and thankfully I see his son correcting in his own theological choices.
The rest is history … and the fruit of this resolution and the schisms it has produce bear testimony of its spirit. 🙂
LikeLike
February 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Daniel writes,
Gymnastics? Take the FD to a logician or grammarian and ask h/er to interpret it. The one qualification you give h/er is what both you and I affirm: there is no such thing as partial salvation. The direct, literal, straightforward interpretation of the FD is that three steps are required for salvation. It requires absolutely no twisting or turning whatsoever.
Against this you might legitimately object that such an exercise isn’t fair. The logician/grammarian is ignorant of the negotiations, debates and discussions leading up to the merger. Knowledge of those things is essential when interpreting the FD. In one sense, I agree; but that doesn’t minimize the fact the FD, on its face, when interpreted directly and literally, mandates three steps in salvation.
Alternate interpretations can only be sustained by studying the intent behind the words (which is partly what we’ve been discussing). And I’ve known long before Jason’s blog what the unwritten merger agreement was. If we had no knowledge whatsoever of the intent behind the words, then this alternate interpretation would be invalid, for it would be inconsistent with the definitions of the actual words of the FD.
And all this brings me back to my reply to your arguments. If intent carries the day in ’45, then it carries the day in ’92. If intent is precluded, then the FD, as written, precludes single-step salvation. Finally, if the majority which passed the ’92 resolution DID NOT intend to eliminate PCIers, then Fudge wasted his time writing his book, and we’ve wasted our day arguing this. 😉
In any event, I think our discussion has run its course. You’ve had your say and I’ve had mine. Of course, if you have more to add, I’ll be happy to hear you out.
Thanks again for the lively discussion.
Best wishes (really),
Scalia
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 10:04 am
You two sound like a couple of lawyers! 😉
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Great discussion guys, even if I do not know the full history of the merger. Myself and some brothers had the opportunity to sit with Bro. J. Kilgore and listen to him speak about the wonderful experience of witnessing the merger. I’m not UPC but I affirm much of what they stand for.
If I may join in. First i have a simple question. What is the “light doctrine”? Next, why would the two groups merge in the first place if not for unifying around the revelation of Jesus name baptism, the oneness of God, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Daniel Alicea you said:
It doesn’t matter what data you present to prove ambiguity. The mere fact they wrote the FD is proof against your data. Why would they come out of the AG or any other doctrine in order to stay ambiguous?
Then you said,
When I read the AOF for the first time I came away with one understanding. I didn’t know the founders or anyone else. That is the point of the AOF, regardless of the knowledge one may have of the founding fathers one can still affirm or withdraw. Either way to use Scalia’s logic, you will not get the AOF approved in the AG, COGIC, COF, SBC, or many of mainstream denoms. The reason it would not fly is simple, it affirms Acts 2:38’s three step response to the Gospel.
Also the UPCI is an organization of preachers, a fellowship. The local church is autonomous, unless the local church decides not to be. In any fellowship latitude is required. The schizophrenia you read is not with the statements regarding salvation but your understanding of other issues.
I’m going to continue beating the dead horse, there is no half salvation. Neither is there half brothers in the Lord. It is an either or proposition. Since none of us are God, when someone is saved will be determined on judgment day. For now we only have God’s word and the proper response to the Gospel is, as was laid out in the AOF, Acts 2:38.
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Thank-you CS. I was getting dizzy.
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Praise the Lord, Bro. CS!
To encapsulate, the light doctrine is the teaching that a person is saved according to the light s/he sees. It is salvation based upon what what knows.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Praise the Lord Bro. Scalia!
Thank you for the definition of the light doctrine. I was sitting hear trying to figure it out and don’t bother googling it… 🙂
tiny just don’t get sick!
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm
See what happens when I take a weekend and Monday off! Boy, there’s a lot of comments on this issue, particularly between Daniel and Scalia. I’ll just respond to a few things.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Scalia,
Response to #7
I can see how you would have gotten that impression about my talk of politics.
You wrote, “If this is an accurate description of Fudge’s argument, then it is only half correct. While it is true PAJC ministers made a conscious decision to push their new birth beliefs, they were also reacting to public statements made at fellowship meetings and conferences by PCI ministers about the salvation of their trinitarian brothers and other matters of theology which directly questioned the necessity of water and Spirit baptism.” Ok. Was this really a revelation to the PAJC guys? It’s not like the PCI guys were hiding this beforehand. After all, if you believe that salvation comes at faith, then it stands to reason that many outside the Oneness fold are saved.
I don’t doubt that there was pushing on both sides with words, but the political push to get rid of one view seems to have come from the PAJC side.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Scalia,
Response to #8
Your response to my quote doesn’t deal with my quote. Ensey claimed that Fudge claims the PAJC position is somehow a violation of the merger. I’m saying that cannot be, because Fudge describes this as being the predominant position in the merger. What Fudge sees as a violation of the merger agreement was some of the PAJC’s later intolerance of the PCI position, and seeking to exclude it from the UPC through political action and political offices. Why? Because the merger depended on the PAJC’s toleration for the PCI’s difference of perspective on salvation.
BTW, I thought you were UPC. What organization are you part of?
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Arthur,
That might be a valid concern for people who hold to apostolic succession, but not for us. What makes any organization “the” or part of “the true church” is that its teachings go back to the apostles, not its leaders.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Steve Hoover,
Yes, I agree the title is counter-productive. If Fudge had named it something different, I don’t think it would rouse as many emotions as it does.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Scalia,
Responding to #16
Remember, too, that the Articles of Faith have had some important revisions. In 1973 the fundamental doctrine was altered by adding “for the remission of sins” after baptism. This was opposed by the PCI guys. Some left. Those who remained simply interpreted “for” as “because of,” just like they do the Greek word in Acts 2:38.
The article in the Articles of Faith titled “Repentance and Conversion” was changed in 1994 to drop “and conversion” so as to eliminate the interpretation that one is converted at repentance.
As for the word “full” in “full salvation,” the PCI made a motion in 1945 prior to the merger to remove that word, but the motion was defeated by the ministers who believed salvation came at repentance. In their minds, saying “full salvation” meant one did not need to be baptized and receive the Spirit speaking in tongues to experience salvation. Sounds stupid to me and you, but that was their thinking. Fudge argues that if “full” had not been in there, there would have been no merger. The saved-at-repentance guys were comfortable with it.
Even now, there are statements in the Articles of Faith that seem friendly to the PCI position. Daniel spoke of these already. Of course, there are others that are friendly to the PAJC position.
I also found it interesting that the bulk of the original articles in the Articles of Faith relating to salvation reflected a PCI understanding. Of 73 separate, identical clauses, 55 come from the PCI and 5 come from the PAJC. 13 were new/other.
Jason
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm
JASON 51 & 52
Jason wrote,
Yeah! Here I am holding down the fort for you while you are away, engaging in noble combat against the one-steppers, and the first thing you do is jump all over me. Fine. See if I bring Twinkies to your birthday! 🙂
No, it wasn’t a revelation, but my greater point was when PAJC ministers likewise affirmed the exclusivity of their view of the new birth, they got their knuckles rapped. Well, it’s no surprise some would get tired of that after awhile.
I agree; but remember it took place after more than 40 years. As you and I have both observed, it comes as no surprise a collision would occur. The only surprise from my perspective is it took so long.
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 7:26 pm
JASON 53
That is not what Ensey said. Since we disagree on this point, let’s dissect Ensey’s comments:
ENSEY — This book by Thomas Fudge posits that United Pentecostals have erred in embracing essential doctrines beyond faith and repentance.
Ensey is speaking of the UPC post 1992, not 1945. If Fudge’s theological comments and/or historical analysis condemn the ’92 resolution, then Ensey is correct.
ENSEY — Our insistence that baptism in the name of Jesus is involved in remission of sins, or that the Holy Ghost infilling is the birth of the Spirit, is a violation of the 1945 merger agreement between the PCI and the PAJC, according to Fudge.
The collective pronoun “our” refers to the UPC, not PAJC, as the context demonstrates. Since it is clear, according to your summation, Fudge laments the scrapping of the merger agreement via the AS, that is what Ensey is responding to.
LikeLike
February 16, 2010 at 7:30 pm
JASON 56
I don’t disagree with your summation of the historical record. My dialog with Daniel was over whether any clarification occurred in 1992 and what the FD, as written, without regard for intent, really says. And if intent construes ’45, it construes ’92.
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 11:03 am
Scalia, Daniel, et al,
I have been thinking further on this matter, and had several thoughts I wanted to share.
First of all, I would consider myself to be in the PAJC camp of the merger. I am in general agreement with their soteriology. And yet, I did not read Fudge’s historical account, nor even his personal/theological remarks that expressed disagreement with or a perceived negativity toward the PAJC, as being unduly biased or critical. His account and comments are what I would expect from a man whose own theological convictions differ from the PAJC, and wanted to balance the historical record of the doctrine of salvation in the UPC (having a purpose for writing on a particular historical subject does not mean one cannot be objective or fair in their reporting, as virtually all historians have a specific—and many times personal—purpose for writing on the subject they do). And I think he did a good job of it. Was he lopsided in his presentation? Probably to some degree, but he did us a service by recounting at least part of our history—a part that others haven’t fully realized and/or told.
I did not find myself feeling like I—a person who generally identifies with the PAJC view of salvation—was being attacked by Fudge. I think those like Ensey and Norris are in a slightly different position than me, however, as they know the individuals involved. I don’t. Norris’s own grandfather was discussed in the book, and not in a positive light. So they are much more likely to be defensive over what was said than I was. But that defensiveness, I think, is derived more from the fact that their friends were being discussed than from what was actually said about their beliefs (except for Fudge’s comments about the PAJC position being a Christianity without the cross, which I already expressed my own disagreement with).
Secondly, as it pertains to the idea of an organization changing over time and the need to clarify its beliefs, what changed, and what needed to be clarified? People’s beliefs did not change. The PAJC and the PCI were both well aware of their soteriological differences going into the “marriage.” There was clarity on what each organization believed. That’s part of the reason why it took so long for the merger to happen (1945 wasn’t the first attempt). They both believed that one should be baptized in Jesus’ name and filled with the Spirit—but they disagreed on the salvific value of such. They merged because of their common practices, despite their different understandings of the same.
The only thing that changed was the agreement to fellowship the differences rather than contend for them. Tolerance within the organization for the differences is what changed. And it wasn’t the PCI guys who were trying to change the Articles of Faith in order to exclude the PAJC perspective from the organization. Granted, if the PCI folks had been in the majority, they may have done so. After all, we are much more likely to be “tolerant” when our view is in the minority than when our view is in the majority. But it wasn’t the PCI guys who did so. It was the PAJC guys.
Thirdly, I think there is something to be said for the supremacy of a founding document. Just like the government of our nation is guided by our founding document—the Constitution—so the UPC should be governed by its founding document: the Articles of Faith. Just like legal scholars use both the words and intent of the framers to decide legal issues today, so too we need to use both the words and intent of the framers of the Articles of Faith to guide the organization today (when you ignore intent, as our Supreme Court often does today, it steers the nation off course). And the record is clear that the Articles of Faith were written in such a way to accommodate two different views of salvation so that the two organizations could successfully merge into one. I’m not saying the document cannot be changed, but it cannot be changed in such a way so as to exclude a view that it was originally intended to include. This would be like changing the Constitution to eliminate the judicial branch simply because we no longer like how they operate.
TBC…
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 11:03 am
Continued…
Fourthly, while I think the merger was ill-conceived, I also think it was wrong to say, “Come on over and join us. Yes, we know you have a different understanding of salvation than we do, but we have enough in common that we should join forces to aid our efforts to evangelize the world,” and then turn around a few decades later and say, “Thanks for coming, but on second thought, this isn’t going to work. See ya!” Some ministers lost everything as a result. That was not fair to them. It would be like two organizations with differing eschatological views deciding to join forces on the grounds that both sides will not contend for their own eschatological viewpoint, but then 30 years later one of those organizations decides it will no longer tolerate the other’s position, and boots them out because they have the numbers to do so. This group decided to take part in forming the organization on the grounds that their differing views would be tolerated. It’s one thing to make a decision to stand against a particular doctrine that crept into an organization over time, but it’s another thing to take a stand against a doctrine that was known at the time of the organization’s founding, and was promised toleration. If you promise to not make X a matter of fellowship, and then later make X a matter of fellowship, you have broken your promise. It would be one thing if the PCI ministers were no longer baptizing in Jesus’ name or preaching the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but that was not the case (by-in-large). The PAJC guys wanted them excluded, not because they did not practice the same things as the PAJC, but because they did not understand those practices to have the same significance as the PAJC guys. But this was true at the time of the merger as well. The only thing the decisions of 1973 and 1992 clarified was that the PAJC was no longer going to honor the spirit of the merger, and/or the precise wording of the Articles of Faith that made the merger possible. Can I understand their reasons for doing so? Sure, but the fact of the matter still remains that they violated the trust of the merger.
Fifthly, much has been said about certain wording in the Articles of Faith requiring certain meanings. I don’t think this is true. The wording of the Articles of Faith was a very important matter because both sides knew the language had to be something both could agree on. Finding language that will satisfy two different groups with two different theological perspectives can be tricky business. I’m sure that neither side was in love with the final document, but both could interpret it in a way that was consistent with their views, and so they accepted it. In fact, if you read the Articles of Faith, it is quite ambiguous in several places, for this very reason (to allow latitude for differing beliefs). Even Bernard admits as much in his little booklet on how to understand the Articles of Faith.
While this is not a perfect example, there is a clause in the Articles of Faith regarding baptism to the effect that baptism “should be” administered by a minister. I don’t like the presence of that phrase because I don’t see any need for a minister to baptize. But that wouldn’t stop me from subscribing to the Articles of Faith. I would sign it on the basis that it doesn’t say a minister “must” be the one to baptize. So long as it does not prohibit non-ministers from baptizing, I can get along with it, even though I would prefer that it be excluded completely from the Articles of Faith. I would bet the same was true of the founding fathers of this organization. If all had held to one soteriological perspective, I’m sure the document would have been written differently. But both sides made concessions on wording in order to make the merger happen, and resolved to interpret the document in their own way. The PCI guys felt that the presence of “full” left room for their position, as did the article “repentance and conversion.” Both groups were probably happy to be unhappy about it, and so merged.
Jason
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Scalia,
Regarding #58. You are probably right that Ensey is talking about the post-1992 UPC, but that doesn’t affect what I said. And yes, I understood Ensey to mean the entire UPC by “our.”
If Ensey means to say Fudge is claiming the present-day UPC’s insistence on the salvific nature of Acts 2:38 is a violation of the 1945 merger agreement, this simply is not, and cannot be true. Fudge is well aware that this position was the predominant position at the merger. If it was the predominant position at the merger, how could it violate the merger?
The only way I can see for Ensey’s statement to accurately reflect Fudge’s work is if Ensey meant to emphasize “insistence.” If by “insistence” he means “exclusivity,” then I would agree with his statement. Indeed, Fudge would say that the present-day UPC’s insistence that one must understand the three steps of Acts 2:38 as all necessary for salvation is a violation of the merger agreement (although, not all would agree that the UPC insists on this, as PCI guys are still among us, and are able to interpret the Articles of Faith in a manner consistent with their view). In fact, now that I have read Ensey’s statement 50,000 times, I think this was Ensey’s point. If so, then I would retract my statement about it being factually incorrect. I wish he would have been clearer.
Jason
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hey, Jason!
Although I disagree with some of your conclusions, I respect them.
Although we’ve been using PCI and PAJC as convenient tags for those holding particular soteriological beliefs, I think we all understand the vast majority of the ministers involved with the ’92 resolution were never members of either group. This isn’t a strict case of a group of men deciding to merge with another group and later deciding to expel the other group. What we have are ideological descendants of the founders, finding the “arrangement” intolerable, seeking to back away from it.
It will be news to me to learn new applicants were explicitly and consistently informed of the agreement to accept into full fellowship “one-steppers.” You yourself bear witness you were not aware of such an arrangement. While some PCI-controlled districts may have been explicit with applicants in that regard, others were not — especially if they were PAJC-led. We thus wound up with a host of ministers having no clue what the “spirit of the merger” was — until they got body-slammed for preaching their soteriological views. One minister asked his mentor, “All I know is the Spirit of truth. What is this other spirit called the spirit of the merger?” Agreement notwithstanding, this was a train wreck bound to occur.
I can also see your point that an agreement is an agreement, regardless who initiated it. If I join an organization and it is explained to me what the requirements are, I should abide by them if I agree to do so. And I also appreciate the fact you state you can see why the PAJC did what it did. It boiled down to a choice: Truth or man-made agreements? They used the political process to produce a resolution, the conference passed it, and the rest is history.
Jason wrote,
In all candor, I’m scratching my head over this one. I’ve stated over and over I believe the intent of the founders was to grant soteriological latitude. Let me say again, there is no question about that. Daniel argues the AS merely restates the AOF and, thus, there wasn’t a substantial change from ’45 to ’92. I countered that if he wants us to accept intent for ’45, then he should accept intent for ’92.
My other argument is the text itself — sans intent. All I have stated is the FD, as written, precludes one-step salvation. I am almost to the point of exasperation over why this cannot be seen. Let’s change the FD to the following:
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is faith in Christ.
Does this statement require water baptism? Is the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues here? Of course not. The ONLY requirement for “full salvation” is faith in Christ.
The FD, without regard for intent, which is all you & Daniel do when discussing it, precludes one-step belief. There is no other way to interpret the FD — unless you argue intent.
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Some write disclaimers on their AS. I personally know a minister who did this several times (without reprimand) until he finally left the UPC for other reasons.
As my dialog with Daniel illustrates, some of their rationale is that there was no textual change from ’45 to ’92 (except the ’73 addition of remission of sins. They thus see the AS as a restatement of the merger agreement — allowing them to conscientiously sign it.
I counter such a move is illegitimate because if we embrace past intent, we must embrace recent intent too.
LikeLike
February 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Jason,
Would you say they wrote such a document to have something to rally around until their understanding solidified? If we are to judge their intentions with their words we must dive into the culture that shaped those intentions. They were in hot water everywhere they turned or am I misunderstanding history? I believe they all loved the revelation of Jesus name, One God, and the baptism of the Spirit enough to come together.
You refer to ambiguity. Your example was “should be” a minister is noted and is a good example on none significant issues. Is there an example about significant issues?
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Scalia,
Yes, the vast majority of ministers were not present at the merger. But they should have been aware of the agreement and history. If the foundation of an organization depended on the tolerance of a specific viewpoint, later generations should not change that. If later ministers did not want to honor the “charter” of their organization, they were free to leave it and start their own organization in which only one soteriological viewpoint is allowed. But they are not free to redefine the basis on which the organization was formed. It’s like changing the rules mid-way through the game.
Clearly the text of the Articles of Faith cannot be viewed as excluding the PCI view. If it had, the PCI never would have subscribed to it! Granted, certain parts read more naturally in a PAJC manner, but the PCI view is definitely allowed. Indeed, as it was originally written, it favored more of a PCI position. Even parts of it still do.
Some of the peculiarities with the Articles of Faith that I think were purposely written to accommodate both the PCI and the PAJC are as follows:
1. Originally, the repentance article read “repentance and conversion.” This allowed the PCI guys to point to a place where conversion is equated with repentance.
2. The original fundamental doctrine did not include “for the forgiveness of sins” because the PCI guys did not believe that’s what it did (if “for” is understood to mean “for the purpose of”). It was only added later, and when it was, the PCI guys threw a stink over it and some left. The PCI guys could agree that one should be baptized in Jesus’ name, but they could not agree that it affected salvation.
3. While the phrase “forgiveness of sins” is found in the repentance article, it is not found in the baptism article. This is very interesting since the PAJC guys place so much emphasis on baptism being for the forgiveness of sins. I cannot help but to conclude that forgiveness was only associated with the repentance article because the PCI guys would not have merged if it was connected to the baptism article. A PCI guy would have no problem affirming the two articles as written.
If the PCI guys were smart, they would have required a more explicit fundamental doctrine statement; a statement that specifically said we would not contend for our different soteriological views to the disunity of the body. Otherwise, they were relying on future generations to remember the history of the organization’s founding, and the reason behind the way the Articles of Faith was worded. That didn’t happen.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Scalia,
Response to #64
Actually, there were two textual changes: the one you mentioned, and the deletion of “and conversion” from “repentance and conversion.” Both changes were anti-PCI changes.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 3:41 pm
CS,
I don’t know. Maybe some thought they would eventually come to agreement on the matter. What they didn’t think is that agreement would be forced. They thought that when both parties agreed not to contend for their own views to the disunity of the body, that included the most hotly contested difference between them: how being baptized in water and the Spirit affected one’s spiritual status before God.
Yes, I can point to other areas of ambiguity and latitude. The ones I cited to Scalia are a case in point:
1. By attaching “and conversion” to the article on repentance, it would satisfy PCI guys, but not exclude a PAJC view of salvation.
2. “Forgiveness of sins” was not included in the fundamental doctrine so as to allow for those who baptized in Jesus’ name in order to be saved, and those who baptized in Jesus’ name because one was already saved.
3. The phrase “forgiveness of sins” was only placed in the repentance article because that was the only step that both parties agreed affected forgiveness.
4. The article on footwashing only says “it is well” to follow Jesus’ example. It does not command footwashing.
5. The article on holiness speaks in generalities, using words like “disapprove” rather than “forbid,” and “admonish” rather than “command.” It forbids “worldly sports” rather than a list of specific sports (leaving it up to the pastor to interpret what is wordly).
6. In the marriage and divorce article in “recommends” that divorced ministers not remarry.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Jason wrote,
Of course they are. Any member in good standing may, in accordance with the rules of an organization, may write a resolution and present it to the conference for consideration. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the bylaws of the UPC preventing such a resolution.
If such a resolution contradicts the bylaws of the UPC, then that is what Fudge, et al, should have written about. If not, then the minister(s) responsible for writing said resolution has every right as a member in good standing to ask the organization to clarify its soteriological posture.
Jason, please tell me where my argument is ambiguous here. I just don’t know how I can make myself clearer.
You say the text of the AOF includes the PCI view. How?? For the ten millionth time, you can only argue that from the intent of the founders. Haven’t I said that over and over?
Now, for statement 10,000,001: THERE IS NO QUESTION THE FOUNDERS OF THE UPC INTENDED THE AOF TO GRANT SOTERIOLOGICAL LATITUDE.
Since I’ve said this several times, please tell me how my statements have been ambiguous and how I can make myself clearer. If you’d like, I can reproduce every statement I’ve made in that regard under this thread, but I hope that won’t be necessary.
Now, let’s hope we don’t have to revisit whether the founders intended to include the PCI view of salvation.
Getting beyond that, if we DISREGARD intent, the FD, can in no way, shape or form be interpreted to include the PCI view. If you disagree, please show by dissecting the sentence how such an interpretation is possible. You are still arguing intent. Put intent aside and analyze the sentence AS WRITTEN. As written, the PCI view is excluded.
The fact they added for the remission of sins in 1973 and excised and conversion from “repentance” does not change the substance of the FD which says full salvation consists of repentance, baptism in Jesus’ name, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues.
For example, the word convert, as a verb, means to change into a different form, to adopt a different religion or opinion or to divert from the original or intended use. Regardless of soteriological posture, one must be converted in order to repent. Its appearance in the original articles may have satisfied most PCI ministers, but it does nothing to change the meaning of “full salvation” as defined by the full FD.
Finally, if we go with intent at the merger, we must, if we want to be consistent, go with intent in 1992. The fact someone may not like the outcome in ’92 does not change the intent of the resolution.
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Scalia,
But that’s the thing, there was no single soteriological position of the UPC when it was formed. If someone wants the position clarified, the response (in light of the merger) should be, “We have two that are held among us: A,B.” Is that practical? No, but that’s the organization we created.
You are right to say that people are legally free to write a resolution, and people are free to vote on it how they want to. But if the understanding going into this marriage is that each side would tolerate the other’s soteriological understanding, it’s wrong to stop doing so at some later point. That’s like marrying a girl who has a child, only to divorce her later on the grounds that you don’t want to raise her child. You knew what you were signing up for in the beginning, and you agreed to do so. How can you just up and change your mind later? If we would view the husband in my analogy as a jerk, why would we view an organization any differently who violated the same kind of trust?
Again, I think the PCI guys were short-sighted and should have insisted that the fundamental doctrine specify exactly what would not be contended for.
You wrote, “You say the text of the AOF includes the PCI view. How?? For the ten millionth time, you can only argue that from the intent of the founders.”
I’m not arguing from the intent of the founders. I provided you with three areas from the text that support the PCI view. You think the fundamental doctrine section is a knock-down, clear affirmation of the PAJC position. It’s not, whether we are talking about its original form or post-1973 modified form. The presence of “full” in that statement satisfied the PCI guys that they were not being required to affirm a three-step salvation. When some within the PCI wished to remove it prior to agreeing to the merger, the PCI guys voted it down at their own conference. They saw it as essential to the merger. You and I think that the presence of that word is weak and silly, but apparently they didn’t.
Remember, the PCI view was Acts 2:38, just like the PAJC view. Where they differed was in their understanding of what Acts 2:38 did for a person. The PCI guys didn’t think that baptism of the water and Spirit resulted in salvation, but rather were the result of salvation. So both could affirm statements about obeying Acts 2:38. So one can’t point to the mere presence of the three steps in the Articles of Faith as evidence of the PAJC view. I can, and did support my contention that the PCI view was represented by pointing out the presence and absence of key words in key sections. The original repentance article saw repentance as being for forgiveness, and resulting in conversion. Clearly this was not a PAJC-friendly way of wording it, which is why the PAJC later revised it to make it friendly to their position. The same thing is true of the baptism article. Do you think it’s any coincidence that the article makes no mention of baptism being for the forgiveness of sins, or being necessary for salvation? Furthermore, one I didn’t mention last time, the article on receiving the Spirit does not mention anything about it being necessary for salvation. The PAJC believed that baptism of the water and Spirit were both necessary for salvation. Why else would they not make the connection explicit in the articles that focus on these topics, if it were not to accommodate the PCI position? The only section in the Articles of Faith that can be said to be clearly favorable to the PAJC position is the fundamental doctrine. The articles dealing with repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit, however, reflect text-book PCI views. What you are doing is focusing only on the fundamental doctrine. You need to look at all the articles related to Acts 2:38 and salvation. Even then, the fundamental doctrine does not exclude the PCI view anymore than Acts 2:38 does. The PCI guys interpret “for” as meaning “because of” in both instances. So we don’t need to divine people’s intent to see that the Articles of Faith allows for the PCI position. It’s not as if the Articles of Faith were written to reflect the PAJC position, and a behind-the-scenes promise was just given to the PCI guys that they would not be required to subscribe to the wording of the Articles of Faith. Both sides believed the Articles of Faith reflected their views, even if not perfectly because concessions in wording needed to be made so that the document would be equally acceptable to both sides.
You wrote, “Now, let’s hope we don’t have to revisit whether the founders intended to include the PCI view of salvation.” I know you know this.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Jason, since you’ve compared the formation of the UPC to a marriage, let’s look at it from another angle. The rearing of a child is an honorable thing. I don’t believe any of us will look kindly upon a man who backs away from the arrangement you describe. But let’s say a man, let’s call him, oh I don’t know, “Jason Dulle” (just to pull one out of the air), falls in love with Hildegard “Two Tons” Hamhocker and believes he cannot live without her. Dear Hilda agrees to marry Jason on the condition their relationship will be “open.” That is, they may both “be” with whomever they choose. Jason loves Hilda so much, he agrees to Hilda’s stipulation. After a few years of this, Jason comes to believe what he agreed to wasn’t right and that this is something he doesn’t want to live with the rest of his life. Now, our views on divorce and remarriage notwithstanding, it isn’t difficult to see why Jason would come to regret his decision.
Preaching “another gospel” is a serious offense. It really is a matter of salvation, regardless where we stand on the minimum requirements for salvation. Since the PAJC came to believe they made a very bad (Scripturally offensive) arrangement, they had two options, leave the organization or reform the organization. Obviously, they chose the latter. Bad thing? Well, folks will have to “ice cream flavor” that one, but evidently most of those in the UPC have no problem with it; and, ultimately, their opinion is the only one that matters.
You say this, but if you go over your previous comments, you’ll see practically every point you make is supported by what the framers intended. You, of all people, know that pure textual analysis has nothing to do with history or intent. The instant you mention “satisfy PCI guys” or “both parties agreed,” you leave the text and argue intent. Since you and I agree on what the framers intended, those comments are superfluous.
Yes, but what they thought is irrelevant if you preclude intent.
Of course. That is what Daniel and I were discussing. The AS affirms the Fundamental Doctrine and the holiness standards in the Articles of Faith.
Yes it does, for it does not read exactly like Acts 2:38. Moreover, how PCI ministers interpreted “for” is irrelevant as I’ve explained and will repeat.
After Peter’s sermon, those convicted asked him what they must do. Peter told them what to do to obtain remission (forgiveness) of sins and that they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The FD, however, reads differently. The word salvation is specifically defined as consisting of three steps: repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost. The Bible standard of full salvation consists of all three. To repeat, since there is no such thing as partial salvation, the FD, as written, precludes PCI soteriology, regardless their interpretation thereof. That may not be what the PCI intended, but that is certainly what they wrote.
I have not argued this. My reply to Daniel stated that history is replete with examples of very intelligent legislators writing things they did not intend. I fully believe the PCI ministers felt the FD granted latitude to their soteriology. In reality, it does not.
As aforesaid, the use of the word conversion does not tell against the PAJC. Said article says, “Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins.” How is this not PAJC-friendly? I’ve heard this preached by “PAJC” ministers all over the country. There is no possible way sins can be forgiven by water baptism alone. Although I would now describe the process more precisely, there is nothing in the text which precludes baptism.
Actually, none of the articles on each step (repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost) contain the word salvation or variants thereof.
And we all know that the FD is listed after the “step” articles which reads as a summation since all three steps are included in the FD. Moreover, it is only in the FD we find the word salvation.
The Bible standard of full salvation is:
(1) Repentance.
(2) Water baptism.
(3) Holy Ghost baptism.
Each step is an essential aspect of salvation. “Which is” describes what “full salvation” is. No other interpretation is justified, unless one argues intent.
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 8:42 am
Well, I guess it helps to be in the UPC if one is going to discuss its Articles of Faith. My copy lists the FD after the “step” articles, but it was related to me it is prior to them. Although this changes the order, I don’t think it changes the argument.
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Scalia,
The problem with your analogy (as with mine) is that this is not exactly what happened. The PAJC brethren did not decide to leave the marriage because they no longer could accept the openness they once agreed to. Instead, they decided to force their spouse out of the marriage (the organization). If the PAJC guys decided they no longer wanted to live with the spouse they (or their fathers) chose, then they were free to leave the organization. But they didn’t. They redefined the organization so that their spouse would be forced to leave.
I don’t see how the PCI position can be said to be “another Gospel.” They preached the same thing the PCI preached: Acts 2:38. Both groups baptized in Jesus’ name, and both groups preached receiving the Spirit evidenced by tongues. It’s just that one group did these things for different reasons than the other. If the PCI guys are wrong, what does it really matter? Are they not both obeying Acts 2:38?
As for the intent thing, I should have been more clear. What I meant is that one does not merely have to appeal to the intent of the founders. The Articles of Faith itself reveals the concessions that were made to accommodate the PCI guys (particularly in the individual articles on repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit, and the inclusion of “full” in the fundamental doctrine). It’s not as though the Articles of Faith were worded to agree completely with the PAJC perspective, and the PAJC just promised the PCI guys with a wink and a handshake that no one would ever require them to really subscribe to the text as it was written. No. Both parties believed that their position was represented by the Articles of Faith, even if each of them would have chosen different wording had the other organization not held to a different theological perspective. So my point is that one does not need to depend merely on the intent of the guys who merged. We can appeal to the text itself to show that it was written so as to accommodate both positions.
As for “for” in the fundamental doctrine, I don’t buy what you are saying. But the problem is more fundamental than how “for” needs to be interpreted. Even without the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” you think the fundamental doctrine excludes the PCI view. But you still have not answered how it is that the PCI guys would have subscribed to the fundamental doctrine if it so clearly contradicted their theology. If you were post-trib, would you subscribe to an Articles of Faith that you thought clearly prohibited your view? No. Likewise, neither did the PCI guys. They were satisfied that their view was not being excluded by the statement so long as it was described as “full” salvation. We think that’s dumb, but that was enough for them to come to an agreement. The PAJC did not think the statement excluded the PCI view, and neither did the PCI guys.
I don’t see the sense in arguing that while the PCI guys thought the fundamental doctrine allowed for their views, it really doesn’t. The fact of the matter is that both sides thought it did. And it wasn’t like this was not thought about clearly enough. It was thought about enough for some in the PCI crowd to ask that “full” be removed, only to have the motion defeated by the rest of their brethren. Clearly, they thought about it. And surely the PAJC did as well (who actually wrote it). If anything, since we know the fundamental doctrine was supposed to be general enough that it could be subscribed to by both parties, then if we later come to recognize that it isn’t general enough, it should be made general enough since that was the original intent. Why think that when later generations see its flaws that they should try to change it and enforce an interpretation of it that would not have been agreed to by the founders, and that violated the purpose of the founders?
If “and conversion” was PAJC friendly, then why did the PAJC guys seek to remove it in 1973 (and succeed)? It was because it was not friendly to their position, but to the PCI’s. If someone is converted at repentance, they are saved. After all, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about a convert who is lost! You chose to focus on the content of that article rather than the title, but I wasn’t talking about the content. The content is fine for a PAJC guy. It was the title that wasn’t.
You wrote, “Actually, none of the articles on each step (repentance, baptism, and Holy Ghost) contain the word salvation or variants thereof.” That’s irrelevant. For one, to title the repentance article “repentance and conversion” is to say that repentance is salvation. Like I said, there’s no such thing as a convert who is lost. What is relevant is that there is no talk of forgiveness in connection with the baptism article, even though the PAJC guys thought that’s what it accomplished. Do you honestly think they just forgot to mention the main purpose of baptism, and instead decided to write about who it should be administered by (a minor point)? It was intentional, because if they had said baptism was for the forgiveness of sins there wouldn’t have been a merger. The same is true of the Holy Spirit article. If they had said speaking in tongues as evidence of the Spirit was for conversion/salvation, there would have been no merger.
You are pitting the fundamental doctrine against the three articles on repentance, baptism, and receiving the Spirit. I see no reason to do that, other than because the fundamental doctrine appears to favor a PAJC soteriology more than the individual articles do. But even then, why would the PAJC guys say “full” if they didn’t need to? Wouldn’t the text support their position just fine without it? Yes. It was included as a concession, because the PCI guys understood it as an “out-clause” that allowed for their own interpretation of the salvific importance of Acts 2:38. It was pretty stupid, but clearly both saw it as necessary for the merger to take place: the PAJC included the superfluous and rather meaningless word when they didn’t need to, and the PCI specifically wanted it in there before they would agree to the merger.
Jason
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I’m practically speechless. I thought we had an understanding about intent and much of your last post talks about intent. Sorry, I just don’t understand why you keep talking intent when I’ve affirmed that time and again.
I never said the founders didn’t give any thought about the words they used. I never said they didn’t argue about the words they used. What I said was what they intended isn’t what they wrote. They didn’t sit down and say, “Let’s write PAJC bylaws so long as you give us a fellowship card and a handshake.” They wrote what they thought granted latitude to both views, but what they intended isn’t what they wrote. I explained history is replete with such examples and you still try to convince me what their intent was — when I already know it.
You ask why I focus on the text without regard for intent. Jason, I’ve stated why over and over and over again. I don’t know how I can make myself clearer.
It appears you are still refusing to see the FD, as written, precludes the PCI view. Yet instead of analyzing the text, you go back to arguing what they intended.
I’ll reply later to your textual analysis. Gotta scoot.
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Maybe I’m responding too quick, or maybe I’m too tired, but I don’t know why you think I’m thinking you don’t agree about the intent. I know you agree about the intent. But I disagree with you that their intent did not shine through in the AofF. It did, especially in the individual articles on R,B,HS. Not so clearly in the fundamental doctrine, but the PCI guys thought it did. And apparently so did the PAJC guys. That’s why they put “full” in there (unless you can show me that they spoke of “full salvation” even in the PAJC charter prior to the merger). I know there are many examples in which things are worded poorly and people don’t pick up on it until later, but usually that’s because they lacked foresight to see an issue that would arise in the future that the language was not equipped to handle. But in this case the language seems to have been written very carefully, and weighed very carefully on both sides. They thought it accomplished their purposes. What makes you and me think our opinion 65 years after the fact should matter? They wrote exactly what they intended, and they thought what they wrote matched their intentions. Just because we think it was done poorly doesn’t mean they did. And besides, trying to write up a document that incorporates two different soteriological perspectives would almost necessarily have to be written poorly if one hopes to pull it off.
Where did I ask you why you focus on the text without regard for intent? As I see it, your problem is that you are not focusing on the text enough (the individual articles on R,B,S). You are choosing to focus on the fundamental doctrine statement. In many respects I think one needs to take intent into consideration for the fundamental doctrine, but I think “full” is a contextual clue that it was a compromise statement because the word adds nothing to the PAJC view. In fact, it makes it sound silly because it makes it sound like they believe one could be partially saved, which they did not. That feature of the text, then, gives evidence that it was a compromise feature. Furthermore, noting that the PCI insisted on the presence of that word is a matter of historical record. I don’t need to look at their intent. I just need to look at the historical record.
Yes, I do maintain that the fundamental doctrine does not preclude the PCI view (though I’ve said over and over again that on its face it clearly favors the PAJC view, just like on its face the individual articles clearly favored the PCI view). How do I know that? Because the PCI guys agreed to it at the beginning! Even with the change in 1973 some PCI guys could still agree with it, so long as they could interpret “for” as “because of.”
Jason
LikeLike
February 23, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Jason wrote,
Because you keep bringing it up when analyzing the AOF. I have repeatedly said the FD precludes PCI soteriology, as written, regardless intent. You consistently counter with example after example of what they intended with the words they used. Textual analysis, sans intent, focuses on the words, not motives of the writers.
Then you’re not interpreting the words themselves, you are construing them by the actions of others. The actions of others implies their intent, so your rejection of my argument is based upon the intent of the framers. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. You cannot so construe those words unless you appeal to intent.
I’ve already addressed each step of the AOF and their relationship to the FD. I’ll do so again while I reply to your posts below.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 1:10 am
Jason wrote,
If memory serves me correctly, this is your first attempt to interpret the FD without appealing to intent (although you quickly follow that up with evidence from intent that your interpretation is correct).
The key, to you, is the word full. You say it evidences compromise, but “compromise” is a word loaded with knowledge of the merger. If we have no knowledge of the merger, nothing in the text favors that option for it bears no definitional relation to the words used. “Compromise” assumes contesting groups tried to harmonize beliefs; but such an assumption is unwarranted because it construes rather than defines the sentence. And such a construal is dependent on knowledge of authorial intent.
The FD tells us that “full salvation” consists of three steps. The direct implication is anything short of these criteria constitutes partial or incomplete salvation. The emerging word is thus process, not compromise. That this is the direct and natural interpretation is made obvious by the fact three distinct steps must be taken to obtain “full” salvation. Salvation is a step-by-step process that is not complete (full) until all steps are taken. That’s textual analysis, Jason. No appeal to intent or “the historical record” is necessary, unless you construe those words by the intent of those who wrote it.
My argument doesn’t hinge on the word “for.” Leaving the ’73 addition out doesn’t change the criteria for full salvation.
Post 73, paragraph 4, includes the following:
Why would I want to do that if I’m not arguing from intent? If I’m analyzing a text without regard for intent, I could care less why the “PCI guys” subscribed to it. My argument is textual, not motivational.
I’ve already addressed the “convert” issue. If you care to engage it, I’m all ears. You do not do so here.
Your “repentance is salvation” isn’t derived from the AOF because it doesn’t say that. It is derived from your extra-AOF belief that conversion constitutes salvation. The AOF nowhere states this.
The word save or saved occurs five times in the AOF (The Name, twice; Divine Healing, once; The Grace of God, twice, with respect to Christians keeping saved). The word salvation also occurs five times (The Name, once; the FD, once; Divine Healing, once; Holiness, once; Grace of God, once). There is nothing in the AOF defining conversion as salvation.
No, it isn’t relevant because my argument is what constitutes full salvation according to the AOF. Placing forgiveness of sins under “Repentance” doesn’t abrogate the fact three steps are required for full salvation. Even if baptism isn’t for the remission of sins, according to the AOF, it is still a necessary component of salvation.
No. I know what they intended, so the words of the AOF clearly grant latitude based upon intent — for the umpteenth time. The words are construed according to demonstrable intent. What I honestly think they forgot has nothing to do with interpreting the AOF without regard for intent.
I’ve done no such thing. I specifically said the FD is a summation of the articles you mention. That it is a summation is made obvious by the fact all three steps are included therein. Salvation is never defined in the AOF as one step. The only place personal salvation is expressly “defined” in the AOF is in the FD. Hardly irrelevant.
If we’re arguing intent, you ask a good question. But that’s not what we’re discussing.
More intent…
More intent…
The word you refer to is full. You say the historical fact they wanted that word included avoids looking at their intent. Wow. I guess you are tired. What is the PCI? Why did they insist on that word? You cannot avoid their intent when citing history. You construe the word “full” to imply compromise because you KNOW the PCI subscribed to the Light Doctrine and that they would not merge with the PAJC unless certain modifications were made to the AOF. Thus, they intended latitude by using that word. Without that knowledge, the appearance of “full” is textually explained as I’ve done so above. Consequently, you cannot avoid an appeal to intent here.
I keep posting a text-sans-intent defense because you keep denying the text itself precludes PCI soteriology. I fully agree their intent construes the AOF to grant latitude. If you recall, Daniel denied the AOF was clarified in 1992 by appealing to the actual words used. I replied that if intent defines 1945, then it must define 1992. He was thus mistaken to insist nothing changed in 1992. On the other hand, if we disregard intent in 1992, then we disregard intent in 1945. And if we disregard intent, then the PCI view was always excluded — only they didn’t realize it. And it makes no difference how much they “thought” about it. Their words cannot be so construed without knowing their intent.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 8:49 am
Jason, we can discuss what constitutes “another gospel,” but that would be off-topic. Suffice it to say at this point I do not know a single “PAJC” preacher who doesn’t believe telling someone s/he can be saved without water and spirit baptism is another gospel.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 9:10 am
Scalia wrote,
This should read, “…but such an assumption is unwarranted because is construal is based upon knowledge of authorial intent. One does not deduce that from the text alone.”
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Scalia,
I understand your point now about how I am appealing to intent to explain the fundamental doctrine. In part I agree with what you’re saying. If we had no knowledge of the merger, or the views of those engaged in the merger, the most obvious and natural reading of the fundamental doctrine statement would be the three-step view (which I’ve said several times before). Two responses though. First, we know about the merger and we know that the fundamental doctrine was worded in such a way that both parties could agree with it. Secondly, I am also saying there is a textual clue within the fundamental doctrine that it’s not as straightforward of support for the three-step-salvation view as it may seem at first. That clue is the word “full” in “full salvation.” It seems both superfluous and silly, which alerts me that it may have been intentional as part of a compromise. This part of the text, coupled with what we know about the history of both the text and the diversity of views intended to be represented by this text, does not allow for PAJCers to say the fundamental doctrine excludes the PCI view.
You say “full salvation” refers to a “process” of three steps, but surely neither you nor the founders actually believe that when someone repents they are 1/3 saved, and when they are baptized they are 2/3 saved, and when they are filled with the Spirit they become “fully saved.” One is either saved or one is not. Either all three steps are necessary before one can avoid hell, or they are not. If salvation is not a process in which one progressively becomes “more saved,” then surely that is not what they meant. Now, if you can show me that the PAJC guys regularly spoke of “full salvation” prior to the merger, or that the PAJC charter used such terminology, then I’ll back off my argument that “full salvation” indicates a verbal compromise to accommodate the PCI view.
Ok, now I see what your ‘focusing on intent’ statement was about. I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement about how to interpret the text. You seem to be approaching it from a “intent and historical context do not matter” perspective, whereas I am coming from the perspective that both the wording and the intent/historical context matter a lot. I don’t buy the argument that the PCI view is excluded from the organization on the basis of the fundamental doctrine statement. That conclusion has to ignore the fact that the statement was written to be able to accommodate both views, and that both sides thought their view was represented by the statement. If later generations think differently, then the statement should be amended to be more inclusive since that was the purpose of the statement to begin with!! It was not meant to exclude. That’s why it states they were not to contend for their own views.
Normally, if a document does not express what it was intended to express, we would correct the document so that it does. We wouldn’t say, “No, the unintended meaning conveyed by the poor wording is now what the document must mean.” Authorial intent matters. For example, I made a statement in this thread that falsely implied I was saying no appeal to the intent of the founders was necessary to interpret the AofF. When you pointed this out, and I clarified, you didn’t respond, “Well Jason, those are the words you used so it doesn’t matter what you meant by them. So from now on I am going to say that you believe no appeal to the intent of the founders is necessary to interpret the AofF because that is how your statement reads.” No. You accept an alteration to my words that make it more accurate to what I intended. But for the AofF you are doing the opposite. You recognize that the wording of the fundamental doctrine excludes the PCI view, but rather than saying we should therefore amend it so that its clear the PCI view is included, you say the miscommunication overrides the intent and now the PCI view that the fundamental doctrine was attempting to make an acceptable position within the UPC, is no longer acceptable.
You wrote, “Your “repentance is salvation” isn’t derived from the AOF because it doesn’t say that. It is derived from your extra-AOF belief that conversion constitutes salvation. The AOF nowhere states this.” Did it need to? What is the difference between conversion and salvation? Is there such a thing as a lost soul who is converted? Conversion is salvation. If you can show me examples prior to the merger of either side making a distinction between conversion and salvation, I’ll back off my argument, but until then, this sounds like a meaningless distinction you are trying to make.
You wrote, “Placing forgiveness of sins under “Repentance” doesn’t abrogate the fact three steps are required for full salvation.” I never said it did. This is the second time you have chosen to focus on the presence of “forgiveness” under the repentance article. To my recollection, I have never made that a big deal. Both sides agreed that forgiveness came in repentance. But one side thought forgiveness also came in baptism, while the other didn’t. So what’s important is that the AofF do not contain the mention of forgiveness in the baptism article (a concession to the PCI), not that it includes it in the repentance article.
Jason
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Scalia,
You seemed to have missed my point about your “another gospel” comment. Yes, PAJCers believe that those who think baptism in Jesus’ name and the baptism of the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues are not necessary for salvation are preaching another gospel. But this confuses what someone does with why they do it. Both the PCI guys and the PAJC guys preach and practice Acts 2:38. They both “do” the same things. The people in PCI churches are “covered” just as much as the people in a PAJC church are since both churches preach and practice Acts 2:38. If baptism/Spirit are necessary for salvation, does it really matter that the PCI guys don’t think so? Doesn’t it matter more that they practice it? Apart from the fact that Acts 2:38 is not the Gospel, the real problem I see with the PAJC line of reasoning that the PCI guys are preaching “another Gospel” is that it makes the gospel about one’s understanding rather than one’s practice. What matters is the practice. Consider Romans 6. The Romans did not understand the significance of their baptism. They didn’t realize the spiritual realities that were effected by it. Does that mean their baptism was null and void? Of course not. They experienced the spiritual realities whether they knew it or not. What mattered is that they were baptized. Likewise, ultimately what matters for salvation is that the PCI group is obeying the “gospel,” not why they are doing so.
Jason
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Hooray! Jason, I think we’re doing more than millimetering closer to each other. I mostly agree with Post 80, except as follows:
What “I” or the “PAJC” says is irrelevant when analyzing the text. It says what it says regardless our personal theologies.
Why would I want to show you the etymology of “full salvation” when I’m not arguing intent? There’s no need for you to back off your historical argument because I agree with it.
That is NOT how I am approaching it. Please re-read that last paragraph of Post 77.
Of course. There are two interpretations — one that considers intent and one that does not. Arguing the former grants latitude; arguing the latter precludes it.
As I’ve stated many, many times now, I agree. I’ve never tried to hold the UPC to unintended meaning. I was merely replying to Daniel’s argument that 1992 changed nothing. He was ignoring ’92 intent while appealing to ’45 intent.
I am not saying that at all, nor have I ever said that.
You’re again lapsing into intent mode. Interpreting the AOF without regard for intent obligates us to allow the document itself to define its terminology. What you or I believe is irrelevant in such an exercise.
Again, why would I want to do that when I’m arguing the text over intent?
It appears you reflexively argue the intent of the merger at every point. If you really “get” my argument, you’ll realize all this talk is meaningless because (a) I don’t dispute it; and (b) I am replying to the denial that the text-sans-intent precludes latitude.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Jason wrote,
To the people in their congregations, perhaps not. But when they preach a person is saved without water/spirit baptism, that’s altogether different. They preach Acts 2:38 to their congregations, but they tell their Baptist friends across town they are saved. To a PAJC minister, that is false doctrine and, without doubt, “another gospel.”
Jason, if you want to branch our dialog on what constitutes the gospel, I can do that, but perhaps it would be better to start another thread or take this to email. We’ll get sidetracked quick if we keep discussing this. I am only pointing out many PAJC ministers fervently believe PCI soteriology is another gospel — correctly or not.
LikeLike
February 24, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Scalia,
I have not read your last two responses yet, however, given how long and varied my posts have been, I thought it might be helpful to boil down and summarize my primary contentions:
1. If one knew nothing about the history of the merger, and all they knew is the PAJC view of salvation, they probably wouldn’t see any other view in the AofF. But once one comes to know the history of the merger, they will begin to see textual clues within the AofF indicating that compromises were made on both sides so that the document could accommodate both soteriological positions.
2. Since we know the organization was founded with full knowledge of the merging bodies’ differences in soteriological perspectives, and since we know the AofF were written in such a way that both sides could affirm it, and since we know the fundamental doctrine included a statement about not contending for personal views to the disunity of the body precisely in order to prevent the differences in soteriology from threatening the union, it is wrong for later generations to contend for their own soteriological perspective to the disunity of the organization.
Such contending would include altering the AofF in such a way so as to exclude the PCI perspective (thereby forcing the PCI contingent out of the very organization that once promised not to make an issue of their difference in perspective), as well as insisting that since the original text did not do a good job of allowing for the PCI view, therefore there is no room for the PCI view within the UPC.
While we can argue that the AofF is poorly worded, we cannot argue that it was meant to exclude the PCI view when we know it was not. It would be wrong, then, to use the wording of the AofF as grounds for kicking the PCI contingent out of the organization. Those who no longer want to exercise the same tolerance that was so central to the founding of the organization and central to the fundamental doctrine of the organization are free to do so, but if they choose to do so, they should leave the organization. Why? Because the organization was founded on the premise of mutual tolerance for the PCI and PAJC soteriologies, and the refusal to allow either soteriological perspective to disrupt the unity of the newly formed organization. Those who tried to force the PCI view out of the organization were contending for their views, and it resulted in the disunity of the merged body. While the PAJCers want to claim the PCIers reject the fundamental doctrine when it comes to salvation, they need to realize that they have also rejected the fundamental doctrine by contending for their views to the disunity of the body.
Jason
LikeLike
March 4, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Jason,
You mentioned not reading my last two posts (understandable in light of how busy we both are). Post 83 is no biggie since it’s off-topic. As to Post 82, your latest post brings us a little closer. You summarize your views with two points, adding additional paragraphs for elaboration. My summation was posted under #59.
As to your first point, I agree. The history of the merger justifies construing the AOF to accommodate both soteriological perspectives.
I slightly disagree that the exclusive nature of the text can perhaps only be seen by a “PAJC” minister having no knowledge of the merger. The text, as written, without regard for intent, precludes the PCI view. One does not have to be a PAJC minister to see that. I stress again, as I have numerous times, that I am not using that exclusivity against the PCI because I believe the intent was inclusive and it was written with that intent, albeit incorrectly.
As to your second point, you write,
Let’s do a little more review. In Post 4, you write,
In Post 60, you write,
And in Post 70, you write,
Now, you agree such an arrangement cannot work. The fact it did not work supports your (and my) contention such an effort was doomed to failure. There was no way it could work. Trying to make such disparate views work compounds foolishness.
Yes, there is something to be said about the supremacy of a founding document, but please recall our Constitution originally implicitly allowed slavery. Individual slaves were considered three-quarters of a person for census purposes. Would there have been a “merger” had the Constitution originally banned slavery? Odds are, no. Was Lincoln correct that a house divided cannot stand? Were we wrong to ban that moral monstrosity? Are you arguing it was wrong to amend the Constitution to ban slavery? Much suffering, division and death followed the efforts to right the Ship of State. That is to be genuinely lamented. Perhaps peer pressure over succeeding decades is preferable to what was done. That would have probably resulted in all states banning slavery, but the effect would be the same: The banning of slavery. The fundamental question is whether countries or organizations should deal with fundamental questions when it becomes clear those issues must be addressed. Note, my argument does not rest on comparing slavery with theological differences; it rests upon whether it is appropriate to legally change the (or a) constitution in opposition to what was allowed at the writing thereof. I say yes; you say no. Here’s where the handshake comes in and we agree to disagree.
Since you acknowledge people are free to legitimately write and vote upon resolutions, the “wrong” you mention must then rest upon something other than organizational charters or bylaws. It certainly isn’t “wrong” in an organizational sense to amend its constitution and bylaws; and if the bylaws are legitimately amended, the “wrongness,” therefore, must then be based upon a non-organizational principle. What is that principle, Jason? What moral standard are you applying here? If you are free to go outside the parameters of the bylaws to condemn the descendents of the founders, then why aren’t the descendants also free to appeal to a “higher” principle to justify their actions?
You would legitimately reply, I think, that breaking one’s word is wrong, and I readily agree; but as I’ve pointed out, the PCI brethren broke their word too. The fact one side used the political process does not negate the fact the PCI brethren pushed hard the other way. There is more than one way to break one’s word. One is not required to use the political process to contend for a disunifying view. You acknowledge the PAJC were in the majority. That means for some 30 years they tolerated their minority brethren. I doubt Bro. Westberg’s resolution would have seen the light of day in the first 20 years of the UPC. But as time went by, the antagonism increased exponentially. The majority finally asserted its political clout. Perhaps it was a technical breach of an agreement, but that had been broken long before then. I doubt the substantial majority of any organization would walk out to form a new one. If you can think of an example, I’d love to hear it.
LikeLike
March 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Jason wrote,
True. I’ve never argued against intent in the manner you describe.
LikeLike
March 16, 2010 at 7:42 pm
PAJC? Dulle, I’m a little surprised, to be honest.
Enjoyed reading this post. I received a copy of CWTC and have enjoyed it. Many are held back from thinking because of fear, this document didn’t reveal a theological juggernaut, it just alleviated some of the fears of free thought and inquiry. Knowing your history (and “ancient landmarks”) is quite important.
LikeLike
March 16, 2010 at 11:16 pm
James,
Why would you be surprised?
Jason
LikeLike
March 26, 2010 at 1:29 am
Scalia,
I’m finally getting to this. It’s been so long that I hope I still remember what we were arguing!
You offered a string of quotes from me. I can’t tell if you were trying to show that I was contradicting myself or not. If so, I don’t believe I was (although, I do think my views changed slightly during the course of our debate). What I would say is that while I can understand why some exercised their right to offer editions to the AOF, I don’t think they were necessarily right to do so. The organization was founded on the basis of tolerating soteriological differences for the sake of spreading the Gospel. If one can no longer agree to offer such toleration, then they are free to leave the organization. What they should not do is kick out the very people they initially agreed to tolerate.
I am not altogether unsympathetic to the perspective of the PAJC guys, however, who think the PAC position is false doctrine, and rightly do not want to tolerate false doctrine. But they could have just left. Indeed, if they were in the minority, they may have done that. But they were in the majority, so they decided to make changes to the organization that excluded a group of people that were initially welcomed in the organization. Of course, if the shoe was on the other foot, the PCI guys may have done the same thing to the PAJC guys. As we both agree, the merger was ill-conceived and there was bound to be a fall-out.
Your Constitution analogy is a good one. A key difference, however, is that we changed the Constitution to make it more inclusive, not less inclusive. It initially excluded slaves. By changing it, it broke no trust. The same cannot be said of the AOF.
You’re right, the “wrongness” I see in changing the AOF to exclude the PCI view is not a wrongness according to the bylaws, but an ethical wrongness—a betrayal of trust. But I can see how others, such as yourself, would disagree.
This is my last word on the subject. Feel free to respond if you wish, however.
Jason
LikeLike
March 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Jason wrote,
No. If I believe you’re contradicting yourself, I’ll say so. 🙂 I was merely reproducing some of your statements to make some points.
Your solution is the majority should have left the organization. While I agree that is an obvious option, I know of no historical precedent thereof. Our forebears certainly didn’t “walk out” of the United States to form a new country because they decided they would no longer countenance slavery.
You agree my Constitution analogy is a good one and I assume by that you agree it is legitimate for countries, groups and organizations to revisit founding principles when it becomes clear they no longer work. We both agree soteriological diversity in this context couldn’t work, so it appears revisiting that was unavoidable.
You rightly note a key difference with respect to inclusion. I reply with a yes and a no. Yes, former slaves were granted full citizenship, but no, slave owners, who were once full citizens, having all the privileges and immunities of citizenship, were made criminals subject to imprisonment and, in the event of resistance, death. The Constitutional Amendment is exclusionary by definition.
Thanks, as always, for the lively discussion. I, too, understand why you object.
**Handshake**
LikeLike
February 27, 2013 at 1:55 am
I have read the book, read what You have stated and come to the conclusion as I always have you are Not Oneness, but a fraud, one that believes backsliders.
Everyone has not been given the right to speak at the symposiums and he was not a Oneness when he wrote it, Trinitarians don’t give us such rights at any meeting all the time I am sure.
The small minority and not a large one held a post leaving Trinity view of salvation and many of these men could not face truth hitting them in the face and denying family members of trinity ilk as saved.
So they held old lines from old denominations and over time fell out of favor even more as more historical proof has come to light on many main subjects and History.
I wonder how you can consider yourself Oneness with doctrines and attacks you have held against Oneness Apostolics and especially UPCI.
Your bogus smear of Oneness holding two persons, because you were unable to articulate the truth has always shown forth.
You also seem at times naive and I guess didn’t realize the statement of coming into the Unity of the faith and Spirit , what has taken hold in the VAST MAJORITY is that faith is not just a mental ascension, but a obedient faith, following all of what Jesus said and not one word he or others said such as REPENTANCE.
Jesus and others have stated to repent and have remission of sins, which is cleary done in water baptism John 20:23 and Acts 2;38.
Jesus commanded baptism,MT. 28:19 not made it the spare tire idea these others wished it was , so as to save trinitarian family members with a bogus doctrine they carried as baggage from Trinity doctrine taught to them or read in some book.
I will be surprised that deniers of the faith as yourself don’t swallow that lie and accept it or already have.
LikeLike
February 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm
Scmit,
Your disrespectful tone makes me want to ignore your comments (because you don’t seem much interested in a respectful dialogue), but I just can’t fail to address your continued claims that I hold to two persons.
I do not hold that the Father and Son are two divine persons, nor that the Father is a divine person while the Son is a human person. When it comes to the Father and Son there is only one person in view. Jesus and the Father are the self-same divine person. So what is there two of? Natures. There is a divine nature and a human nature. Via the human nature He assumed in the incarnation, God is able to personally exist and function as a genuine human being (Jesus) while continuing to exist and function as God (Father) via his divine nature, simultaneously. So there are two natures, which allow for the one divine person to exist in two distinct ways simultaneously. I repeat, “There are not two persons!” Any construal of my theology as teaching two persons – whether two divine persons or one divine person and one human person – are radically off-base.
Despite your claims, I do not attack Oneness Apostolics or the UPC. I am part of both categories, so to attack either would be to attack myself. Does that mean I agree with everything? Of course not (besides, our movement is not monolithic in its various theological views). But I do not engage in any attacks even on issues I disagree on. I may discuss some of the issues, but discussion is not an attack.
Jason
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 2:12 am
Brother Dulle,
I have just finished reading “Chrisitianity Without the Cross”. I must say that it is a very factual, well researched history of the UPC. I have been a member of the UPC church for 15 years and have seen much. First I would like to say that the only reason I have stayed this long is that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost and Baptism in Jesus Name are like nothing I have ever experienced before. I spend several years seaching in Baptist and Non-Denominational churches for the closness to the Lord that I experienced after being baptised in Jesus Name and being filled with the Holy Ghost. I was baptised twice in the titles of Father, Son, Holy Ghost and had no change. After being baptised in Jesus Name, I came out of the water laughing due to the joy and crying due to feeling true repentance. Before receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, I could be in a room with a crowd of people and feel lonley, now I “feel” the comforter with me at all times, I never feel alone anymore. Several years before I started going to a Oneness church, God led me to repentance at an Assemblies of God church, but no one could explain what had happened to me and why I sat in the service weeping and feeling sorrowful. God moved on me again about 7 years later and shortly thereafter I ended up at an Independant Jesus Name church. While at the Assembly of God church, a friend told me I could have a prayer language, laid hands on me and told me to speak after her in tongues. It was a conterfeit and soon after the Lord showed me it was not from Him. It was 7 years later that I recieved the true Holy Ghost by speaking in other tongues. Today, I wear only skirts/dresses, don’t cut my hair and wear no make-up or jewlery, except a wedding band, but have made the decision not to return to the Apostolic/Pentecostal church. Over the 15 years I have heard much wonderful preaching, my husband and I raised our children in the church. But the politics are unbearable and the self-righteousness must of “the people of the Name” must be disgusting in God’s sight. I felt as though the Pastor became God in so many people’s lives and this was borderline Catholic (confession to a man, etc). The Pastor became “Lord over God’s Heritage”. I saw back-biting, gossip and a disgusting political process where the inside group would tattle on the others for the pastors favor. I saw the pressure for those that didn’t line up in the holiness codes of dress be shredded publicly from the pulpit. The same was so when some didn’t get the message of tithing or couldn’t for some financial reason – they would be publicly disgraced. After reading Christianity Without the Cross, I can see where all this comes from. I actually wept at how C.H. Yadon was treated after standing up for his own beliefs just two days after losing his wife and then being asked to leave the UPC. I wish I would have known a non-judgemental Pastor as himself, maybe I wouldn’t be leaving. But after attending 3 churches and visiting several others as well as attending the General Conference in Salt Lake City, I have not seen any difference between any of them. Many of the Pastors names in this book are familiar to me and I have either met them, heard them preach or heard of them. I wish it were different, but whatever started a long time ago in the 70’s has taken a hold of this organization and it’s off shoots.
A friend got a hold of me and asked me why I felt that I was saved do to what I had done. He also told me that in
Acts 2:38
King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
That the verse says that YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST – GIFT. Not salvation, I am currently studying this. All the scriptures on salvation. I spent 15 years without really reading my bible due to the wonderful works of God after baptism and the Holy Ghost, but I am coming to believe as C.H. Yadon that salvation is not something we can obtain by doing certain works. Salvation comes at repentance (true repentance). And that being baptised and receiving the Holy Ghost are what follows – not to be saved. I don’t believe the UPC and their constituients are going to be the only ones in heaven, in fact quiet a few of those that attend with a gossipy, hateful attitude will NOT see heaven just because they are “in church”. God will say “Get away from me for I never knew you”.
I am thankful that I have seen through the politics of this system, will forever be thankful for the teaching I have received, no matter what spirit it was taught in, but no longer want to experience:
Zecharian 13:6
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
The house of my friends has become a political, fleshly entity in business for numbers (how many you running?) and money (make sure you pay your tithes). Please brethren, read this book and come out from this system. Come back to your first love. He is coming back soon and we don’t want to be found as one of the ten virgins. I am sorry to say, many of us will be. It is time for Pastors, Bishops, Elders, Saints to all get into the Word of God, fast, pray and repent.
2 Corinthians 6:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 2:26 am
Galatians 5:15
Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of Galatians 5:15.
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Brother Dulle, I do not mean this toward you – Scmit has that spirit of the “people of the name” – I have arrived, I did the work and now wants to argue that his way is right and that you (Jason) are wrong because you don’t believe the very same way that he does – well he really needs to understand where this book is coming from – it is calling out men of that same legalistic, predjudice spirit. That is the problem with this organization.
And another thing – I have sat under pastors that have beat down the congregation just to be found a drug user and adulterer. Beware of harboring that spirit. There is nothing wrong with discussion. That spirit comes from fear and often fear is what is preached.
Proverbs 16:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm
While chatting with Brother Robison the other night he informed me that
Brother C. H. Yadon had passed away. What a wonderful man of God he
was! I was in a class he taught at Conquerors Bible College in Portland
and still remember his demeanor. He was kind, gentle, soft spoken, and
full of practical wisdom garnered from many years in the ministry. As I
look back on the two years I spent at Bible College only John Klemin,
CBC president, influenced me more. Like Brother Yadon, he was kind,
gentle, soft spoken, and full of practical wisdom garnered from
missionary and ministry experience. Both men experienced great success
in their service for the Lord, yet both were extremely humble. I never
heard either brag about their accomplishments or speak a disparaging
would about other Christians. They deferred all glory to Jesus Christ!
As I prepare a post on Apostolic authority I can’t help but recall those
men whose exemplary lives in Jesus Christ have influenced me. I see
them counseling young Bible College students, proclaiming masterful
sermons from the pulpit, and conducting themselves with dignity and
grace. Their memories make me long for a renewal of leadership in the
Apostolic movement, a leadership which follows the examples of such
Godly men.
Like Jesus Christ these Godly men knew that true strength was manifest
in weakness. They knew that God had not called them to be Lord’s over
God’s people but rather to be servants. Their ministry was not
characterized by autocratic demands for obedience and conformity but by
a continual and constant proclamation of the Word of God and a
demonstration of its truthfulness by the manifestation of the fruits of
the Spirit and a Christ like life. Their words spoke to the hearts of
all they met because their life mirrored their words. They always
pointed away from themselves to Jesus Christ. They were true pastors,
shepherding the flock entrusted to their care by Jesus Christ.
During worship at the First United Pentecostal Church in Portland these
men were content to worship in the pew with the people of God. They did
not demand to be heard, but rather were willing to listen, to the
parishioners, and to other ministers. They did not feel threatened or
diminished by relinquishing their “preacher role” and being just a
regular Christian. They told others about their faults, and their
failures, their hopes, and aspirations. They requested prayer and
shared their needs. They were just like “us” in the pew, even though
they possessed exceptional spiritual gifts. They were not distant or
aloof, but real and approachable. They were living the Christian life
in a way all could understand and imitate. They dramatically influenced
the saints of God for we knew they had been with Jesus.
The faith and life of these men of God is challenging. They did not
proclaim a message of doom and gloom, discord and division, but of hope
and optimism, accord and unity. They refused to allow denominational
struggles to dim the true light of the Gospel and dishearten those whom
God had called to the ministry. Their actions proceeded from the love
of Christ which dwelt in their hearts, a love which embraced not only
their friends but their adversaries. They avoided harsh condemnations
preferring gentle admonishments and Biblical redirection. They were
willing to engage in dialogue and discuss even the most controversial
issues. They knew that they were not infallible. They were always
eager to learn more. They were willing to listen to a new
interpretation of Scripture, a new understanding of doctrine. They were
gifted with patience, patience to allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate
the hearts and minds of others to the truth of the Word of God.
These Godly men have bequeathed to me a legacy. They have instilled
within me the hope and optimism they possessed for the Apostolic
Church. They have modeled for me the life of true Apostolic leaders.
Their influence on my life will never pass away. Their influence makes
me long for a renewal of Apostolic leadership which follows their
example.
Longing for Leadership
Steve Starcher (stevstar@prodigy.net)
Tue, 30 Jun 1998 15:49:09 -0700
C.H. Yadon died in 1997 – this is one of the preachers that is written about and interviewed throughout “Christianity Without the Cross”.
If this man were still in the UPC and others like him, I would still be there. This is the type of preacher the hard liners got rid of in the merger. These type of preachers, exemplifying the love and admonition of God were replaced by heavy handed, authoritarians that teach do as I say, not as I do (and hide what they do in secret). Many have just become descendants of the Pharisees. That is why I left. They preach hate and use God as a tool of fear to shame and fear the congregation into submission. This is what started a long time ago and this book exposes it. Rest in peace brother Yadon, they squashed you and as you prophesied the ramifications of their decisions are now falling on the congregations. You were wounded in the house of your friends, just as Jesus was. Now they raise up whole congregations by preaching hate and judgement. Hypocrites – not all, but the eye is dark and so far the body has become dark and judgemental. The love of God is gone.
LikeLike
February 8, 2018 at 6:13 pm
@RJ Lynch
Brother Lynch, you write:
This is the type of preacher the hard liners got rid of in the merger.
The only merger I’m aware of in the United Pentecostal Church’s history was back in 1945. When was the other merger, and how can ministers be gotten rid of via a merger?
These type of preachers, exemplifying the love and admonition of God were replaced by heavy handed, authoritarians that teach do as I say, not as I do (and hide what they do in secret).
So, you’re accusing the ministers who disagree with preachers like Bro. Yadon of hypocrisy. Since you bothered to post your thoughts, what kind of hypocrisy are you talking about?
You were wounded in the house of your friends, just as Jesus was. Now they raise up whole congregations by preaching hate and judgement.
The Affirmation Statement’s controversy was over the essentiality of the New Birth. I assume you’re alleging that Bro. Yadon did not believe that obedience to Acts 2:38 is necessary for salvation. If that is the case, then regardless how nice he was, his stand was unbiblical.
LikeLike
February 8, 2018 at 6:16 pm
Sister Lynch, my apologies. I assumed you were a man.
LikeLike
July 29, 2018 at 10:14 am
Thank you for the review on the United Pentecostal Church. I spoke at length with a pastor affiliated with Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ and their doctrine of cross-less/nearly bloodless salvation is still being taught. From your research, have you discovered any oneness churches that believe in the “Bible way” of salvation: being born again by repentance and faith in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection BEFORE baptism?
LikeLike
July 29, 2018 at 3:00 pm
Michael Beight:
The “bible way” of salvation? I will be as charitable as I can be about this.
I always enjoyed searching the bible for knowledge. I was never interested in “playing” church or religious snakes and ladders based on the haphazard dictates of chance-throws of doctrinal dice. It’s like sacrifices, offering and sacraments; useless as a three dollar bill.
Doctrinal debates are designed to be denominationally divisive; it reminds me of the reason that Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert for his people to see and reflect on.
Don’t be deluded. Baptism is like a Marriage Certificate, a ritual that doesn’t give you salvation anymore than a marriage certificate makes you married..
So do you actually know how many have salvation and why? It’s not how many people are baptized; It is not that you have to be a believer Revelation’s 144,000; It isn’t that you go to church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday; it isn’t that you tithe your income or put a dollar in the plate; it isn’t that you memorize 25 verses a week; it isn’t even that you feed the hungry. What does Jesus say about playing Church vs Finding Salvation?
“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer you, father”.
The demands that are made upon you for salvation is spelled out New Testament:, ….”AS MANY AS are led by the spirit of the Highest POwers………” AND……. AS MANY AS received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of the Highest Powers………..”
Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
Hebrews 10:8 “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”-
Psalm 51:16
You do not desire a sacrifice, or I would offer one.
Hosea 6:6
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of Good rather than burnt offerings.
Mark 12:33
And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
Amos 5:21-24
“I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Micah 6:6-8
“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Proverbs 21:3; Jeremiah 7:22-23; Matthew 9:13;
Do you pride yourself on pretentious prayer? The God you believe in according to the bible is sick and tired of your incessant prayers; he hates them and wants none of them. Just read Isaiah, the Prophet’s wisdom that Jesus used to start his campaign to revolutionize religious abhorrence
Isaiah 1:11-17
“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts?Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations- I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.
LikeLike
July 30, 2018 at 7:17 am
@Michael Beight
Jason’s post isn’t a review of the United Pentecostal Church; it is strictly a book review. Jason fully believes, as do I, that water baptism is necessary for salvation, and the claim that this makes for a “bloodless” salvation is demonstrably false.
Just so you’re fully appraised of what Jason believes with respect to baptism, you might find this piece written by him to be helpful:
Acts 2:38 and the Purpose of Baptism
LikeLike
July 30, 2018 at 10:35 am
Religion is a Belief Institution, a Belief System; religion and belief therefore are interchangeable terms so when people talk about their belief they are really talking about their religion and in that vein they try to convince and coax others over to their opinionated belief; it’s just another form of proselytizing; albeit, a slightly more subtle way, a little more deceptive way of doing it. All the denomination congregants BELIEVE their beliefs are the one and only true way for everybody else on Planet Trump.
Jesus didn’t need baptism to have salvation, neither did John the Baptist and neither does anybody need any ritual for salvation, for absolution, you only need ritualism as a pretense, like the Scribes and Pharisees as Jesus said: “The religion scholars and Pharisees are competent teachers in Law. You won’t go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don’t live it. They don’t take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It’s all spit-and-polish veneer.
“Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help. Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and ‘Reverend.’
But why is belief worthy of so much respect when speaking about things they do not know? Would someone show me the calculations because I just don’t get it. People keep saying to me. You know you should show a bit more respect; you don’t have to call people mentally ill just because they disagree with you.
Well it’s not that they disagree with me that I call them mentally ill; they would be mentally ill even if they never knew me; it’s about what they believe about reality and more importantly what they want to do with those beliefs. I mean if that’s all it was; just a belief, well then I’d have no problem giving religion and their congregants all the respect they want. In the same way that I respect a person’s dress sense or the decor in their home, even if I found it tasteless, I would respect them enough not to say so.
But religion is more than just a belief, religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business. And giving respect to this mentality is exactly what’s got us into the mess that we’re in.
We’ve given religion ideas that are above its station and we persuaded it that it’s something it’s not. When the truth is that belief is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will.
It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice. Because without evidence, you’ve got no reason to believe apart from your willingness to believe.
So why is that worthy of respect anymore than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil? And why is belief considered some kind of virtue, is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don’t think so.
Belief by definition is unexamined, so in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences and yet if it could it would regulate every action, every word and thought of every single person on this planet because.
Well, I think that belief pollutes our understanding of reality. It gets in the way. And it brings out the worse in the best of us so that we’re even prepared to stoop so low as to poison the unformed mind of the people we love the most, our children. By the time they’re old enough to think for themselves, it’s too late. They’ve been well and truly, hypnotized. If you fill childrens’ mind with images of satan, the horrors of hellfire, the dogma of religion and the beliefs of religious academics who will try every trick in the Book to shove their beliefs down your throat, you’re a sick individual and you are mentally ill. And the only reason you don’t know this is because you’ve been indulged for far too long by people and institutions that really ought to know better.
The truth is that your beliefs are infantile, your scriptural interpretations are lies and your gods are illusions. And I can say that with all due respect because no respect is actually due. If you deserved respect, you’d already have it. You would be rolling around in it like a televangelist, in other people’s money. No, what you deserve is mockery.
But I’m a reasonable person, and I want to make an effort so I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll respect your beliefs for as long as I can keep a straight face while thinking about them. Which should be about half a second. But beyond that I can’t promise anything.
In the meantime, I don’t believe that your god exists but if it turns out that I’m wrong about that, well, fair enough. I don’t think much of your attitude as a follower to be frank.
But if god exists, I want him to tell me, himself, I don’t want to hear it from anybody else. And in case you’re wondering, that includes you.
And frankly I don’t give a darn what your interpretation believes about what the Bible has to say about anything. You might as well be telling me about your dreams which is essentially what you are doing.
But what you’ve got to realize is that believing a thing, no matter how strongly, doesn’t necessarily make it real. I mean you could be hypnotized into believing that you’re a chicken but you can’t reasonably expect other people to share that belief, at least until they see a few eggs. And that’s the bottom line here. Evidence. If you show me a few eggs then I will believe that you are a chicken. Or a Christian or whatever the heck you think you are.
But until then please, don’t tell me, your beliefs.
Peace to everyone and may you get all the respect that you deserve.
LikeLike
July 30, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Leo, I didn’t read your post, but while scrolling down, I caught this at the end:
But until then please, don’t tell me, your beliefs.
I’m not telling you anything. I was replying to somebody else’s post. You really need to ramp up your reading comprehension. I really couldn’t care less what you believe.
At one point, I thought I would try to engage you in rational dialog (even though I had serious doubts about it going anywhere). You proved your inability to argue anything cogently or to even comprehend what you arrogantly criticize. It’s arrogant because rational persons don’t criticize what they don’t understand.
As usual, you will reply to this with more mumbo-jumbo. Go ahead, but I won’t be reading it. It’s a waste of time.
LikeLike
July 30, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Scalia:
“Leo, I didn’t read your post, but while scrolling down,………….” How long has it been since you jumped off the turnip truck? To come up with that lie trying to irk me because you didn’t read my post? Give me a break with your smart alec lie. You’re telling Jesus that you don’t care about what he said either. Lying to me and Jesus is like shearing a pig, lots of squeals but little wool.
You should have read the post instead of going off half cocked showing that you don’t know what you are talking by taking one sentence out of context.
The fact that you wanted to tell me you did not read the post is so obviously sneaky. It’s a cowardly, baloney way of being the harebrain you demonstrate yourself to be over and over again.
Get out of your diaper, grow up and discipline (toilet train) yourself not to be so anal retentive in your vain stupidity.
All correction is grievous to be borne so remember the following tidbit of tactical theology to avoid the grief you now carry.
Every prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool displays his folly.
I can forgive you if you can accept it. Why? Because I am, JE SUiS, patient, get it?
LikeLike