I don't believe it's gone.

No ... elder this has nothing to do with my view or interpretation.

The way that the Fundamental Doctrine article is written in the AOF is poorly written and does not reflect the views of most ... if not all the fellowhip. Yet, ministers affirm to it when signing the AS.

Dan Seagraves has pointed out this misconstruction found in it:

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:'4

The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but. are instead separated by a comma.

This alone, I believe puts the entire fellowship in contradiction w/ the AS...perhaps invalidating it .... and this would probably hold true in a legal proceeding.

Not to disparage Elder Becton but the church he pastored was a PCI church and believed like Gurley & Greer & Benson. I do not know if he ever changed them?? They were not changed when I left Tn. about 13 years ago? CC1 speak up.

Nor do I .... I have reason to believe that there are a handful of UC's with PCI doctrine on this forum and/or holders of light doctrine.

Excuse me?????????????? Me thinks you know you are caught by the seat of the britches. IF you acknowledge that 'for the remmission' of sins means UNTO in the fundamental doctrine then by that same conclusion it was mean the same in Acts 3:38. There is NOT ONE Pentecostal preacher that believes sins are remitted for anyone who has NOT repented and YOU know that. This is pure foolishness. That is why Bro. Greer signed it changed nothing for him he like you believed like the Baptist so it changed nothing. BECAUSE the wording is the same. But YOU see the dilema YOU are in. And so does everyone else. God bless your little pea picking heart.:heeheehee

Well look even at the leadership of this board. You have a mix represented and they're even working together (for the most part). Amazing eh? And UCs and liberals are fellowshipping together here under leadership that represents a variety of doctrinal persuasions.


Seriously though, it's kind of a microcosm of the UPC as I knew it. :)

I didn't say it was gone. I said "with very few exceptions". Canada may still have some UPC folks of that persuasion in some numbers but as far as Mississippi and Tennessee go the PAJC view folks dominate here. There may be one or two of the PCI view but not many. The ones that were here are either dead or like my pastor no longer UPC. I think the same holds true for the Northwest where the Yadon's were once a force in the UPC and held the PCI view.

If it is / was of the PCI view it is closely held and the emphasis on water & spirit baptism is so strong it would be indistinguishable from a PAJC one in a practical sense. Much like a church pastored by someone who believes in the progressive light doctrine. Their preaching would still be strong Acts2:38.

I have to take the Elder Becton at his word if he says he does not hold that view. I also would think his son Ron would not since he is a product after the merger of mainstream UPC and probably reflects the mainstream view.

And that's what I've been screaming all along...the UPCI was merged under the understanding that there were differences that could be built on...and it worked!!

Speaking to some of my young preacher friends they believe that there are quite a few young preachers that hold the PCI position , hold a light doctrine view, or the hybrid Seagravian view that justification happens at repentance ... while remission happens at baptism ...

Good heavens! Even the present GS doesn't believe that every person not baptized in Jesus name or speaks in tongues will be lost eternally so to think that there aren't still a great many men who believe similarly would be missing the mark I think.

I know that there are so many who say A, B, C, and D are necessary to be saved but then when you got down to brass tacks they won't say that everyone who doesn't do ABC and D will be eternally lost so to think that there aren't still a great many men who believe similarly in the UPC would be missing the mark.

I don't think that many are even aware of this contradiction, and I also think that many of the "younger" men as they study Scripture and mature and start to think for themselves will come up with a doctrinal view not unlike the one we hold. My personal opinion.

But in the meantime everyone says they believe ABC and D. :)

I find this extremely hard to believe. If this were the case, the entire basis of our (UPC) fellowship would be a sham. You and Daniel can proclaim Apostolic heritage all you want, but the truth is your doctrine is a watered down - little bit-better-that-Baptist-view.

It's ridiculous to assert that a large percentage of UPC churches and ministers believe this junk. It's simply untrue.

That is a very bold assertion. Do you have something in writing from Bishop Haney that supports your claim that he does not believe what our AOF proclaims?

PeePee,

I don't agree with everything Felicity says on this subject but it is a documented fact that the first UPC GS, Goss, beleived that his AOG and other "brothers and sisters" were going to be in heaven.

Others have posted quotes of his from books or sermons. I don't have them at hand but if any of those folks are reading this please post them again.

I agree with you Cee Cee, but that is not what is being stated here. What is being stated is that there are currently a large percentage of UPC ministers/churches with that view. The implied notion is that we are 50/50 on this stuff. I categorically reject that bunk.

I think it is dangerous to imply that Kenneth Haney holds a PCI view. Is there documentation to prove that assertion? If not, it should be retracted. That could really damage him.

How is my doctrine different than yours? Please explain.

Very simple. I believe the word states that salvation is brought only through repentance, baptism in the Name of Jesus, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

You believe one is saved at repentance. Everything else is added unnecessary extra blessings.

Pastor P......

I know of what I speak. I'm not a novice. I was born into this when you were still only a thought in the mind of God. I've traveled east to west, north to south and have talked to hundreds of men and women - pastors, missionaries, evangelists, and WEC officials and leaders and shakers in the movement. Things are shared when the guard is down and people are fellowshipping around a table that aren't when public position must be taken (and they must, I understand that).

Whether you agree with me is immaterial really although I appreciate your perspective and chiming in here. I don't think putdowns are necessary though.

Wrong - partly at least. I believe that a person is regenerated at the point of believing and repentance. Baptism is not an option.

The Holy Ghost is promised to those who repent and are baptized.

Speaking of which..... There is no doubt this has long been an area needing clarification. How many do you think would sign on for a resolution that "clarfies" the AOF position??

"Whereas there have been questions as to what constitutes "Full Salvation" and whereas there have been questions as to when and where justification occurrs in the new believer, be it resolved that the membership of this organization wholeheartedly believes eternal damnation is the future of all "christians" not experiencing the New Birth as we have defined and interpreted Acts 2:38 in it's entirety."

Either we believe our own articles of faith, or we don't. If we don't lets dismantle the whole thing and start over. Trouble is, I believe what you call the PAJC doctrine with all of my heart. I could not be a part of something that watered that down.

BTW, I would never intentionally put you down. I respect you too much. I just disagree, that's all.

Only problem I have with it is the use of the word "Christians".

Astounding. I don't believe for one second the majority would be with you in this.

OK I am removing the capitalization of the word Christians and placing it in quotes.

Then they need to find an organization that is Baptist - don't they?

Uh .... I said YOU were in a minority. AMF??

Are you talking about the Statement of Faith?

That was worded in a way at the merger that both views - PAJC and PCI - could be comfortable with and live with. There was a tolerance present then that I wish was with you all still. That tolerance and acceptance of one another's differences is the reason the Merger took place at all.

So much to be said about all this. Some of you younger guys who came on the scene in a different generation don't understand some of the dynamics of all this I don't think. Where you're situated geographically enters into an overall understanding too of how things were and are today.

I appreciate you bro. I hear what you're saying.

But again, Pastor P, this is exactly what the UPCI was founded on...two groups of Apostolic men coming together, bringing their "different views" into the making of one "united Pentecostal" organization.

They coexisted, working and building that which you so grandly protect, until 1992...47 years of unity.

In my opinion, it is ridiculous to think that the departure of a few in '92 'cleaned house'.

I have a friend who lives in another state and called me last night. She said that in the area she lives, there are at least 15 churches...all UPCI, yet not all teaching the same.

It boggles my little mind that until a couple of years ago I never heard of Apostolics who didn't all speak the same voice, but was I ever out of the loop.

As a child I vividly remember Bro. OV coming to our church (I learned much later that he was 'PCI') and I don't recall horns or any such thing. I do remember a man preaching the Word.

Basically you seem to be judging people who have left Acts 2:38 and are now promoting repentance and forgiveness as people who are in it for money. There are people who have left churches and LOST money and position because of a change in belief.

I grew up in the Ozarks and now live in Central Illinois. I have never met a UPC pastor that would agree to what you all are saying. Never.

There should be no tolerance for variance on the New Birth message. How could their be? I mean, we are talking apples and oranges here.

That is your opinion. Do you have any hard facts to back it up? All I have are my own experiences, and what is printed in black and white in that little book we call the UPCI manual.

You wouldn't have known the difference hearing him or most of his contemporaries preach, Barb.

The difference between most of the PCI men of that day and the ones who claim it today is in their emphasis and choice of fellowship.

Men like Oscar Vouga chose to throw their lot in with those who strongly promoted the New Birth message, such as PAJC men.

Many of the ones who claim to believe the PCI doctrine today use it as a basis for breaking fellowship with strong Apostolic preachers, and prefer rather to fellowship with those who don't even believe all that similarly.

This is a big difference.

You can't compare the men like Vouga who preached the New Birth with fervor and passion to these glorified Baptists today who have more in common with easy-believism preachers than with Apostolic men who will declare the whole counsel of God.

Nobody said Oscar Vouga had horns, or was a bad man.

But he was a different breed than a lot of the characters who claim to represent his position.

That is because those who, in your words, "declare the whole counsel of God" cast those into hell who are any different than they are. Who wants to fellowship with that? And who is really "breaking fellowship"?

LOL!! I was trying to make a point, Elder...sorry...

But now I have a question...

As a layperson I am wondering, respectfully...you stated that many PCI folks use doctrine as a basis for breaking fellowship.

But who broke away from whom if they were pushed into the proverbial corner, or am I not understanding how it went?

But the facts are the facts and there has always been variance on when "new birth" takes place. But repentance, baptism in Jesus name have been preached as essentials and so was the baptism of the Holy GHost with tongues evidence. It was preached very strongly to me. And we've always placed the "essental" emphasis on it to the point where we had very few in any church we pastored who hadn't received the Holy Ghost (baptism) and spoke in tongues.

Sometimes pastors won't share with one another what they really think and belief because of the "peer pressure" factor and the fact that they don't want to given themselves away in that regard.

I acknowledge the fact that most in the UPC state the new birth position in the PAJC format. We were part of the UPC as far as ministerial license for 25 years and never had any problem with exception being taken with what we taught, preached and exemplified in regard to doctrine or the AoF either.

There are those who go down the compromise road to the point where there's no longer emphasis on Holy Ghost baptism and where it no longer matters how a person is baptized, etc. and I feel badly about that. It does happen.

Methinks its sad that pentecostals watch ex-pentecostals on TV.,\ :club

How do you know they are ex-pentecostals?

Methinks it's sad that anyone cares what other people watch on TV or if they watch it at all. :)

Aw now...maybe what he was really expressing is that we should be watching Pentecostals on TV, not ex-pentecostals :-)

I wonder though if it's ok to watch Methodists...

BTW anyone know if the Jehovahs Witnesses are on TV? I know the Mormons have a satellite broadcast