Confess your sin, UPCI!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by deadeye

I am guessing your not UPC...but used to be....


My advice to you is...


Get. Over. It......for goodness sake. Leave it behind....let the UPC be the UPC and live your life as you please.


Sheeeesh....if it wasnt for the UPC half the threads on this forum would have nothing to gripe about...

Actually Mizzie is the General Secretary of the Ladies Auxiliary and Chief Doily Procurement Officer for the UPC. Or something like that.

And... if it wasn't for the UPC there wouldn't be anything to talk about on any of the various "Apostlic" forums.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The opinions were not that different. First of all they both preached Acts 2:38 and from what I have heard they preached it so "hard" that it was hard to distinguish them.

Preach together? Why can't they preach together? Why can't I preach on baptism with out mentioning "and if you are not baptized this way you are going to hell"?

Originally Posted by Sam

This is from an article titled “The Blood Covenant” by Howard A. Goss which appeared in the June 1954 Pentecostal Herald, pages 6 and 10


... repentance brings the blood of Jesus to a sinner’s heart to wipe out and cleanse him from all sin, he should then be baptized in water as a confession of his faith in the atonement...

When a sinner fully repents and confesses before God, the blood of Jesus atones for his sins , and cleanses his heart from all sin, and when he is clean then only is he a fit subject for water baptism. After that comes the promise “…you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost…” (Acts 2:38)

The blood and power of the Lord Jesus is the only source of regeneration or the New Birth. Water baptism alone has no power to remit sins, else we could baptize infants as do the Catholics. The Roman Catholic teaches regeneration by water baptism, but it is not according to the Word of God. A candidate for baptism in water should be baptized BECAUSE THE BLOOD has cleansed, remitted, forgiven his sins, and not in order to get them remitted, as WATER ALONE CANNOT WASH AWAY SINS. The old hymn goes:
What can wash away my sins,
Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

My husband was raised COG, of which, his grandfather was a licensed minister. He told me that they were more strict than the AOG (just a side note), they taught you were saved at repentance and preached the Holy Ghost as the "added blessing". He repented at 13, tears and all, and knew he was not capable of living the life he was required with what he had. They told him he was saved. The "added blessing" was not taught as a necessity.

When he joined the Air Force, he bunked with two guys from the UPCI. He began to study and feels that God showed him that he was taught wrong. He was, subsequently, filled with the Holy Ghost as he saw and believed it is a very necessary part of the Gospel message and not just an "added blessing".

I was taught the same when Charles Duke, the Astronaut, baptized me. He told me that some speak in tongues and some do not. Well, I was baptized in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and did not look into the "speaking in tongues" part, because he told me that God gave it to special people and I knew, at that point of my life, I was not special. That is a very bad way of presenting the Gospel, IMO. I don't know what he teaches today, but that's what he taught years ago.

Now I understand people are teaching the Holy Ghost is not salvific, but for empowerment and teaching that speaking in tongues is not the "only" evidence that you have received the Holy Ghost. I have a problem with that. These are some of the reasons, off the top of my head. We've been so laborious on this subject, I don't think I want to get more into this.

• Jesus said that it was expedient (be better or profitable) if he went away because if He didn't, the Comforter (Holy Ghost) would not come. (John 16:7)
  
• You will receive power after the Holy Ghost comes upon you. (Acts 1:8)
  
• After you repent and are baptize you will receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
  
• It is evident that "speaking in tongues" is the sign - Acts 2:33; Acts 11:15. These two scriptures, alone, would be enough to stand on as support and evidence of that fact.
  
• God gives the Holy Ghost to those that obey him. (Acts 5:32)
  
• We are the temple of the Holy Ghost. (I Cor 6:19)
  
• Having begun in the Spirit are you made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)
  
• If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, we are none (without) Christ. (Romans 8:9)

I see no reason to believe you will not speak in tongues or that you receive it any other way. Romans 8:9 tells me that it is a salvational issue. If I don't belong to Him without the Holy Ghost, how will I make it to heaven? It is the earnest of my inheritance.

Prax, that means these two varying messages will come against each other in a very divisive way and there will not be unity in that. They may have started out being almost identical, but they certainly are not anymore.

We have heated debate about that here on AFF. How is taking a stand against the AS in the UPCI any different? David is calling me a liar because I am a 3-stepper. That means my husband is also a liar. Who would have thunk! LOL! Pointing fingers at the UPCI becomes pretty moot at that point. I mean, really! LOL!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My husband was raised COG, of which, his grandfather was a licensed minister. He told me that they were more strict than the AOG (just a side note), they taught you were saved at repentance and preached the Holy Ghost as the "added blessing". He repented at 13, tears and all, and knew he was not capable of living the life he was required with what he had. They told him he was saved. The "added blessing" was not taught as a necessity.

When he joined the Air Force, he bunked with two guys from the UPCI. He began to study and feels that God showed him that he was taught wrong. He was, subsequently, filled with the Holy Ghost as he saw and believed it is a very necessary part of the Gospel message and not just an "added blessing".

I was taught the same when Charles Duke, the Astronaut, baptized me. He told me that some speak in tongues and some do not. Well, I was baptized in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and did not look into the "speaking in tongues" part, because he told me that God gave it to special people and I knew, at that point of my life, I was not special. That is a very bad way of presenting the Gospel, IMO. I don't know what he teaches today, but that's what he taught years ago.

Now I understand people are teaching the Holy Ghost is not salvific, but for empowerment and teaching that speaking in tongues is not the "only" evidence that you have received the Holy Ghost. I have a problem with that. These are some of the reasons, off the top of my head. We've been so laborious on this subject, I don't think I want to get more into this.

• Jesus said that it was expedient (be better or profitable) if he went away because if He didn't, the Comforter (Holy Ghost) would not come. (John 16:7)
• You will receive power after the Holy Ghost comes upon you. (Acts 1:8)
• After you repent and are baptize you will receive the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
• It is evident that "speaking in tongues" is the sign - Acts 2:33; Acts 11:15. These two scriptures, alone, would be enough to stand on as support and evidence of that fact.
• God gives the Holy Ghost to those that obey him. (Acts 5:32)
• We are the temple of the Holy Ghost. (I Cor 6:19)
• Having begun in the Spirit are you made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)
• If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, we are none (without) Christ. (Romans 8:9)

I see no reason to believe you will not speak in tongues or that you receive it any other way. Romans 8:9 tells me that it is a salvational issue. If I don't belong to Him without the Holy Ghost, how will I make it to heaven? It is the earnest of my inheritance.

Prax, that means these two varying messages will come against each other in a very divisive way and there will not be unity in that. They may have started out being almost identical, but they certainly are not anymore.

We have heated debate about that here on AFF. How is taking a stand against the AS in the UPCI any different? David is calling me a liar because I am a 3-stepper. That means my husband is also a liar. Who would have thunk! LOL! Pointing fingers at the UPCI becomes pretty moot at that point. I mean, really! LOL!

I don't see where you proved that these two varying messages will come against each other in a very divisive way. It's not the messages but the people. Also you didn't really address the points I made

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The opinions were not that different. First of all they both preached Acts 2:38 and from what I have heard they preached it so "hard" that it was hard to distinguish them.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't see where you proved that these two varying messages will come against each other in a very divisive way. It's not the messages but the people. Also you didn't really address the points I made

I told you what I see as a divisive message. Saying you are saved at repentance (one stepper), saved after the infilling of the Holy Ghost (3-stepper). Romans 8:9 tells me I don't belong to Christ without the Holy Ghost. So, I don't see how I can be saved at repentance.

You said that both preached Acts 2:38, that it was hard to distinguish between the two messages. Distinguish means that there is something different. Where or what was the distinction?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I told you what I see as a divisive message. Saying you are saved at repentance (one stepper), saved after the infilling of the Holy Ghost (3-stepper). Romans 8:9 tells me I don't belong to Christ without the Holy Ghost. So, I don't see how I can be saved at repentance.

You said that both preached Acts 2:38, that it was hard to distinguish between the two messages. Distinguish means that there is something different. Where or what was the distinction?

That doesn't prove though that it has to be divisive. That only shows they differ on where one is saved. Both groups preached the necessity or repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the Holy Ghost

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That doesn't prove though that it has to be divisive. That only shows they differ on where one is saved. Both groups preached the necessity or repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the Holy Ghost

Romans 8:9 says that I do not belong to Christ without His Spirit. Therefore, I believe it is erroneous to say that you are saved when you repent. That is two separate messages being preached. I do not see how that will not divide at some point.

Can you image two preachers - one on Sunday morning and one on Sunday night - preaching opposite messages. LOL! Sunday morning you are saved, Sunday night you are not. LOL! How is that going to work? I do not see that working, at all. LOL!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Romans 8:9 says that I do not belong to Christ without His Spirit. Therefore, I believe it is erroneous to say that you are saved when you repent.

The only one making an issue out of when someone is saved is you. Thus you prove my point. It's not the message but the people that hold the messages that are divisive.

That is two separate messages being preached. I do not see how that will not divide at some point.

Can you image two preachers - one on Sunday morning and one on Sunday night - preaching opposite messages. LOL! Sunday morning you are saved, Sunday night you are not. LOL! How is that going to work? I do not see that working, at all. LOL!

The discussion is not when someone is saved but whether or not 2 views, that both preach Acts 2:38, can be a single organization. I say yes except for people who want to be divisive over it

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Romans 8:9 says that I do not belong to Christ without His Spirit. Therefore, I believe it is erroneous to say that you are saved when you repent. That is two separate messages being preached. I do not see how that will not divide at some point.

Can you image two preachers - one on Sunday morning and one on Sunday night - preaching opposite messages. LOL! Sunday morning you are saved, Sunday night you are not. LOL! How is that going to work? I do not see that working, at all. LOL!

BTW one would not preach you are saved and the other you are not. They would both preach in their respective churches Jesus Christ, Faith and Acts 2:38

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

...

• It is evident that "speaking in tongues" is the sign - Acts 2:33; Acts 11:15. These two scriptures, alone, would be enough to stand on as support and evidence of that fact.

• 
  

Can you prove that the experience you call "speaking in tongues" is the same identical experience to that which the apostles experienced in Acts 2? Remember, you stated that this is a "fact." Prove it.

I know that this challenge will generate some hearsay testimonies, but it has never been demonstrated on even one single occasion since New Year's Eve 1899 until this present day that any of the "speaking in tongues" in the modern day Pentecostal Revival has ever included anything like the experience and the languages described in Acts 2:4-11.

Not once. Ever.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

David is calling me a liar because I am a 3-stepper. That means my husband is also a liar. Who would have thunk! LOL! Pointing fingers at the UPCI becomes pretty moot at that point. I mean, really! LOL!

Do you mean "David" as in me? I see that I appear to be the only one with a "David" in his user name that has posted in this thread so far.

I called you a liar because you are a "Three Stepper?" You're hallucinating badly now.

When did I call you a liar?

That's the problem with your methodology, IMHO. You are so certain that you are correct that anyone who dares to question - not necessarily your doctrine, but questions your certainty - draws this "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR!?!" type of response.

Grow up.

Now, prove to me that you are unquestionably right on this issue by producing verifiable evidence that the scene in Acts 2:4-11, has ever been repeated in a 20th or 21st century Pentecostal meeting. Prove to me that this is a fact, as you have said it is.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Brother David

Do you mean "David" as in me? I see that I appear to be the only one with a "David" in his user name that has posted in this thread so far.

I called you a liar because you are a "Three Stepper?" You're hallucinating badly now.

When did I call you a liar?

Originally Posted by Brother David

Bible truth never needs to be upheld by outright lies and fabrications. The UPC needs to reprent of promoting these lies. The whole "Three Stepper" movement needs to repent for inventing and passing one these lies.

Hello!!!!