The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[Coonskinner]

I have to chuckle when I see these modern backsliders calling themselves adherents of the "PCI" doctrine.

They don't have any more in common with the old PCI men than modern liberal democrats do with the architects of the New Deal. They both claim a connection with a heritage they have absolutely nothing in common with, and simply want to trade on a name that is respected.

The men of the PCI were mostly men who had come out of denominations that were trinitarian, and had received a revelation of Truth.

They preached their revelation with such passion and fervor that no one would have known by their preaching that they differed from the PAJC men, for the most part.

This was because they had made a move toward Truth and revelation.

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.

[rrford]

Ahhhh, clarity. Thou art a virtue!

Ironically, I was thinking about the distillation process as I walked on the treadmill this morning and asking God what would be left of me if he were to turn up the heat and cook out all the superfluous self that is in me. The revealed result was that all that would remain in the beaker would be the Truth I had embraced and held for that is all that will stand when the heat is turned up!

This is excellent. It is truly a tragedy to see how some have taken this label and used it to justify a doctrine which clearly comes directly from hell. Your wise words are appreciated.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by apersimmon

This is excellent. It is truly a tragedy to see how some have taken this label and used it to justify a doctrine which clearly comes directly from hell. Your wise words are appreciated.

Thank you, Sir.

[SDG]

I will dispel the myths of the "indistinguishable" PAJC and PCI view this afternoon ... Granted both believed in Jesus Name baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Onesss in the same light ... [let's not forget that men like Goss who was AG and was in the center of the "new issue"] .... but to say that their soteriological views were lock step or that their views baptismal regeneration were identical... or preached Acts 2:38 as carbon copies .... is fallacious.

Men like Yadon, Goss, Gurley were very clear on their doctrinal views of salvation ... the attempt by modern PAJCers to blur the lines is perhaps an attempt to revise the history and the tragedy of the Affirmation statement.

I am not ashamed of my heritage ... I am not ashamed of the Oneness message ... I am not ashamed of Jesus name baptism ... or the in-filling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... but there is a distictness in our views as to when salvation is made available ... what baptism signifies and its purpose ... the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and a current movement to unify the movement under the "Acts 2:38" banner to ostracize those who do not hold the PAJC view .... see ya soon fellas.

God bless.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by SDG

I will dispel the myths of the "indistinguishable" PAJC and PCI view this afternoon ... Granted both believed in Jesus Name baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Onesss in the same light ... [let's not forget that men like Goss who was AG and was in the center of the "new issue"] .... but to say that their soteriological views were lock step or that their views baptismal regeneration were identical... or preached Acts 2:38 as carbon copies .... is fallacious.

Men like Yadon, Goss, Gurley were very clear on their doctrinal views of salvation ... the attempt by modern PAJCers to blur the lines is perhaps an attempt to revise the history and the tragedy of the Affirmation statement.

I am not ashamed of my heritage ... I am not ashamed of the Oneness message ... I am not ashamed of Jesus name baptism ... or the in-filling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... but there is a distictness in our views as to when salvation is made available ... what baptism signifies and its purpose ... the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and a current movement to unify the movement under the "Acts 2:38" banner to ostracize those who do not hold the PAJC view .... see ya soon fellas.

God bless.

Love your post. Thank ye.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by SDG

I will dispel the myths of the "indistinguishable" PAJC and PCI view this afternoon ... Granted both believed in Jesus Name baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Onesss in the same light ... [let's not forget that men like Goss who was AG and was in the center of the "new issue"] .... but to say that their soteriological views were lock step or that their views baptismal regeneration were identical... or preached Acts 2:38 as carbon copies .... is fallacious.

Men like Yadon, Goss, Gurley were very clear on their doctrinal views of salvation ... the attempt by modern PAJCers to blur the lines is perhaps an attempt to revise the history and the tragedy of the Affirmation statement.

I am not ashamed of my heritage ... I am not ashamed of the Oneness message ... I am not ashamed of Jesus name baptism ... or the in-filling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... but there is a distictness in our views as to when salvation is made available ... what baptism signifies and its purpose ... the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and a current movement to unify the movement under the "Acts 2:38" banner to ostracize those who do not hold the PAJC view .... see ya soon fellas.

God bless.

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

The belief that water baptism is the place where sins are washed away and connecting it to the new birth of John 3:5 was taught long before the Roman Catholic church.

Sam, you and SDG (Dan A.) have been around this site long enough to know these things. Why are you comparing this doctrine to the RCC or the Cambellites? Why not go directly back to the first nonbiblical writings concerning this?

Check it out and get your facts straight. Here is a place you can start looking...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=195

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=197

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

The doctrine of baptism washing away sins in not RC. Its Pauline.

In his own conversion, Ananias told paul in Acts 22:16, Why tarriest thou, Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You put baptism with calling on the name of Jesus and it equals washing away of sins.

Regardless of what PCI and PAJC believed or didn't believe, the bible does not change. By the own words of the Lord, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Baptism is necessary according to the word. That is all that matters. But Baptism is nothing without Faith and faith is the point of justification. Without baptism faith is simply word, not deed.


You can study any of the "Fathers" before the complete formation of the RC, such as Iranaeus, Polycarp, Justin, etc and they all believed the same thing regarding baptism, that it was necessary for God's grace to operate in our lives. It is a free gift, but there is an entrance to that free gift and that entrance is Christ and the way to be put on Christ, is to be baptized in Christ.