Exclusivism

[Leafrivermac]

This came from David Bernards book "Essentials Of The New Birth". It's what it is . .he's written this book knowing that it will be primarily read by "Oneness" folk. I study his books and have all that he has written . . .some 36 of them. At any rate, I found this interesting not just from the doctrinal standpoint but in how he lays out the friction between the different sects of christianity. I thought some of you would find some of it interesting.

Some people oppose the new birth message as being too exclusive. Historic Christendom has always been highly exclusive; the question is not whether, but where, to draw the line. Conservative churches today exclude the vast majority of humanity from salvation, including highly moral pagans, Jews who demonstrate great insight into the Old Testament, cultists who confess Christ, martyrs of other religions, and humanitarians who display great love and perform many good works but who do not confess Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally claimed that only those who submit to its hierarchy are saved. So maintained Cyprian in the third century and Augustine in the fifth. When Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy split in 1054, each claimed to be the one true church and pronounced anathemas on the other. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed that it was absolutely necessary to salvation for everyone to be subject to the Roman pontiff. During the Papal Schism (1378-1415), two rival lines of popes excommunicated all followers of each other. After the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church consigned all Protestants to damnation and said it was the only true church. The Protestant Reformers displayed similar views. Martin Luther held that the Roman Catholic Church was the apostate church, the great whore of Revelation, and that the Pope was the Antichrist. He refused to join forces with fellow reformer Ulrich Zwingli because Zwingli believed that the Eucharist did not contain Christ"™s physical blood and body. Luther called Zwingli a "œgross heathen"�
and "œthe devil"™s martyr,"� and told him, "œYou have a different spirit from ours."�13 Luther rejected the Anabaptists as heretics, condoning and even advocating persecution of them. Zwingli allowed his followers to persecute the Anabaptists; they drowned one in the river as a suitable punishment for his insistence on baptism by immersion. The Protestants usually executed Anabaptists by drowning or by the sword, while the Catholics used fire so that they would not "œshed blood."� Michael Servetus was burned at the stake by the Calvinists because he insisted on rebaptism and denied the trinity (although he affirmed the absolute deity of Jesus Christ). John Calvin prosecuted him and consented fully to his execution, although Calvin would have rather had him beheaded. The Church of England persecuted the Puritans and other Separatists. The Puritans, in turn, persecuted Baptists and Quakers in colonial America. Fundamentalists typically call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, deny that the liberal Protestants are saved, and classify Pentecostalism as demonic. Some Evangelicals, including some Trinitarian Pentecostals, have labelled Oneness Pentecostals as heretics or cultists. The Churches of Christ believe that only they are saved. What is the proper response to the charge of exclusivism?
First, we must recognize that Jesus Christ Himself established the new birth as the requirement for entering into the kingdom of God, and He said no one could be saved except through Him (John 3:3-5; 8:24; 14:6). He
indicated that only a minority would be saved (Matthew 7:14; Luke 13:23-24). Yet He offered salvation to "œwhosoever will."� Salvation is not determined by church affiliation or denomination. Anyone, regardless of church label, who believes and obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ will be
saved. We do not reject those who have not received the New Testament experience, but we simply encourage them to receive everything God has for them. There are many sincere, and even repentant, people like Apollos
and the disciples of John at Ephesus who need to be led to further truth so they can have an apostolic new birth. Our experience and doctrine should conform to the complete biblical, apostolic pattern; those who seek God
without fulfilling this pattern will answer to God. Our responsibility is clear: we must act on what we know to be the truth. In considering these matters, the following principles are important: 1. God is sovereign, and He alone is judge (Romans 2:16; 9:15; Hebrews 12:23). 2. We are not to condemn or attack others, but to preach the gospel and offer salvation to all (Mark 9:39-40; John 3:17; Philippians 1:15-18). 3. The Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and instruction in salvation (John 5:39-40; Galatians 1:8-9; II Timothy 3:15-17). We cannot impose nonbiblical demands or offer nonbiblical exceptions. We cannot rely on or be swayed by human reasoning, hypothetical situations, great numbers of people, heroic figures in church history, or pious ancestors. 4. God will lead the diligent seeker to salvation (Jeremiah 29:13-14; Matthew 7:7; Acts 10:1-6; Hebrews 11:6).
5. God"™s judgment will take into account the light available to each individual (Luke 12:42-48; Mark 12:38-40; Romans 2:6, 11-16). Some hypothesize that God may allow an unusual or irregular fulfillment of His stated plan. For example, might He accept a person"™s genuine desire to be baptized if that person is prevented from being baptized before death? (Roman Catholicism teaches that there is a "œbaptism of desire"� in such cases.) Might God accept a person"™s sincere faith in Christ as God and Savior at baptism even if he did not know about or understand the Jesus
Name formula? Might God give some the Holy Ghost without the sign of tongues because they did not know about or understand tongues? Might God save some people today outside the New Testament church or without
the full New Testament experience, perhaps after an Old Testament pattern? Possible analogies would be Jethro, Balaam, Nineveh, and Hezekiah"™s irregular celebration of the Passover (II Chronicles 30). Might there be a lesser degree of salvation or another chance after death?
The problem with these theories is they have no clear scriptural support, so we have no authority to teach them as doctrine. Moreover, Scripture as a whole seems to exclude the ideas of salvation outside the church, two levels of salvation or a second chance after death. If God has plans beyond what He has revealed to us, or if He chooses to accept an unusual fulfillment of His plan, that is His prerogative. We can only preach and practice what the Bible states. Rather than trying to justify extrabiblical
approaches, we should uphold and obey the clear teaching of Scripture, thereby enjoying certainty and assurance of salvation. We can only leave unusual or hypothetical cases in God"™s hands. Another problem with many proposed exceptions is that the Bible, with its clear message of salvation, has been available throughout church history. More and more evidence is surfacing that people in various ages practiced baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and received the Holy Ghost with the sign of speaking in tongues. In many cases, individuals rediscovered these truths for themselves. Even in the Bible, Cornelius apparently had never heard of speaking in tongues, but he still spoke in tongues when he received the Spirit.

[manuman]

I find it intresting alright---interesting at how it is very inaccurate in the history and representation of the Reformation and those involved.It reads like a political ad at crunch time, and the motive is obvious.But, they would have to discredit itto lend support to the oneness premise and their subsequent exclusion from mainstream Chrisitianity. I think I've seen enough pot stirring for a while. Is it worth it to continually bash and to do it with some very questionable history to continue to attempt to 'prove' your point? Truth IS exclusive and the truth is what lines up with reality--ultimately who Christ is and the record of canonized Scripture based on the histoical record of God's dealings from the beginning to now--not some highly prejudiced view that seeks to demean others while presenting a tone of 'tolerance', which is hypocritical.

[Leafrivermac]

I usually find your tone offensive at any time that we have disagreed and occasionally you have stepped over the line and this is one such time.
If I were trying to make the point that you have obviously taken from this post then your answer in itself would have made it for me.
As I stated in the beginning this is a Oneness essay, written by a Oneness Pastor, to Oneness folk. What I gleaned out of it is that there has been bloodshed and bitterness thruout church history over doctrine. Exclusivness has been a primary contributing factor. The point of the paper is to focus on where to draw the line in our zeal for our beliefs and not reject those who have not received the New Testament experience as we understand it. We are further exhorted here to be mindful but not judge for God.
I take it you disagree with the historical statements in my post. I assure you they can be just as substantiated as any slant you may come up with. Surely you don't deny that there has been wars and countless bloodshed and strife in the name of religion and even between "christians" in history.
I'm sorry that your getting tired of what you consider "pot stirring". I have to tell you tho that what you think of as stirring the pot is my expressing of my beliefs. I find it odd that there are several other religions represented here from time to time that you don't seem to get as outraged about. Go figure.
Well, the last time I checked this is a Religion Forum . . . .and not a Christianity According to Manuman site. So if my faith offends you so bad then I suggest that you don't read my posts. Or at the very least stop with your hit and run tactics and go back to where we were having a nice little discussion in the "Questions" thread. You could just calm down and answer to my last three or four replies.
It does seem that your the exclusive one here. You don't like my belief because it does'nt line up with yours to the point you become antagonistic. Thats your problem . .I have many family and brothers that see scripture differently than I do. We will all have to work out our own salvation but I'm not going to compromise what I consider truth nor would they be my brothers if they did.

[manuman]

Mac, at least be honest about this. You post these in hopes that you win over some to your views and this post , or essay that you have posted is a direct slant at the supposed conflicts within the ranks of the Reformers, Zwingli and Luther specifically and it was done to attempt to put the Trinitarians in a bad light, not 'religion' in general as you are trying to now say. It is no hit and run, asI don't ever run --I always reply and substantiate my premises. That hardly fits the 'hit and run' mold. I answer any and all posts that are questionable so I don't have a clue why you would make that distinction either. I am not calling you insulting names or resoring to hateful remarks, which you can't say, and I deal with the subject matter. I'm sure you will spend some time digging up something that you will want to contradict me on, so go ahead. I have made it clear that I don't agree and why, and I have also made it clear that I don't consider oneness heretical or cultic, but it is an erroneous view of teh nature of God according to the full revelation of Scripture and I have backed that up. That is what these sites are for, and that is why I come here, not to resort to bashing or critcal and slating remarks. I have listened to Alex call Trinitarianism a hersy and others ay that if you don't believe a certain way that you can't be saved, etc., etc. and I have heard you say I am mean spirited, arrogant, and question my motives--- all totally wrong. I defend my faith and I state my beliefs and why, and you react this way because of it and because , I think, you get frustrated that you don't 'win' a debate by dissuading me or others. I am not here to win or lose for that matter, and no longer get offended by the type of claims that you have made and are now making, but I will answer straight forward and honestly . What is it that you and Snooky have said in the past about needing thicker hides?

[Snooky]

What is it that you and Snooky have said in the past about needing thicker hides?
manuman
Just to keep everything honest and exactly as qouted, how about cutting and pasteing my quote about thick skin. Thanks Snooky

[Leafrivermac]

Mac, at least be honest about this. You post these in hopes that you win over some to your views

I make these posts in order to present the one God truth . . .I don't exactly believe that I convince anyone but that the Spirit may illuminate God's Word in such a way to where a person can come to his own conclusion.

this post , or essay that you have posted is a direct slant at the supposed conflicts within the ranks of the Reformers, Zwingli and Luther specifically and it was done to attempt to put the Trinitarians in a bad light,

I did all that? . . .Man I must be really shrewd. Actually, that was not my intent. I've already told you what my intent was.

Also Man, I have no delusions about possibly disuading you so I don't see how that fact could frusterate me. Disuading you is not the point, your a conveniance and an aide, another tool in delivering the message. Without you, I would still speak the message but with you I have contrast, a stimulus to further study myself, and a comparison of the two doctrines. I always enjoy a good discussion when Scripture is used and supplied and a person formats his material to the best of his capability for the ease of reading for the other.

Plus, God willing I intend to keep at least one thread on the board all the time representing the oneness belief. Not to "stir the pot", but to represent what I and many many others know as truth. By the way . . .the phrase "stirring the pot" as applied to my speaking of what I sincerely believe and hold reverently is an exclusive statement in itself.

As far as the rest of your post . . .

[manuman]

ORIGINAL: Leafrivermac

I make these posts in order to present the one God truth . . .I don't exactly believe that I convince anyone but that the Spirit may illuminate God's Word in such a way to where a person can come to his own conclusion.
Not that it really matters , but you just said recently that these posts seem to get through to someone, so that is why you continue to do so--and you are just saying the same thing in other words.

I did all that? . . .Man I must be really shrewd. Actually, that was not my intent. I've already told you what my intent was.
No you didn't --the author did. You just posted it .

Also Man, I have no delusions about possibly disuading you so I don't see how that fact could frusterate me. Disuading you is not the point, your a conveniance and an aide, another tool in delivering the message. Without you, I would still speak the message but with you I have contrast, a stimulus to further study myself, and a comparison of the two doctrines. I always enjoy a good discussion when Scripture is used and supplied and a person formats his material to the best of his capability for the ease of reading for the other.
It is evidenced by your dwindling to the point of hurling insults after I have answered your replies and questions. Mean spirited, arrogant, duplicitous, etc.---sound familiar?

Plus, God willing I intend to keep at least one thread on the board all the time representing the oneness belief. Not to "stir the pot", but to represent what I and many many others know as truth. By the way . . .the phrase "stirring the pot" as applied to my speaking of what I sincerely believe and hold reverently is an exclusive statement in itself.
You'll have to explain that one!?!? Stirring the pot alludes to creating controversy--I mean contrast---nothing at all related to exclusivity. BTW, exclusivity isn't a bad thing when related to truth. There can only be one form of truth about anything and everything. There is no room for inclusion except for opinions and guesses without any basisin reality, evidences and proof.
As for the violin gesture, thank you for making my point.
As far as the rest of your post . . .

If you are interested in a historically , unbiased view of the reformation, there is a book written by Alister McGrath, who is the foremost authority on the reformation ,called REFORMATION THOUGHT, which is both accurate and reliable.

[manuman]

Tha's right, you did use the term skin, not hide. It isn't an incrimination, just a reminder, so I don't think I will take the time to look it up. You've said it more than once, but as I said, it isn't a point of contention, merely to keep things in pespective. BTW, I find it interseting, given the many questions I have posed to you without a reply that you would react to such an insignificant remark---hmmm?

[Leafrivermac]

If you are interested in a historically , unbiased view of the reformation, there is a book written by Alister McGrath, who is the foremost authority on the reformation ,called REFORMATION THOUGHT, which is both accurate and reliable.

I don't see how you can point to one history book and say such a thing. How can you vouch for it to be unbiased? In your opinion it's unbiased because it lines up with your expectations.

Alister McGrath studied at the Methodist College, Belfast. McGrath then left Oxford to work at Cambridge University, where he held the Naden Studentship in Divinity at St John's College, Cambridge. He also studied for ordination into the Church of England at Westcott House, Cambridge. He was ordained deacon, and began work as a curate at St Leonard's Parish Church, Wollaton, Nottingham, in the English east midlands.

I'd say that theres a dang good chance that he has some biases.


At any rate, even if he was Apostolic Jesus Name and wrote a historical work, I would'nt claim that it was a historically unbiased view.


I would think to get a well rounded view one would choose to seek out several sources, below is a good mix of historical studies by foks of both persuasions.

Deferrari, Roy J., et al., eds. The Fathers of the Church. New
York: Fathers of the Church. N.d.
Irenaeus. Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. Translated
by Joseph P. Smith. Westminster, MD: Newman.
1952.
Lightfoot, J. B., and J. R. Harmer, editors. The Apostolic
Fathers. 1891. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1988.
[Greek and English].
Richardson, Cyril, et al., trans. and eds. Early Christian
Fathers. New York: Macmillan. 1970.
Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe,
eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885. Reprint. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. 1981.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace, eds. The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers. 1st and 2nd series. Reprint. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. 1976.
Schaff, Philip, ed. The Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed. 1931.
Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1983.
Bainton, Roland. Early Christianity. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
1960.
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand
Rapids: Baker. 1937.
Bernard, David K. God"™s Infallible Word. Hazelwood, MO:
Word Aflame Press. 1992.
The New Birth. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press.
1984.
Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300. Hazelwood, MO:
Word Aflame Press. 1991.
The Oneness of God. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame
Press. 1983.
Practical Holiness: A Second Look. Hazelwood, MO:
Word Aflame Press. 1985.
The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century.
Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press. 1993.
Bethune-Baker, J. F. An Introduction to the Early History of
Christian Doctrine. London: Methuen and Company.
1933.
Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed. 1962.
Brown, Harold O. J. Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror
of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the
Present. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 1984.
Christian History. Vol. 9, no. 4. Issue 28: "œThe 100 Most
Important Events in Church History."�
Dorner, J. A. Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Edinburgh: T.
and T. Clark. 1870.
Durant, Will and Ariel. The Story of Civilization. New York:
Simon and Schuster. 1935-75.
Harnack, Adolph. History of Dogma. London: Williams and
Norgate. 1897.
Harvey, Van. A Handbook of Theological Terms. New York:
Macmillan. 1964.
Hastings, James, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
New York: Charles Scribner"™s Sons. 1951.
342
A History of Christian Doctrine
Heick, Otto. A History of Christian Thought. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press. 1965.
Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York:
Atheneum. 1976.
Klotsche, E. H. The History of Christian Doctrine. Rev. ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker. 1945, 1979.
Lane, Tony. Harper"™s Concise Book of Christian Faith. San
Francisco: Harper and Row. 1984.
Langer, William L. ed. An Encyclopedia of World History. 4th
ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1968.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. Rev. ed.
San Francisco: Harper and Row. 1953, 1975.
Lebreton, Jules, and Jacques Zeiller. A History of the Early
Church. New York: Collier. 1962.
New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Version 5.0. Grolier
and Online Computer Systems. 1987-92.
Nigg, Walter. The Heretics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1962.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. 1971-89.
Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Westminster, MD: Newman.
1963.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 3rd rev. ed.
1910. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New
York: Charles Scribner"™s Sons. 1947.
Wolfson, H. A. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. 1970.
Select Bibliography


At any rate Manuman . . .the last word is yours

[manuman]

McGrath also oversees the Oxford Center For Christian Apologetics, which is a part of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, the world's foremost andmost respected organization in this field. Have you ever heard of them?His volume concerns itself with the accuracy and historicity of all things related to the Reformation, and is scrutinized by the greatest scholars that the opposing views, and especially any other religions. If there were anything other than an unbiased historical record, it would be pounced on and torn to shreds by these opposing views. He has a very active audience. This isn't your typical ,one morehastily researched work , produced for the general laity--not that these are bad,just not as involved or scrutinized. So far , it has held up to their scrutiny.
I just , also ordered a 38 volume edition of The Early Church Fathers--writings from the first 800 years of the Church. It inclues all the various topics and theological issues of that period,laying them out as presented, not in a this one or that one is 'correct' manner.If you are interested,I will tell you where you can get it--it cost 200. bucks plus shipping, and is normally 1100., so it is a bargain. Sorry I haven't responded sooner--I was conversing with another guy on here concerning his views of prayer and praying.BTW,no need to 'have the last word'--I'm sure this will come up again!