View Full Version : John 3: The Difference between PCI and PAJC on New Birth
In a previous post, a poster has claimed that at the time of the merger both the PCI and PAJC had similar views on the New Birth ...and that many have strayed from this commonly held belief.
I know the vary views on Acts 2:38 have been discussed ad nauseum ... but clearly there seems to be a distinction between how both view the meaning of being born again as taught by Jesus in John 3.
Here are some questions I have:
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?
In a previous post, a poster has claimed that at the time of the merger both the PCI and PAJC had similar views on the New Birth ...and that many have strayed from this commonly held belief.
I know the vary views on Acts 2:38 have been discussed ad nauseum ... but clearly there seems to be a distinction between how both view the meaning of being born again as taught by Jesus in John 3.
Here are some questions I have:
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?
ANY TAKERS??? :dunno
ANY TAKERS??? :dunno
I'll give it a try.
This is from an email I sent out to someone several months ago. I think I have also posted it on another forum.
Born Again?
In John chapter 3 Jesus said that a person needs to be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God. He was asked how a person could be born when he was old and if it was possible for a person to enter his mother's womb and be reborn or born again. Then Jesus said that unless a person was born of water and of the Spirit he could not enter into the Kingdom of God. The term born again is also called "borned again" by some. Others refer to the experience as "regeneration" or as the "second birth" or as being "reborn," "born anew" or "born from above."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born of water means different things to different folks.
1 Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, some other denominations including some Oneness Pentecostals and Church of Christ folks, believe that born of water means water baptism.
2 Some teach that born of water is a reference to the Word. Scriptures used are Eph 5:26, John 15:3, 1 Peter 1:23, James 1:18, Luke 8:11. This is what I was taught when I was going to a Baptist Church. I think some Oneness Pentecostals also believe this.
3 Some teach that the water spoken of in John 3:5 is a reference to the Holy Spirit and would quote the verse as saying, "unless a person is born of water, even the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" or "unless a person is born of water which is the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
4 Some teach that the water in John 3:5 is a reference to the first birth when we commonly say that a woman's "water" breaks and that this is reiterated in verse 6. Two births are seen here. The first birth is called the birth of water and affects the flesh part of a person. The second birth is called the birth of Spirit and affects the spirit part of us. This is also taught by some Oneness Pentecostals.
Over the years I have heard all of the above taught.
I don't know how many or what percentage of UPC folks believe one of the four different teachings listed above.
I think we've covered this subject before and some condemned and/or ridiculed anything different from their personal opinion and others just agreed to disagree without being disagreeable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In John chapter 3 Jesus speaks of an experience called being born again or being born from above or regeneration. There are some differences of opinion as to how much of verses 1-21 are the words of Jesus and how much is commentary by the Apostle John. Some think verses 16-21 are commentary by John. In my Spirit Filled Life Bible they are in red so I will assume that some think they are the words of Jesus and will address them as such here.
Yes, the emphasis in John 3 is on being born again and verses 1-21 cover the subject in the discourse of Jesus.
In verse 3, Jesus said that a person must be born again to see/experience the kingdom (kingship) of God.
Verse 4 Nicodemus asks how this could be, how can someone who has already been born be born again? Can he enter his mother's womb and be born anew?
Verse 5 Jesus answers him and shows him there are two births, the first is of water and the second is of Spirit. Unless a person is born of water (first birth) and of the Spirit (second birth) he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Verse 6 Jesus reiterates, that which is born of the flesh is flesh (the first birth, the water birth is only for the flesh part of us) but the second birth is for the spirit part of us, our spirit is born anew by God's Spirit.
Verse 7, Jesus says don't be amazed that I said it takes a second birth.
Verse 8, Jesus compares the second birth, a birth of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit to the working of the wind. The wind is invisible, however you can see its affect and you can hear it as it moves through the trees. Some see this as a picture of speaking with tongues. Others don't read that much into it but just see it as seeing and hearing the wind's affect as an example of how God's Spirit can affect people and that effect can be seen in their lives and heard in the way they talk.
Verse 9 Nicodemus asks how this can be
Verse 10 Jesus reminds him that he is a teacher in Israel. He should be aware of the Scriptures speaking of a radical change by the Spirit of God. Examples of this would be Saul receiving another heart or being turned into another man when the Spirit came upon him (1 Sam. chapter 10). Another example would be the prophecy of Ezekiel about God giving people a new heart and placing His Spirit within them to cause them to walk in His ways (Ezek 36:24-28). Another example would be how the first born was rejected and the blessing went to the second born in the case of Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and Manasseh and Ephraim. By the way, when Joseph brought his sons to be blessed he positioned them so that when Jacob reached out his hands, the right hand would touch Manasseh the first born and his left hand would touch Ephraim. Jacob "crossed his hands" so that his right hand was placed upon the second born and his left hand was placed upon the first born. When Joseph tried to correct this by moving Jacob's hands, Jacob let him know that he (Jacob) wanted it that way. The second birth was given superiority over the first birth by the cross (crossing of hands).
Verse 11 Jesus assured Nicodemus that He and His disciples knew what they were talking about. They had already seen people born again. It was not some future experience at some future date. It was already happening and they knew about it and had seen it.
Verse 12 Jesus reiterated that this new birth experience was already happening on the earth and He and His disciples were personally acquainted with folks who had been born again.
Verse 13 Jesus reveals that even though He is standing there with Nocodemus as the Son of man He was the One Who had come down from Heaven and was also in Heaven as the God of Heaven.
Verse 14, Jesus compares Himself to the brazen serpent of Numbers 21:4-9. There those who were dying of the serpent's bite only had to look at the brazen serpent on the pole and they received life. This was a type of Christ becoming sin for us on the cross and if we look to Him by faith we receive His life. This is a further explanation that the new birth happens by faith, just looking to Jesus by faith.
Verse 15 Jesus says that all those who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life just like people passed from death to life by looking at the brass serpent.
Verse 16 is the famous John 3:16 Scripture that says that those who believe in Jesus will not perish eternally, but they already have eternal life.
Verse 17 Jesus says that He didn't come to condemn but to give life
Verse 18 contrasts those who are spiritually dead with those who are spiritually alive or born again. Those who believe in Jesus are alive because they have been born again. Those who do not believe in Jesus are dead because they have not been born into God's family.
Verse 19 speaks of Jesus coming to enlighten humankind.
Verses 20-21 again contrast those who practice evil and do not come to the light with those who do truth and come to the light.
Yes, John 3:1-21 talks about being born again or born anew or born from above. It could be translated any of those ways. Jesus also tells us how that new birth happens. It happens when one believes in Jesus. That's all it takes --believing in Jesus. That is also how the Apostle John describes it in 1 John 5:1 where he says that if a person believes that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ, then that person is born again and part of the family of God. Jesus repeats a couple of times that salvation/regeneration happens by faith. Jesus tells Nicodemus that they (He and His disciples) already knew and had seen some who had been born again back at that time before the crucifixion.
Sam any historic info on how old-time PCIers , and those pre-dating the merger viewed John 3 and the New Birth????
I think there is a direct correlation between (Ezekiel 36:24-28) and John 3
It reads:
For I will take you from among the nations,
gather you out of all countries
and bring you into your own Land
Then I will sprinkle clean WATER on you,
and you shall be clean;
I will cleanse you from all your filthiness
and from all your idols.
I will give you a new heart
and put a new SPIRIT within you;
I will take he heart of stone out of your flesh
and give you a heart of FLESH.
I will put My SPIRIT within you
and cause you to walk in My statutes,
and you will keep My judgements and do them.
Then you shall dwell in the Land that I gave to you fathers;
you shall be my people,
and I will be your God.
WHAT SAY YE???
In re-reading TF's book ... it's apparent that at least some of the old Canadian PCIers viewed that New Birth happened prior to water baptism and Holy Ghost baptism ...
Here is one quoted from CH Yadon ....
http://respiracreative.com/yadon7.jpg
http://respiracreative.com/yadon8.jpg
Sam any historic info on how old-time PCIers , and those pre-dating the merger viewed John 3 and the New Birth????
No, I can't think of anything that I have available to quote from right now from old timers at the time of the merger.
A couple of "maybes."
First:
Years ago I had a copy of Bro. Samuel McClain's book titled "A Student's Handbook of Church History." I think that was the title. He taught for a while at PBI (Pentecostal Bible Institute) in Tupelo, Mississippi (a school which was reported to be of PCI leaning). I THINK I remember reading in there somewhere where he referred of one of the Reformers (Wesley or Luther maybe) as having a born again experience. I don't remember seeing that in the currently distributed copy. I may be wrong and my memory may be faulty or maybe the UPC has "sanitized" it so it now reads more like the currently accepted PC (Politically Correct) party line.
Second:
This is an account of Andrew Urshan’s conversion. I have a book titled “The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan” which came from the Pentecostal Publishing House. Inside the cover it says that the first printing was circa 1918 and then reprinted in 1998. I also have several old magazines called “The Witness of God” which were published by Andrew Urshan. The first is dated January, 1946 and the last is dated December, 1946. The story in the magazine is pretty much the same as in the book but the date of the conversion is given as 1901 in the magazine but both 1899 and 1900 in the book. Also the location of Urmiah is spelled a couple of different ways in the book. Andrew Urshan was born in either 1884 or 1897 and died in 1967.
Below is the account from the book.
On a windy night in March, in the year 1900 in Urumia City, Persia, when sitting with about 200 lads in the American Presbyterian Mission College, singing the blessed hymn, “Oh happy day that fixed my choice,” the Spirit of God seized me with great conviction and caused me to stoop and think and to as myself the question, “Am I really happy because Jesus has washed away my sins?” I was reproved and had to confess myself a hypocrite, and that broke my heart, and I instantly broke into tears as my sins were pictured before my eyes. Then I cried unto God for forgiveness and deliverance in Jesus’ name and the Lord heard me. I put my trust in the promises, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” and “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved;” and, the Spirit witnessed to my spirit that I had been born again and had been made a new creature in Christ Jesus.
With a new and tender heart and broken spirit, and with tears of repentance and joy, I sang the rest of the hymn not a hypocrite this time, but a truly happy, blood bought, blood washed child of the King. Oh, that wonderful night! that beautiful spot! that mourning bench in that school! And oh, that sweet effect of the gracious, crucified Saviour and risen Lord! Never will it be forgotten. It is still burning now as a clear blaze of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
from pages 31 and 32, from chapter VI titled “My Conversion”
That's about all I can think of right now.
Andrew Urshan, Oneness pioneer, on the New Birth:
Andrew David Urshan (1884-1967) conscientiously wrestled with the same issue. In his book Apostolic Faith Doctrine of the New Birth,[lxxiv] he included a set of questions at the end addressing the same basic issue with which Haywood wrestled.
He presents the questions and then follows them with these answers:
Q. What is the position of those who have believed in Christ but have never been immersed in Jesus name, and have not received the Holy Ghost with the sign of tongues?
A. These belong to the kingdom of heaven; these are the good seed in that kingdom; these can go on and be born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus and Cornelius once were of that type of men, also the Ephesians that Paul baptized. See Acts 19:1-16.
Q. Would these folks be lost if they had not gone on to the water and Spirit birth?
A. No, for when they continued to walk in the light they had, they consequently entered into the deeper and higher divine experiences. 1 John 1:4-7. Also John 8:31-36.[lxxv]
Q. Can one be called a child of God before he is born of the Spirit?
A. Yes, just as a baby is a child of the parents before birth when conceived, likewise those who have a real conversion or conception of the word in their life. Of these it is said, ‘Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His son into your heart, crying, Abba Father.’ This is the Holy Ghost language. See Gal. 4:6,7.[lxxvii]
Urshan appears to be making an attempt to explain his position by saying the levels of salvation are like the physical birth process. That is, one who has not followed Acts 2:38 but has had “a real conversion” is saved just as a child, conceived in the mother’s womb, is still a child. But, the child still needs to be born. Those who are saved by faith prior to the “revelation” of the Acts 2:38 message are children of God only if they go on to accept the Oneness Acts 2:38 message. If the childbirth analogy holds true, those who do not go on to follow the Acts 2:38 steps will be still-born. But, are they the true “Spirit born” children at all?
Q. The folks that believe on Christ’s name and repent but are not baptized by water and the Spirit, where do they stand?
A. They stand on the same ground that the saints of the Old Testament stood; they were saved by faith not receiving the promise of the Spirit. They are not the real Spirit born children of God and adopted children. See Heb. 11:30, and 1 Sam. 12:20-22, etc.[lxxviii]
This answer by Urshan confounds his answer given to the previous question above. Here he states that those in the Church Age who have not followed the Oneness interpretation of Acts 2:38 are saved like the Old Testament believers. But, then he states they are not, “real Spirit born children.” This view has people being saved without being the “real Spirit born children of God.” This is because he cannot harmonize his understanding of Acts 2:38 with the concept of salvation in the Old Testament. The Bible indicates that the Old Testament believers are saved by faith in the promise of the Savior to come (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:18-25). Those who believe after Christ’s coming are saved by faith that looks back to the work of Christ.
The thing that complicates this issue is that those who believe after Christ’s incarnation are baptized with the Spirit after his Ascension. This is a problematic reality for many Bible readers. They don’t see the Book of Acts as a transitional record - reporting how the Old Testament believers were incorporated into the New Testament Church. They interpret certain occurrences in Acts as universal obligations or privileges for all future Christians. The problem is cleared up when it is explained that those on the Day of Pentecost, in the upper room, were Old Testament believers. They needed to be baptized with the Spirit after believing, because they could not be so baptized with the Spirit until after Christ’s Ascension.
What is remarkable about Urshan’s statements is that he claims that those NOT born of the Spirit could still, 1) have a “real conversion”; 2) be a real “conception of the word”; 3) be a “child of God”; 4) belong to the “kingdom of heaven”; and 5) be “saved through faith.” Yet, those not born of the Spirit are like Old Testament saint. They are “saved by faith not receiving the promise of the Spirit.” Because of this, they are not “real Spirit born children of God and adopted children.” The contradictory statements in these few quotes illustrates the conflicted nature of the UPCI interpretation of Acts 2:38 with orthodox Christian teaching.
Urshan further remarks:
Q. Can one be saved and not be born again?
A. The word “saved” conveys a greater meaning than generally known. It implies deliverance from sin and also God Himself coming into our life. See Isa. 12:1. Yes, some can be delivered from hell though not being born of God, just like the Old Testament saints were saved through faith though not being born again. The thief on the cross may represent this class of saved ones who had not knowledge of the doctrine of the full salvation neither had a chance to perform it, his recognition of Christ and faith in Him saved him.[lxxx]
__________________
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:14 PM
Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth of water and spirit.
Thus it was a settled doctrine in the PAW the oldest Oneness organization.
Bishop R. C. Lawson taught the new birth of water and spirit he started his group in the 20's.
Bishop S. C. Johnson taught the new birth of water & spirit he started in the early 30's.
Mark Lawson founder of The Church of Jesus Christ taught the new birth of water and spirit they started in the early 20's.
Bishop Hancock founded the Pentecostal Churches of the Apostolic Faith in the 30's he taught water & spirit.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ taught water & spirit was the new birth. Witherspoon first included this in the fundamental doctrine at the merger which was rejected.
Many of the PCI brethren taught the new birth of water & spirit such as David Gray, A. T. Morgan and others.
The central figure in Oneness theology was G. T. Haywood. He wrestled with the state of those who did not follow the New Birth doctrine held by many Oneness Pentecostals. He resolved the conflict in his mind by utilizing the "walking in all the light" model:
"The one question that is so often asked is, ‘are all those people who thought they were born of the Spirit, and were not, lost?' No, not by any means. They shall be given eternal life in the resurrection if they walked in all the light that was given them while they lived. God is a just Judge, and there is not unrighteousness in Him. But those who refuse to walk in the light shall be overtaken with darkness. (John 13:35, 36; see also John 15:22-24)." [G. T. Haywood, The Birth of the Spirit in the Days of the Apostles, (Indianapolis, IN: Christ Temple Book Store, n. d.), p. 12.]
The second figure in the development of Oneness teaching was A. D. Urshan. He used the same logic as Haywood to resolve the same issue:
Q. Would these folks be lost if they had not gone on to the water and Spirit birth?
A. No, for when they continued to walk in the light they had, they consequently entered into the deeper and higher divine experiences. 1 John 1:4-7. Also John 8:31-36. [Evangelist Andrew D. Urshan, Apostolic Faith Doctrine of the New Birth, (Cochrane, WI, self-published, 1941), p. 13.]
Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth of water and spirit.
Thus it was a settled doctrine in the PAW the oldest Oneness organization.
Bishop R. C. Lawson taught the new birth of water and spirit he started his group in the 20's.
Bishop S. C. Johnson taught the new birth of water & spirit he started in the early 30's.
Mark Lawson founder of The Church of Jesus Christ taught the new birth of water and spirit they started in the early 20's.
Bishop Hancock founded the Pentecostal Churches of the Apostolic Faith in the 30's he taught water & spirit.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ taught water & spirit was the new birth. Witherspoon first included this in the fundamental doctrine at the merger which was rejected.
Many of the PCI brethren taught the new birth of water & spirit such as David Gray, A. T. Morgan and others.
Apparently, Haywood might of taught it but didnt believe it the way you do Elder Epley.
Brother Epley ... one of the questions at hand ... was that a post in this forum claimed that old time PCIers and PAJCers were in lock-step when it came to preaching the New Birth ... history tells us different ... what's more amazing is the this poster said that many current day PCIers are counterfeit because they did not believe in the New Birth in the same way as their predecessors ... once again history proves differently ...
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:25 PM
Apparently, Haywood might of taught it but didnt believe it the way you do Elder Epley.
Haywood believed the 'light doctrine.' But he did not believe anyone was born again with obeying Acts 2:38. He taught they would come up in the general resurrection of Rev. 20 and be judged by what they knew and if they obeyed what they knew. I do NOT believe that but that is what he taught. But he did not blurr the line on the new birth he should have left the rest in the hands of God rather teach this made up "light doctrine." Several pioneer Pentecostals taught this I am sure you know. I do NOT believe the church fell away into apostasy and was restored as taught by the teachers of the 'light doctrine."
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:30 PM
Brother Epley ... one of the questions at hand ... was that a post in this forum claimed that old time PCIers and PAJCers were in lock-step when it came to preaching the New Birth ... history tells us different ... what's more amazing is the this poster said that many current day PCIers are counterfeit because they did not believe in the New Birth in the same way as their predecessors ... once again history proves differently ...
I never said the PCI men and the PAJC were in lock step on this doctrine some of the PCI taught the new birth. However the PCI men of that time preached Acts 2:38 so fervently to sinners and religious folk the outsiders hearing either would not have known the difference. They emphasized the HGB and baptism in Jesus Name. John Patterson is an example NO one reading his books would ever have known he did not believe the new birth message because he contended so strongly for Acts 2:38. The men who want to claim these men in NO WAY resemble their ferventcy and declaration of Acts 2:38.
I am simply trying to reconcile a broad brush statement that was used to condemn some current PCIers as counterfeit ... when indeed some prolific Apostolic greats had varying interpretations and views on New Birth ... some even similar to today's stance ....
They loved this New Birth, Oneness Message.
This new breed are a totally different kettle of fish.
They are moving away from Truth.
They are embarassed to be associated with strong doctrinal men. They would rather identify with those proclaiming an easy-believism message than with the Apostolic church.
So when you try and get them to discuss the doctrine of salvation, they spout clouds of obfuscatory smoke about how it is Jesus who saves, and it is a journey, and blah blah blah.
Nothing solid.
And they call themselves adherents of the "PCI Doctrine."
Well, the men of the old PCI would probably be ashamed to claim them, because they came out from long and deeply rooted belief systems and sold out to preach this Jesus Name message. It cost them something to be able to say "I'm one of them," as the old song says.
Most of these slack-jawed compromisers could preach all day, and if you ran their message through a centrifuge, you couldn't distill half an ounce of good doctrine, nor figure out how to be saved.
PCI?
Yep.
Pathetic Compromising Ingrates.
Now, if that isn't clear enough, let me know and I will try and dial it down a little better for you.
Clearly you can see an obfuscatory blanket statement was made to make it appear that somehow the old-timers all taught the New Birth in the same manner. Can't you??
I never said the PCI men and the PAJC were in lock step on this doctrine some of the PCI taught the new birth. However the PCI men of that time preached Acts 2:38 so fervently to sinners and religious folk the outsiders hearing either would not have known the difference. They emphasized the HGB and baptism in Jesus Name. John Patterson is an example NO one reading his books would ever have known he did not believe the new birth message because he contended so strongly for Acts 2:38. The men who want to claim these men in NO WAY resemble their ferventcy and declaration of Acts 2:38.
You give one example of some one who may or may not have "strayed" from the message ... to use PAJC term ... but should we not examine the reasons for why the Acts 2:38 message was preached 'so fervently' by both sides ... or indeed if it really was ...Goss' family says he did not preach it as preached by the PAJCers in his church ....
Could this fervency argument be a way to dismiss the realities of different view on New Birth did exist among some????....
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:40 PM
I am simply trying to reconcile a broad brush statement that was used to condemn some current PCIers as counterfeit ... when indeed some prolific Apostolic greats had varying interpretations and views on New Birth ... some even similar to today's stance ....
Clearly you can see an obfuscatory blanket statement was made to make it appear that somehow the old-timers all taught the New Birth in the same manner. Can't you??
It is true to extent the PCI brethren in NO way could or would relate to those who claim them today. Their understanding on the new birth was incorrect but their ferventcy in preaching Acts 2:38 to all that would hear is a testament they would have NEVER endorsed the apostasy that has been done in their names.
It is true to extent the PCI brethren in NO way could or would relate to those who claim them today. Their understanding on the new birth was incorrect but their ferventcy in preaching Acts 2:38 to all that would hear is a testament they would have NEVER endorsed the apostasy that has been done in their names.
We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????
Bryan
02-25-2007, 07:47 PM
We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????
apparently.. :ranting
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:50 PM
We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????
To align yourself with men like Gillespie or Sabin is apostasy. They are apostates.
Chuckle ... you know that's going to get a response ... I think Felicity and Sister Alvear slapped you on the wrist ... last time you said that ....
To align yourself with men like Gillespie or Sabin is apostasy. They are apostates.
Quoting someone is not a sign of allegiance, Elder .... Why are PAJCers so scared of the rest of the Christian world???
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 07:57 PM
Quoting someone is not a sign of allegiance, Elder .... Why are PAJCers so scared of the rest of the Christian world???
I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
[QUOTE]I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your loss.
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
He who sitteth on the the Throne ....
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
Speechless ... most Trinitarians I know believe in One God.
Brother Epley ... I glad you're so candid.
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:08 PM
I am not trying to be a 'shock jock' or being crude nor ugly I just do NOT believe anyone outside the Apostolic church is saved. I do believe there are sincere folks that God is leading if they will continue to follow to the church. Some have had some experience with God and no doubt God has touched them like Cornelius who was devout and feared God but was NOT saved. But if they follow the Lord and sincerely seek Him with their whole heart God will send them an Apostolic preacher who will preach them the ONLY saving message since Pentecost.
When the UPC was formed in 1945, the PCI had a magazine called "The Apostolic Herald" and the PAJC had a magazine called "The Pentecostal Outlook." It was decided to replace these magazines with a new one for the new organization. The new magazine was named "The Pentecostal Herald" and is referred to as the "official organ" of the UPC. I have a DVD containing the Pentecostal Heralds from the original issue in December 1945 through 2004. The first copy was 16 pages. Some of the pages are missing in the copy on the DVD. Here is an article on page 6 titled, "Our Paper, The Pentecostal Herald."
I will quote it but will not use quotation marks for the whole article, only the areas within that have quotation marks. Also, any parts which may appear in boldface type are bolded by me for emphasis and are not in boldface in the original article.
This the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, which is the official organ of the United Pentecostal Church, is the direct result of the merger of the two former papers, The Pentecostal Outlook and the Apostolic Herald. When the two former organizations, namely, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, Inc., and The Pentecostal Church, Inc., merged into one united organization, the two papers were merged into one. This we acknowledge with joy and great satisfaction, and look forward to a greater paper for the glory of God and the progress of truth.
The two former conferences agreed to make this paper open for articles pertaining to truths that may or may not be the opinion of all brethren, so long as these articles do not conflict with the Fundamentals of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church. However, the Editor is to be governed by the spirit of the article, and whenever the spirit of controversy is noticed in the article he is to act accordingly, and refer such articles to the Board of Publication
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, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. This is indeed the proper attitude toward the most vital subject, as we are all seeking after truth, and are confident that God will lead us into all truth by His Spirit. It is to be remembered that any and all material written in the spirit of controversy will be rejected by the Editor and the Board of Publication. This again is a great step in the right direction, and we pray that God will give the Editor wisdom and discernment in these most important and vital matters. If they should make some mistakes let us remember that they are men, and pray for them knowing that they are sincerely doing their best to carry out the orders of the Conference.
Articles for the Herald are solicited, and those who are capable of writing should keep a supply at Headquarters continually. These articles should be typed and double spaced; the writer should take every pain in preparing this material knowing that it will be read by tens of thousands of people. Further, if your articles should be rejected, or if you should not see it immediately, or even if you do not hear from the Editor regarding it, do not take offense at this, but pray God to give you something better and worthy of this great paper.
It has been my privilege to be connected with the editing of The Apostolic Herald for the past two years, and as one who is retiring from this task, I beseech each one to pray for the Editor in a special way, and to cooperate by sending in good spiritual articles; also by ordering rolls and sending subscriptions continually. Above all let us keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.
Yours in Jesus,
Oscar Vouga
Editor's Note: The preparation of this, the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, was handled by our Brother Vouga, who is the retiring editor of The Apostolic Herald. We take this opportunity of extending to him our appreciation for his fine services in the preparation of this material.
When the UPC was formed in 1945, the PCI had a magazine called "The Apostolic Herald" and the PAJC had a magazine called "The Pentecostal Outlook." It was decided to replace these magazines with a new one for the new organization. The new magazine was named "The Pentecostal Herald" and is referred to as the "official organ" of the UPC. I have a DVD containing the Pentecostal Heralds from the original issue in December 1945 through 2004. The first copy was 16 pages. Some of the pages are missing in the copy on the DVD. Here is an article on page 6 titled, "Our Paper, The Pentecostal Herald."
I will quote it but will not use quotation marks for the whole article, only the areas within that have quotation marks. Also, any parts which may appear in boldface type are bolded by me for emphasis and are not in boldface in the original article.
This the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, which is the official organ of the United Pentecostal Church, is the direct result of the merger of the two former papers, The Pentecostal Outlook and the Apostolic Herald. When the two former organizations, namely, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, Inc., and The Pentecostal Church, Inc., merged into one united organization, the two papers were merged into one. This we acknowledge with joy and great satisfaction, and look forward to a greater paper for the glory of God and the progress of truth.
The two former conferences agreed to make this paper open for articles pertaining to truths that may or may not be the opinion of all brethren, so long as these articles do not conflict with the Fundamentals of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church. However, the Editor is to be governed by the spirit of the article, and whenever the spirit of controversy is noticed in the article he is to act accordingly, and refer such articles to the Board of Publication
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, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. This is indeed the proper attitude toward the most vital subject, as we are all seeking after truth, and are confident that God will lead us into all truth by His Spirit. It is to be remembered that any and all material written in the spirit of controversy will be rejected by the Editor and the Board of Publication. This again is a great step in the right direction, and we pray that God will give the Editor wisdom and discernment in these most important and vital matters. If they should make some mistakes let us remember that they are men, and pray for them knowing that they are sincerely doing their best to carry out the orders of the Conference.
Articles for the Herald are solicited, and those who are capable of writing should keep a supply at Headquarters continually. These articles should be typed and double spaced; the writer should take every pain in preparing this material knowing that it will be read by tens of thousands of people. Further, if your articles should be rejected, or if you should not see it immediately, or even if you do not hear from the Editor regarding it, do not take offense at this, but pray God to give you something better and worthy of this great paper.
It has been my privilege to be connected with the editing of The Apostolic Herald for the past two years, and as one who is retiring from this task, I beseech each one to pray for the Editor in a special way, and to cooperate by sending in good spiritual articles; also by ordering rolls and sending subscriptions continually. Above all let us keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.
Yours in Jesus,
Oscar Vouga
Editor's Note: The preparation of this, the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, was handled by our Brother Vouga, who is the retiring editor of The Apostolic Herald. We take this opportunity of extending to him our appreciation for his fine services in the preparation of this material.
More truth ... amazing.
What happened Sam to the old-time spirit of toleration??? Are the new PAJCers counterfeits?
Bryan
02-25-2007, 08:12 PM
What happened Sam to the old-time spirit of toleration??? Are the new PAJCers counterfeits?
:tease
That Vouga letter smacks down the "same fervency" argument IMHO
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:20 PM
Personally I think the merger was a mistake. Ben Pemberton said "this marriage was not made in Heaven." The focus of evengelizing the world with the Acts 2:38 message was noble and both camps were fervent doing so and together they did a good job at this, but the fundamental differences were bound to affect them with each other and it did so from the beginning in many areas of the country. Churches that changed pastors not knowing that two different schools of thought were put into utter confusion. Preaching to the world was one thing but getting along with each other was another.
ManOfWord
02-25-2007, 08:21 PM
To align yourself with men like Gillespie or Sabin is apostasy. They are apostates.
Both men are personal friends of mine Dr. Epley.
If they are apostates, does that make you the chosen crusader for "truth?" Boy am I honored, Sir Knight!
Personally I think the merger was a mistake. Ben Pemberton said "this marriage was not made in Heaven." The focus of evengelizing the world with the Acts 2:38 message was noble and both camps were fervent doing so and together they did a good job at this, but the fundamental differences were bound to affect them with each other and it did so from the beginning in many areas of the country. Churches that changed pastors not knowing that two different schools of thought were put into utter confusion. Preaching to the world was one thing but getting along with each other was another.
This is great !!!! Now the merger was a MISTAKE??? We're getting to the heart of the matter ... some much for old timers preaching the message with the same fervency ..... lol ... I wish Ferd was reading this ...
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:24 PM
Both men are personal friends of mine Dr. Epley.
If they are apostates, does that make you the chosen crusader for "truth?" Boy am I honored, Sir Knight!
Yes I am a chosen crusader for truth and these men are apostates I say that without being hesitant one bit. When Sabin placed that ad in the paper apologizing for preaching truth that was it for me. I personally contacted his office and asked clear questions and got clear answers. These folk no longer are part of the Apostolic Church they are modern apostates who have drawn disciples after themselves.
Bryan
02-25-2007, 08:25 PM
Yes I am a chosen crusader for truth and these men are apostates I say that without being hesitant one bit. When Sabin placed that ad in the paper apologizing for preaching truth that was it for me. I personally contacted his office and asked clear questions and got clear answers. These folk no longer are part of the Apostolic Church they are modern apostates who have drawn disciples after themselves.
what did the ad say???
Sherri
02-25-2007, 08:26 PM
When the UPC was formed in 1945, the PCI had a magazine called "The Apostolic Herald" and the PAJC had a magazine called "The Pentecostal Outlook." It was decided to replace these magazines with a new one for the new organization. The new magazine was named "The Pentecostal Herald" and is referred to as the "official organ" of the UPC. I have a DVD containing the Pentecostal Heralds from the original issue in December 1945 through 2004. The first copy was 16 pages. Some of the pages are missing in the copy on the DVD. Here is an article on page 6 titled, "Our Paper, The Pentecostal Herald."
I will quote it but will not use quotation marks for the whole article, only the areas within that have quotation marks. Also, any parts which may appear in boldface type are bolded by me for emphasis and are not in boldface in the original article.
This the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, which is the official organ of the United Pentecostal Church, is the direct result of the merger of the two former papers, The Pentecostal Outlook and the Apostolic Herald. When the two former organizations, namely, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, Inc., and The Pentecostal Church, Inc., merged into one united organization, the two papers were merged into one. This we acknowledge with joy and great satisfaction, and look forward to a greater paper for the glory of God and the progress of truth.
The two former conferences agreed to make this paper open for articles pertaining to truths that may or may not be the opinion of all brethren, so long as these articles do not conflict with the Fundamentals of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church. However, the Editor is to be governed by the spirit of the article, and whenever the spirit of controversy is noticed in the article he is to act accordingly, and refer such articles to the Board of Publication
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, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. This is indeed the proper attitude toward the most vital subject, as we are all seeking after truth, and are confident that God will lead us into all truth by His Spirit. It is to be remembered that any and all material written in the spirit of controversy will be rejected by the Editor and the Board of Publication. This again is a great step in the right direction, and we pray that God will give the Editor wisdom and discernment in these most important and vital matters. If they should make some mistakes let us remember that they are men, and pray for them knowing that they are sincerely doing their best to carry out the orders of the Conference.
Articles for the Herald are solicited, and those who are capable of writing should keep a supply at Headquarters continually. These articles should be typed and double spaced; the writer should take every pain in preparing this material knowing that it will be read by tens of thousands of people. Further, if your articles should be rejected, or if you should not see it immediately, or even if you do not hear from the Editor regarding it, do not take offense at this, but pray God to give you something better and worthy of this great paper.
It has been my privilege to be connected with the editing of The Apostolic Herald for the past two years, and as one who is retiring from this task, I beseech each one to pray for the Editor in a special way, and to cooperate by sending in good spiritual articles; also by ordering rolls and sending subscriptions continually. Above all let us keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.
Yours in Jesus,
Oscar Vouga
Editor's Note: The preparation of this, the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, was handled by our Brother Vouga, who is the retiring editor of The Apostolic Herald. We take this opportunity of extending to him our appreciation for his fine services in the preparation of this material.
I think this is very eye-opening. I had never read it before, but I knew from old timers that this is the way it was handled. I think what he said is interesting--that we are all searching for more truth. That's the problem today; so many of us think that we have all truth and there is no more to learn. There are problems on both sides of the issue.
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:26 PM
This is great !!!! Now the merger was a MISTAKE??? We're getting to the heart of the matter ... some much for old timers preaching the message with the same fervency ..... lol ... I wish Ferd was reading this ...
Read the complete quote. Some was good but it could not last. Only friendships that bonded kept them together.
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:27 PM
what did the ad say???
He apologized for what he had preached since it had offended the rest of the "Christain world."
Bryan
02-25-2007, 08:28 PM
He apologized for what he had preached since it had offended the rest of the "Christain world."anything specific?
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 08:29 PM
anything specific?
About baptism and Holy Ghost evidenced with tongues.
Bryan
02-25-2007, 08:30 PM
About baptism and Holy Ghost evidenced with tongues.
he apologized for preaching that! :eek:
:::: CENSORED ::::
ManOfWord
02-25-2007, 08:32 PM
Yes I am a chosen crusader for truth and these men are apostates I say that without being hesitant one bit. When Sabin placed that ad in the paper apologizing for preaching truth that was it for me. I personally contacted his office and asked clear questions and got clear answers. These folk no longer are part of the Apostolic Church they are modern apostates who have drawn disciples after themselves.
Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.
Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.
Ah .... you gotta love truth ... man I've learned so much in the last couple of weeks here at AFF ....
What happened Sam to the old-time spirit of toleration??? Are the new PAJCers counterfeits?
When the merger happened in 1945 there were some who did not go along with it. There is still an organization called the PAJC. I am subscribed to their magazine. It is not a large organization. I first heard of it in 1956/1957 when I was going to school in St. Paul, MN. A young lady from Cleveland, OH went to a church which was part of that group. The church met in the basement of her home.
That was the idea of the word "full" in the fundamental doctrine statement. Some viewed the three steps of Acts 2:38 as all being necessary to being saved or born again. Anything less than all three steps was not real or full salvation. Others believed that "full" salvation applies to the whole lifetime of Christian experience --that we are not completely or fully saved until our death or the rapture. These folks believed that one was saved/justified/regenerated at faith and repentance and that after that conversion experience, they should be water baptized and Spirit baptized as part of their walk with God and growth in their Christian experience.
In 1973, the fundamental doctrine was modified to add the words, "for the remission of sins." This had been previously proposed in 1972 and Gene Zinni, superintendent of the Central New England District is quoted as having said, "Next we'll be teaching people need the Holy Ghost baptism to be saved." John Paterson is said to have been instrumental in thwarting the resolution. Paterson mailed a letter to every member of the General Board in August 1973 attempting to point out the theological problems associated with the proposed amendment. He warned that the issue would return and it did. Those words were added in 1973. Bro. W.M. Greer stated that "had those words been insisted upon (in 1945) there would have been no merger.
Sam I bow to you historic prowess ...
ManOfWord
02-25-2007, 08:39 PM
When the merger happened in 1945 there were some who did not go along with it. There is still an organization called the PAJC. I am subscribed to their magazine. It is not a large organization. I first heard of it in 1956/1957 when I was going to school in St. Paul, MN. A young lady from Cleveland, OH went to a church which was part of that group. The church met in the basement of her home.
That was the idea of the word "full" in the fundamental doctrine statement. Some viewed the three steps of Acts 2:38 as all being necessary to being saved or born again. Anything less than all three steps was not real or full salvation. Others believed that "full" salvation applies to the whole lifetime of Christian experience --that we are not completely or fully saved until our death or the rapture. These folks believed that one was saved/justified/regenerated at faith and repentance and that after that conversion experience, they should be water baptized and Spirit baptized as part of their walk with God and growth in their Christian experience.
In 1973, the fundamental doctrine was modified to add the words, "for the remission of sins." This had been previously proposed in 1972 and Gene Zinni, superintendent of the Central New England District is quoted as having said, "Next we'll be teaching people need the Holy Ghost baptism to be saved." John Paterson is said to have been instrumental in thwarting the resolution. Paterson mailed a letter to every member of the General Board in August 1973 attempting to point out the theological problems associated with the proposed amendment. He warned that the issue would return and it did. Those words were added in 1973. Bro. W.M. Greer stated that "had those words been insisted upon (in 1945) there would have been no merger.
Sam, you've got a very good handle on this and your input is greatly appreciated. It is quite obvious that there was far more tolerance than some are making out to be. If controversial articles weren't even accepted, what does that say about the spirit that was expected from each "side" and the "sickening, putrid, self-righteous" spirit that exists today? (yes, that gets me emotional)
Sam, you've got a very good handle on this and your input is greatly appreciated. It is quite obvious that there was far more tolerance than some are making out to be. If controversial articles weren't even accepted, what does that say about the spirit that was expected from each "side" and the "sickening" spirit that exists today?
Far more tolerance back then ...Sam ... indeed ... this a preponderance of evidence that they viewed the New Birth differently ... CS ... take note.
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by Daniel
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?
As I am wiped out, and my brain is fried after the events of the day, I will only attempt to explain John 3:5. I will specifically address numbers one and two on your list.
1. John 3 is what it is. A Pre-resurrection outline of cross-dispensational Truth. Even Matthew Henry recognized the import of Christ's words to Nicodemus.
2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, "You must be born again of the Spirit," which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The Jews cannot partake of the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom, they have so long looked for, unless they quit all expectations of being justified by the works of the law, and submit to the baptism of repentance, the great gospel duty, for the remission of sins, the great gospel privilege. Secondly, It is compared to wind: The wind bloweth where it listeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit, v. 8. The same word (pneuma) signifies both the wind and the Spirit. The Spirit came upon the apostles in a rushing mighty wind (Acts 2:2), his strong influences on the hearts of sinners are compared to the breathing of the wind (Ezek 37:9), and his sweet influences on the souls of saints to the north and south wind, Song 4:16.
I believe the current mainline Apostolic understanding of the New Birth is correct, in that it teaches a singular regeneration resulting from the dual action of the ordinance of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, in a newly repentant believer's life.
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 10:17 PM
Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.
Neither believe baptism has anything to do with salvation and Sabin does not believe tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost.
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:17 PM
As I am wiped out, and my brain is fried after the events of the day, I will only attempt to explain John 3:5. I will specifically address numbers one and two on your list.
1. John 3 is what it is. A Pre-resurrection outline of cross-dispensational Truth. Even Matthew Henry recognized the import of Christ's words to Nicodemus.
I believe the current mainline Apostolic understanding of the New Birth is correct, in that it teaches a singular regeneration resulting from the dual action of the ordinance of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, in a newly repentant believer's life.
Excellent post, Brother.
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Daniel:
2. What does being born again really mean?
The new birth is a creative life-giving operation of the Holy Spirit upon a lost human soul, whereby in response to faith in Christ crucified (John 3:14-16; Gal 3:24), the believing one, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), is quickened into spiritual life and made a partaker of the divine nature and of the life of Christ Himself (Gal 2:20; Eph 2:10; Col 1:27; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:4). The complete necessity of this spiritual transaction is the result of fallen man's state of spiritual death, his alienation from God, and his consequent utter inability to "see" (John 3:3) or "to enter into" the kingdom of God (3:5). No matter how moral, refined, talented, or religious the natural or unregenerate man may be, he is blind to spiritual truth and unable to save himself (3:6; cf. Ps 51:5; 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7-8). It is clear, therefore, that the new birth is not the reformation of the old nature but the reception of a new nature.
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:27 PM
Excellent post, Brother.
Thanks friend. :highfive
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:31 PM
The New Birth is foreshadowed in the first two or three verses of Genesis 1.
Thanks friend. :highfive
Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism
Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view. :tease
That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:33 PM
The New Birth is foreshadowed in the first two or three verses of Genesis 1.
Absolutely.
1. God filling a void.
2. God creating something from nothing.
3. God creating order from chaos.
4. God brooding (spiritual movement) over water.
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:33 PM
Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism
Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view. :tease
That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.
Losing?
Copying and pasting Gillespie doth not a victory make.
Losing?
Copying and pasting Gillespie doth not a victory make.
Whatevah ... as for your oldtime PCIers and PAJCers were New Birth twins comments ... do you recant????
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:36 PM
Please post the whole commentary, PP.... and how do you equate import with ...It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism
Lastly ... CS why the high fives??? .....All he did was restate what we already know is the PAJC view. :tease
That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.
I don't get it. ???
My only point was that even a non-Apostolic, such as MH sees the "probability" that being "born of the water" assumes baptism. I would go further than "probable", I would say it is exactly what Jesus meant.
Look Guy, you asked for commentary here. I was only obliging. :dunno
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 10:37 PM
The new birth is a creative life-giving operation of the Holy Spirit upon a lost human soul, whereby in response to faith in Christ crucified (John 3:14-16; Gal 3:24), the believing one, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), is quickened into spiritual life and made a partaker of the divine nature and of the life of Christ Himself (Gal 2:20; Eph 2:10; Col 1:27; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:4). The complete necessity of this spiritual transaction is the result of fallen man's state of spiritual death, his alienation from God, and his consequent utter inability to "see" (John 3:3) or "to enter into" the kingdom of God (3:5). No matter how moral, refined, talented, or religious the natural or unregenerate man may be, he is blind to spiritual truth and unable to save himself (3:6; cf. Ps 51:5; 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7-8). It is clear, therefore, that the new birth is not the reformation of the old nature but the reception of a new nature.
Good.
Looks like you have a following PP ..
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:40 PM
Whatevah ... as for your oldtime PCIers and PAJCers were New Birth twins comments ... do you recant????
You persist in saying I said something i did not say.
They were not twins; I never said they were.
I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.
Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:41 PM
Looks like you have a following PP ..
Looks like Bernie does too.
Had a breath of fresh air lately? ;)
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:41 PM
You persist in saying I said something i did not say.
They were not twins; I never said they were.
I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.
Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?
HAHAHA!!!!
Sic em boy! :drawguns
Steve Epley
02-25-2007, 10:41 PM
You persist in saying I said something i did not say.
They were not twins; I never said they were.
I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.
Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?
OPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP PPSSSSS!!!!!!!!!:highfive :highfive
commonsense
02-25-2007, 10:41 PM
When the UPC was formed in 1945, the PCI had a magazine called "The Apostolic Herald" and the PAJC had a magazine called "The Pentecostal Outlook." It was decided to replace these magazines with a new one for the new organization.
This the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, which is the official organ of the United Pentecostal Church, is the direct result of the merger of the two former papers, The Pentecostal Outlook and the Apostolic Herald. When the two former organizations, namely, The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ, Inc., and The Pentecostal Church, Inc., merged into one united organization, the two papers were merged into one. This we acknowledge with joy and great satisfaction, and look forward to a greater paper for the glory of God and the progress of truth.
The two former conferences agreed to make this paper open for articles pertaining to truths that may or may not be the opinion of all brethren, so long as these articles do not conflict with the Fundamentals of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church. However, the Editor is to be governed by the spirit of the article, and whenever the spirit of controversy is noticed in the article he is to act accordingly, and refer such articles to the Board of Publication
Articles for the Herald are solicited, and those who are capable of writing should keep a supply at Headquarters continually. These articles should be typed and double spaced; the writer should take every pain in preparing this material knowing that it will be read by tens of thousands of people. Further, if your articles should be rejected, or if you should not see it immediately, or even if you do not hear from the Editor regarding it, do not take offense at this, but pray God to give you something better and worthy of this great paper.
Yours in Jesus,
Oscar Vouga
Editor's Note: The preparation of this, the first issue of The Pentecostal Herald, was handled by our Brother Vouga, who is the retiring editor of The Apostolic Herald. We take this opportunity of extending to him our appreciation for his fine services in the preparation of this material.
It demonstrates my belief that the early "saints" were far more tolerant of each other. What a wonderful document to have. As hard as it is to accept or believe ,there are those in the UPCI trying to rewrite history.
The new birth is a creative life-giving operation of the Holy Spirit upon a lost human soul, whereby in response to faith in Christ crucified (John 3:14-16; Gal 3:24), the believing one, "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), is quickened into spiritual life and made a partaker of the divine nature and of the life of Christ Himself (Gal 2:20; Eph 2:10; Col 1:27; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 2 Peter 1:4). The complete necessity of this spiritual transaction is the result of fallen man's state of spiritual death, his alienation from God, and his consequent utter inability to "see" (John 3:3) or "to enter into" the kingdom of God (3:5). No matter how moral, refined, talented, or religious the natural or unregenerate man may be, he is blind to spiritual truth and unable to save himself (3:6; cf. Ps 51:5; 1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7-8). It is clear, therefore, that the new birth is not the reformation of the old nature but the reception of a new nature.
Good word, Pastor Poster
reminds me of something the late Dr. M.R. De Haan (1891-1965) said:
"You may train a lion to jump through a hoop, sit on a stool, or turn a somersault, but it will still be a lion. You may wrap a sow in silks and satins, but it still longs for the pig sty. And you may dress up your old, sinful nature received from father Adam with religion, reformation, education, culture, and what not, but you can never change it."
You persist in saying I said something i did not say.
They were not twins; I never said they were.
I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.
Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?
Hooked on phonics done me good
They loved this New Birth, Oneness Message.
Your words, not mine.
Looks like Bernie does too.
Had a breath of fresh air lately? ;)
Can I serve you some more koolaid???
HAHAHA!!!!
Sic em boy! :drawguns
I sense a sadistic spirit.
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:45 PM
I sense a sadistic spirit.
I sense a poor loser.:bliss
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:47 PM
I sense a sadistic spirit.
Sadistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:
Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him or her)
Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others
Has treated or disciplined someone under his or her control unusually harshly.
Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals)
Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal)
Gets other people to do what he or she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror)
Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions
Is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:48 PM
Sadistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:
Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him or her)
Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others
Has treated or disciplined someone under his or her control unusually harshly.
Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals)
Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal)
Gets other people to do what he or she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror)
Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions
Is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture
I think Hitler had this.
Sadistic personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of cruel, demeaning, and aggressive behavior, beginning by early adulthood, as indicated by the repeated occurrence of at least four of the following:
Has used physical cruelty or violence for the purpose of establishing dominance in a relationship (not merely to achieve some noninterpersonal goal, such as striking someone in order to rob him or her)
Humiliates or demeans people in the presence of others
Has treated or disciplined someone under his or her control unusually harshly.
Is amused by, or takes pleasure in, the psychological or physical suffering of others (including animals)
Has lied for the purpose of harming or inflicting pain on others (not merely to achieve some other goal)
Gets other people to do what he or she wants by frightening them (through intimidation or even terror)
Restricts the autonomy of people with whom he or she has a close relationship, e.g., will not let spouse leave the house unaccompanied or permit teenage daughter to attend social functions
Is fascinated by violence, weapons, injury, or torture
Sounds like us ...
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:49 PM
Be careful what adjectives you use Daniel.
Sadistic? Not even close.
You want I should exit the premises friend?
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
Fireside
02-25-2007, 10:49 PM
Well, when the discernment of spirits via internet prophets starts up, it's time for the old Coonskinner to hit the hay.
Good night all.:)
...
That's like high-fiving your teamates when your team is losing in a blowout.
Nobody is winning and nobody is losing here.
We are brothers and sisters who believe in and practice the two commands and one promise of Acts 2:38. We just discuss this over, and over, and over.
Nahum
02-25-2007, 10:51 PM
Well, when the discernment of spirits via internet prophets starts up, it's time for the old Coonskinner to hit the hay.
Good night all.:)
Me too. Night all!:ty
Be careful what adjectives you use Daniel.
Sadistic? Not even close.
You want I should exit the premises friend?
I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
PP ... :ranting ... Dan being Dan. :tease
I sense a poor loser.:bliss
:ty
J-Roc
02-25-2007, 11:38 PM
CS Quote:
They loved this New Birth, Oneness Message.
DAN: "Your words, not mine."
BUMP for CS
...
BUMP for CS
I think CS has gone to bed.
I'm heading for bed also
(my bed, not CS's bed).
They loved the Oneness message ....
Jesus Name baptism ....
being filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost ...
but CS ... the New Birth message was never agreed upon ....
FACT.
J-Roc
02-25-2007, 11:44 PM
Hooked on phonics done me good
Your words, not mine.
I think CS has gone to bed.
I'm heading for bed also
(my bed, not CS's bed).
Hi Sam! Then it'll wait for him in the morning. :)
Fireside
02-26-2007, 05:48 AM
They loved the Oneness message ....
Jesus Name baptism ....
being filled with the baptism of the Holy Ghost ...
but CS ... the New Birth message was never agreed upon ....
FACT.
Fact: They still preached Acts 2:38 with much more dervor and emphasis than their modern day would-be counterparts.
I know they did not agree on the point of when salvation occurred.
You continue to try and "prove a point" that I never differed with.
The issue is that they were a totally different breed and the emphasis of their ministry was very different from the men who are starting to now identify with their position.
Men like Oscar Vouga and other PCI brethren believed you were saved at the moment of faith and repentance.
But their preaching of the New Birth--Acts 2:38--was strong and emphatic.
They identified enough with PAJC men that they wanted to join with them.
You modern dudes are on the other hand embarassed of strong Apostolic preachers and would rather play footsie with the charismatics.
You emphasize your differences with us whereas the elder PCI men did the opposite.
They came out of demoninationalism; you are heading back toward it.
Fireside
02-26-2007, 05:50 AM
CS Quote:
They loved this New Birth, Oneness Message.
DAN: "Your words, not mine."
BUMP for CS
What kind of a smoking gun do you think this is?
Do you and Dan think if you keep repeating a false premise and attaching it to me long enough, that it will eventually stick?
That if you keep trying to put a spin on my original post I will eventually start to agree with it?
Get over it.
Ain't happening.
philjones
02-26-2007, 05:59 AM
Brother Epley ... one of the questions at hand ... was that a post in this forum claimed that old time PCIers and PAJCers were in lock-step when it came to preaching the New Birth ... history tells us different ... what's more amazing is the this poster said that many current day PCIers are counterfeit because they did not believe in the New Birth in the same way as their predecessors ... once again history proves differently ...
This is a false premise... I have seen no such post. If you are referring to CS's thread then you are spinning (as you have accused others of doing) or you obfuscating again! It has been said and been said that there were significant differences in their belief regarding at what point salvation occurred but you would never know it by hearing them preach because both groups put such emphasis on not only repentance, but also on baptism and the infilling of the spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues!
Please get the premise of the discussion right or the discussion is worth nothing!:ty :)
Fireside
02-26-2007, 06:08 AM
This is a false premise... I have seen no such post. If you are referring to CS's thread then you are spinning (as you have accused others of doing) or you obfuscating again! It has been said and been said that there were significant differences in their belief regarding at what point salvation occurred but you would never know it by hearing them preach because both groups put such emphasis on not only repentance, but also on baptism and the infilling of the spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues!
Please get the premise of the discussion right or the discussion is worth nothing!:ty :)
I guess he thinks if he repeats it often enough, people will believe it.
philjones
02-26-2007, 06:09 AM
Far more tolerance back then ...Sam ... indeed ... this a preponderance of evidence that they viewed the New Birth differently ... CS ... take note.
Dan,
there are many that are equally tolerant today as back then. You just choose not to acknowledge that fact.
As you and I have agreed, I believe that we could walk together and fellowship together in spite of our difference of opinion on when salvation occurs... AS LONG AS... you maintain your strong emphasis on baptism and the infilling of the Holy Ghost!
My experience has been that most of the "new" PCI adherents (those who have moved from a PAJC perspective) DE emphasize these to critical events out of a "heart of compassion" and a desire not to offend their newly found brethren in the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, et. al. churches.
This is when the problems usually start and the division occurs and the stones start to be thrown!
JMHO
philjones
02-26-2007, 06:12 AM
You persist in saying I said something i did not say.
They were not twins; I never said they were.
I said that they were far more focused on and passionate about the Acts 2:38 message than the guys who claim their title today.
Are you deliberately blowing smoke, or are you just having trouble with reading comprehension?
Had not read this post when I posted my comment above.
My apologies for hammering you unnecessarily!:bliss :heeheehee
I guess he thinks if he repeats it often enough, people will believe it.
Ditto, maybe you'll convince us.
Fact: They still preached Acts 2:38 with much more dervor and emphasis than their modern day would-be counterparts.
I know they did not agree on the point of when salvation occurred.
You continue to try and "prove a point" that I never differed with.
The issue is that they were a totally different breed and the emphasis of their ministry was very different from the men who are starting to now identify with their position.
Men like Oscar Vouga and other PCI brethren believed you were saved at the moment of faith and repentance.
But their preaching of the New Birth--Acts 2:38--was strong and emphatic.
They identified enough with PAJC men that they wanted to join with them.
You modern dudes are on the other hand embarassed of strong Apostolic preachers and would rather play footsie with the charismatics.
You emphasize your differences with us whereas the elder PCI men did the opposite.
They came out of demoninationalism; you are heading back toward it.
still playing word games .... anyone for a game of verbal gymnastics?
Bump ... some questions left unanswered.
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 09:46 AM
Bump ... some questions left unanswered.
What questions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
None are as blind as those who WILL not see!:drawguns
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 10:54 AM
See post 1.
Asked and answered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just heard a judge say that last week several times and they guy was sincere he cried tooo!!!!:highfive
Whole Hearted
02-26-2007, 03:31 PM
I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
Brother I agree 100%.
J-Roc
02-26-2007, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
Brother I agree 100%.
Brother, I disagree 110%.
The Swordsman
02-26-2007, 05:46 PM
Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
Brother, I disagree 110%.
You have a right to be wrong.
Garfield
02-26-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
I do NOT think there is a "Christian World" outside the church and the church preaches and obeys Acts 2:38!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!
Every Trinitarian is a lying false prophet the blind leading the blind until they BOTH the leaders and followers fall into the ditch.
Please don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Please don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Borat, Epley and Garfield .... three in one?
J-Roc
02-26-2007, 06:16 PM
You have a right to be wrong.
And you have the right to be wrong too. :tease
The Swordsman
02-26-2007, 06:19 PM
1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
Makes you wonder if Epley is the Swordsman ...
The Swordsman
02-26-2007, 06:25 PM
1Ti 5:1 - Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
1Ti 5:1 - Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
Epley is that YOU????
Admin
02-26-2007, 06:27 PM
:tease
This is uncalled for and you have been given an infraction.
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 06:35 PM
Admns I was NOT offended may I provoked it if so I apologize. It has been a heated thread though a good one.
Daniel NO I am not Swordman and have no idea who he or she is?
J-Roc
02-26-2007, 06:35 PM
Made my edits :praying
Felicity
02-26-2007, 06:41 PM
Admns I was NOT offended may I provoked it if so I apologize. It has been a heated thread though a good one.
Daniel NO I am not Swordman and have no idea who he or she is?It has been VERY good!
Bro E ...... love that av! :)
It has been VERY good!
Bro E ...... love that av! :)
agreed.
rrford
02-26-2007, 09:14 PM
For what it is worth:
Several times I have seen the name of Oscar Vouga mentioned. Throughout the years I have heard folks speak fondly of him and they considered him to be a true Apostolic and loving pastor.
My wife, MIL and FIL actually attended the church he pastored in Georgia for several years. When I informed them that he was of the the PCI persuasion they were increduluous. In their opinion he always preached the message of full salvation, namely repentance, baptism in Jesus name and infilling of the Holy Ghost. They never remember him ever stating that a person was saved at repentance.
Felicity
02-26-2007, 09:15 PM
For what it is worth:
Several times I have seen the name of Oscar Vouga mentioned. Throughout the years I have heard folks speak fondly of him and they considered him to be a true Apostolic and loving pastor.
My wife, MIL and FIL actually attended the church he pastored in Georgia for several years. When I informed them that he was of the the PCI persuasion they were increduluous. In their opinion he always preached the message of full salvation, namely repentance, baptism in Jesus name and infilling of the Holy Ghost. They never remember him ever stating that a person was saved at repentance.Neither have we that I remember.
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 09:16 PM
For what it is worth:
Several times I have seen the name of Oscar Vouga mentioned. Throughout the years I have heard folks speak fondly of him and they considered him to be a true Apostolic and loving pastor.
My wife, MIL and FIL actually attended the church he pastored in Georgia for several years. When I informed them that he was of the the PCI persuasion they were increduluous. In their opinion he always preached the message of full salvation, namely repentance, baptism in Jesus name and infilling of the Holy Ghost. They never remember him ever stating that a person was saved at repentance.
Elder that is so with many Old PCI men. Only in a preacher's fuss or folks in the know would know. Remember all the discussion about George Glass Sr. and the fuss between those who knew him pro and con.
rrford
02-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Neither have we that I remember.
Neither have you what?
Felicity
02-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Neither have you what?
Referring to this ........... "They never remember him ever stating that a person was saved at repentance."
rrford
02-26-2007, 09:18 PM
Elder that is so with many Old PCI men. Only in a preacher's fuss or folks in the know would know. Remember all the discussion about George Glass Sr. and the fuss between those who knew him pro and con.
I just asked my wife about this again. She stated how he would stress the neceesity of folks needing the Holy Ghost and altars being filled with those seeking the Holy Ghost.
rrford
02-26-2007, 09:19 PM
Referring to this ........... "They never remember him ever stating that a person was saved at repentance."
Thanks for the clarification.
(For a moment there I thought you were saying that you didn't remember ever stating folks were saved at repentance either. :heeheehee )
Felicity
02-26-2007, 09:20 PM
Thanks for the clarification.
(For a moment there I thought you were saying that you didn't remember ever stating folks were saved at repentance either. :heeheehee )That's what I was saying.
rrford
02-26-2007, 09:22 PM
That's what I was saying.
So you don't believe folks are saved at repentance?
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 09:24 PM
Thanks for the clarification.
(For a moment there I thought you were saying that you didn't remember ever stating folks were saved at repentance either. :heeheehee )
I was shocked after reading Fudge's book the statements he made about Elder Patterson and I have confirmed them but to read his books no one would think he was not a water and Spirit man. Remember Brumback accused him of minimizing repentance and the Elder answered him but gave him a double dose of baptism and it's importance. One of the best works on water baptism I have out probably hundreds of them. So although he was PCI his emphasis was as strong as the water and the Spirit folks was.
Scott Hutchinson
02-26-2007, 09:26 PM
Hey check this out.
http://www.theexperience238.com
Steve Epley
02-26-2007, 09:32 PM
Hey check this out.
http://www.theexperience238.com
Very impressive I must say.
Felicity
04-08-2007, 10:10 AM
So you don't believe folks are saved at repentance?Do you believe they're saved when they speak in tongues?
Joelel
04-08-2007, 04:04 PM
In a previous post, a poster has claimed that at the time of the merger both the PCI and PAJC had similar views on the New Birth ...and that many have strayed from this commonly held belief.
I know the vary views on Acts 2:38 have been discussed ad nauseum ... but clearly there seems to be a distinction between how both view the meaning of being born again as taught by Jesus in John 3.
Here are some questions I have:
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?
Hi Daniel,The word born means to be regenerated.The word kingdom means rule or reign. Kingdom of God is where God rules.When we are (born)regenerated God rules in us.Rom 14:17 For the kingdom (rule)of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.The Holy Ghost is not only Spirit but there is also the word of the Spirit.Once we are given a mesure of the Spirit then the Spirit begins to teach us.Our birth or regeneration is of Spirit and word and water. As the Spirit teaches us all truth we are being born (regenerated).
The Spirit and word grows in us.John 3:29: He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30: He must INCREASE, but I must DECREASE. (God increases his spirit (word) and Spirit as we decrease.
Eph.4:16: From whom the whole BODY fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the MEASURE of every part, maketh INCREASE of the BODY unto the edifying of itself in love.
Rom.12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, (by the increase of word,Spirit and faith) that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
2 Cor.7:1: Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Now, note seed,wash,water,word.
1 John3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed (word,Knowledge)remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1 Peter 1:23: Being born again, not of corruptible seed,(word,Knowledge) but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Heb.10:22: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water(seed,word,knowledge).
Eph.5:26: That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word (seed,knowledge),
27: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
John 6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Now this is being born (regenerated) of the water.Mark16:16 Jesus said He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Water baptism in Jesus name remits sins or washes your sins away.
Acts 22:16:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts2:38 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. 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call
Jesus told the disciples in John 20:23 whosoever sins you remit they are remitted and whosoever sins you retain they are retained. When we lead someone to the water to be baptized their sins are being remitted in the water. John20:23: Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained
NOTE confess. Where do we confess our sins? The blood is applied in the water in the name of Jesus. 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Math.3:6: And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins
Believers will be baptized in Jesus name.Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women
Acts10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Remisssion in Jesus name baptism Acts 2:38)
Blood was shed at death.Rom.6:: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death (blood): that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death (blood), we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection
True believers will obey.1 Peter1:22: Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever
Yes we are all apostolics learning the truth. Eph.4:16: From whom the whole BODY fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the MEASURE of every part, maketh INCREASE of the BODY unto the edifying of itself in love.
Eph:4:13: Till we all come in the unity (ONE) of the FAITH, and of the KNOWLEDGE of the Son of God, unto a PERFECT man, unto the MEASURE of the STATURE of the FULLNESS of Christ
Adino
04-12-2007, 11:22 PM
Hey Steve, long time no see. Hope all is well. I was not aware of this discussion forum until I stumbled across it just the other day. Saw a couple of things in your posts that sparked an interest so I thought I'd add a couple of thoughts to the thread.
Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth of water and spirit.G.T. Haywood certainly taught the water and spirit version of the new birth but just to keep the dates in line we should remember he died in 1931 (1880-1931).
Haywood believed the 'light doctrine...... I do NOT believe the church fell away into apostasy and was restored as taught by the teachers of the 'light doctrine."
Steve, do my eyes deceive me or is this something we finally agree on?!?! Wonderful! I too think the "light doctrine," as you called it, is a theory without sound foundation. I believe the same about the "kingdom of heaven vs the kingdom of God" theory.
In fact, I believe the existence of these two doctrines points to one of the greatest reasons the "water and spirit" new birth position should be disgarded. These teachings drive home the fact that the "water and spirit" doctrine of salvation taught by Oneness pioneers of the early 20th century was completely new and without precedent.
The early teachers of the water/spirit new birth view readily admitted they were teaching something newly revealed. By introducing their "progressed" and/or "more fully developed" new birth doctrine they were proposing that the "plan of salvation" had changed. The two innovative aforementioned theories (i.e., the "progressive light" and "kingdom" doctrines) were initially invented to help explain this "change" in the doctrine of salvation to those who feared a corruption of the Gospel message. They were attempts to ease concerns about the great Christians who had gone before in history and about those living Christians who chose not to walk in the so-called newest revealed plan.
Steve, I think it extremely ironic that you reject the very same teaching initially invented to support and somehow justify the newly introduced new birth position you currently espouse. I believe you are correct in rejecting the idea that 20th century preachers marked a restored interpretation of first century doctrinal truth. I do not believe their particular interpretation ever existed. I, of course, understand you believe otherwise. In all sincerity, I ask you to give me evidence that anyone in history ever interpreted the doctrine of the new birth as did the Oneness preachers of the early 1900's and as you do today. You'll remember I was raised under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold, a man who made this quest his life's work. Maybe you can succeed where he failed.
The pioneers of the Oneness Pentecostal movement in America believed their's was a new teaching. This mindset engendered other theories to answer logical questions of opposition. Since you reject their secondary theories the only other option is to prove their (your) new birth interpretation always existed. Please give me one example of someone before the 20th century who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit baptism evidenced by tongues as collective elements of the new birth.
....NO one is saved apart from the preaching and obedience of Acts 2:38!!!....Believe it or not... I agree. I believe Acts 2:38 contains saving truth as do many other Scriptures. I just do not agree it is your interpretation of Acts 2:38 which should be adopted by all as that which should be "preached and obeyed." Yours is the interpretation of the new revelationists of the 20th century. We already agree some of their secondary interpretations should not be followed..... I only suggest we remain consistent by disgarding that "new doctrine" which engendered them in the first place.
Could it be that some in the 1945 merger who questioned the "new interpretation" of Acts 2:38 may have had similar concerns in the back of their minds?
God bless, friend.
Daniel, good posts.
Felicity and ManofWord, hello to you both and good to see you as well.
Shelby Smith (aka Adino)
mizpeh
04-13-2007, 01:03 PM
Is history your gauge for truth?
Is history your gauge for truth?
Historical arguments are only valid if they are presented by "official' theologians ... i.e. Bernard ...
Felicity
04-13-2007, 02:20 PM
Daniel, good posts.
Felicity and ManofWord, hello to you both and good to see you as well.
Shelby Smith (aka Adino)Hey Adino......
You've been missed. Was just thinking about you the other day and here you are.
Great to have you on board. WELCOME! :welcome
Adino
04-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Is history your gauge for truth?
In the search for Scriptural truth interpretive rules dictate that proper historical context be taken into consideration. In this respect history is "one of the gauges" for truth. Regardless of the era ones lives in he needs to follow proper interpretive rules with as little bias as possible.
As far as the historical record as it relates to the water/spirit view of the new birth, we can certainly look at the doctrine's development in America and try to determine whether there was a lack of objectivity or whether errant doctrinal presumptions may have skewed conclusions. We can see the theological atmosphere when certain ideas came to the forefront and wonder if that atmosphere had an ill effect on certain doctrinal mindsets.
We can see that individuals who had great influence in the Oneness movement held questionable ideas like a) all men are "born of satan," b) the sin nature is completely eradicated when one is born of God, c) while there is a legal announcement of salvation by God at the moment of faith a vital side of redemption is still needed to bring "full salvation," or d) God changed his salvation plan throughout the ages and though men of old were saved as long as they "walked in the light they were shown" men of today must follow the newest revealed plan and wonder whether these ideas may have led to mistaken conclusions concerning the new birth.
We can wonder whether we need to accept all the ideas which ultimately culminated in the water/spirit doctrine or whether it would be honest to disgard those stepping stones and keep the final product no matter how it got to us. We can check to see if an interpretation has a historical witness or whether it has been rejected as a plausible option for a couple millennia. We can see if certain core passages we use today have valid historical alternative interpretations which may not support the water/spirit new birth conclusion and whether we are dogmatic in holding particular interpretations only because it seems to support a preconceived view. We could realize it's at least possible biased interpretations have been inherited and that opposing views should be considered with an open mind.
While the real "gauge" for truth is Scripture, history can certainly provide beneficial information to help us stay objective in our interpretation.
Nice to meet you, Mizpeh :tiphat
In the search for Scriptural truth interpretive rules dictate that proper historical context be taken into consideration. In this respect history is "one of the gauges" for truth. Regardless of the era ones lives in he needs to follow proper interpretive rules with as little bias as possible.
As far as the historical record as it relates to the water/spirit view of the new birth, we can certainly look at the doctrine's development in America and try to determine whether there was a lack of objectivity or whether errant doctrinal presumptions may have skewed conclusions. We can see the theological atmosphere when certain ideas came to the forefront and wonder if that atmosphere had an ill effect on certain doctrinal mindsets.
We can see that individuals who had great influence in the Oneness movement held questionable ideas like a) all men are "born of satan," b) the sin nature is completely eradicated when one is born of God, c) while there is a legal announcement of salvation by God at the moment of faith a vital side of redemption is still needed to bring "full salvation," or d) God changed his salvation plan throughout the ages and though men of old were saved as long as they "walked in the light they were shown" men of today must follow the newest revealed plan and wonder whether these ideas may have led to mistaken conclusions concerning the new birth.
We can wonder whether we need to accept all the ideas which ultimately culminated in the water/spirit doctrine or whether it would be honest to disgard those stepping stones and keep the final product no matter how it got to us. We can check to see if an interpretation has a historical witness or whether it has been rejected as a plausible option for a couple millennia. We can see if certain core passages we use today have valid historical alternative interpretations which may not support the water/spirit new birth conclusion and whether we are dogmatic in holding particular interpretations only because it seems to support a preconceived view. We could realize it's at least possible biased interpretations have been inherited and that opposing views should be considered with an open mind.
While the real "gauge" for truth is Scripture, history can certainly provide beneficial information to help us stay objective in our interpretation.
Nice to meet you, Mizpeh :tiphat
Dude ... you rock!!!!!!!!
Adino
04-16-2007, 09:53 AM
Daniel,
I thought I'd offer my two cents on one of your original questions.
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
I understand the underlying Greek structure of John 3:5 speaks of a single birth and not two. This single birth is one "of the Spirit." I believe the word "water" in the phrase "born of water" is a spiritual metaphor. By using this metaphor Christ places emphasis on the single new birth "of the Spirit." The author uses this same water/spirit metaphor in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39). It makes sense we recognize the metaphorical use here.
If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth.
John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
"Born of water even of the Spirit" brings to mind a later usage of this same metaphor in John 7:37-39 where it is, in fact, parenthetically explained that the metaphor "water" is a reference to the Spirit (vs39 But this spake he of the Spirit...).
That the remainder John chapter 3 jumps directly to further discussion on being born of the Spirit gives added strength to the metaphorical position.
Without John 3:5 as prooftext the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine commonly taught in the UPC completely crumbles. The Oneness pioneers of the 20th century required this passage be a reference to water baptism in order to find support for their newly revealed teaching. All other plausible interpretations were thrown out because they did not fit the new doctrinal template.
Without the PAJC interpretation of John 3:5 the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine simply does not hold water :winkgrin
Truly Blessed
04-16-2007, 12:01 PM
Daniel,
I thought I'd offer my two cents on one of your original questions.
I understand the underlying Greek structure of John 3:5 speaks of a single birth and not two. This single birth is one "of the Spirit." I believe the word "water" in the phrase "born of water" is a spiritual metaphor. By using this metaphor Christ places emphasis on the single new birth "of the Spirit." The author uses this same water/spirit metaphor in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39). It makes sense we recognize the metaphorical use here.
If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth.
John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
"Born of water even of the Spirit" brings to mind a later usage of this same metaphor in John 7:37-39 where it is, in fact, parenthetically explained that the metaphor "water" is a reference to the Spirit (vs39 But this spake he of the Spirit...).
That the remainder John chapter 3 jumps directly to further discussion on being born of the Spirit gives added strength to the metaphorical position.
Without John 3:5 as prooftext the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine commonly taught in the UPC completely crumbles. The Oneness pioneers of the 20th century required this passage be a reference to water baptism in order to find support for their newly revealed teaching. All other plausible interpretations were thrown out because they did not fit the new doctrinal template.
Without the PAJC interpretation of John 3:5 the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine simply does not hold water :winkgrin
As usual you have made some excellent posts Adino! It is true that John 3:5 is vital to the PAJC view of their doctrine of the new birth. They continue to defend it because they are not able to deal with the consequences of accepting that they are wrong.
I have argued for some time that there is no evidence from the full conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus that He was referring to water baptism and the Holy Ghost baptism with the sign of speaking with other tongues when he told Nicodemus he must be born again.
Contrariwise, the only answer Jesus gave Nicodemus to his question "How can this be?" was "believe in Jesus Christ".
And of course John confirms this in 1John 5:1, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."
Adino
04-17-2007, 04:59 AM
Thanks and Amen, TrulyBlessed
Daniel,
I thought I'd offer my two cents on one of your original questions.
I understand the underlying Greek structure of John 3:5 speaks of a single birth and not two. This single birth is one "of the Spirit." I believe the word "water" in the phrase "born of water" is a spiritual metaphor. By using this metaphor Christ places emphasis on the single new birth "of the Spirit." The author uses this same water/spirit metaphor in chapters 4 (v10-16) and 7 (v37-39). It makes sense we recognize the metaphorical use here.
If we also recognize the word "KAI" has more than one meaning, such as is shown in 1Corinthians 15:24 which states, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, KAI (even) the Father," we can see that John 3:5 is not offering two separate and distinct elements of a single birth but simply an emphasis on the single birth.
John 3:5 can be understood this way, "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water KAI (even) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
"Born of water even of the Spirit" brings to mind a later usage of this same metaphor in John 7:37-39 where it is, in fact, parenthetically explained that the metaphor "water" is a reference to the Spirit (vs39 But this spake he of the Spirit...).
That the remainder John chapter 3 jumps directly to further discussion on being born of the Spirit gives added strength to the metaphorical position.
Without John 3:5 as prooftext the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine commonly taught in the UPC completely crumbles. The Oneness pioneers of the 20th century required this passage be a reference to water baptism in order to find support for their newly revealed teaching. All other plausible interpretations were thrown out because they did not fit the new doctrinal template.
Without the PAJC interpretation of John 3:5 the "water/spirit" new birth doctrine simply does not hold water :winkgrin
As usual you have made some excellent posts Adino! It is true that John 3:5 is vital to the PAJC view of their doctrine of the new birth. They continue to defend it because they are not able to deal with the consequences of accepting that they are wrong.
I have argued for some time that there is no evidence from the full conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus that He was referring to water baptism and the Holy Ghost baptism with the sign of speaking with other tongues when he told Nicodemus he must be born again.
Contrariwise, the only answer Jesus gave Nicodemus to his question "How can this be?" was "believe in Jesus Christ".
And of course John confirms this in 1John 5:1, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."
Bumpity .... bump ... bump .... bump ...
...
And of course John confirms this in 1John 5:1, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."
1 John 5:1 in TLB (The Living Bible) reads:
If you believe that Jesus is the Christ --that he is God's Son and your Savior-- then you are a child of God. And all who love the Father, love his children also."
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.