The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits - Page 124

Sabby · #**1231** 05-13-2011, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The point of this post is doctrinal--the ones who have backed up on the essentiality of the New Birth, and have decided to call themselves PCI.

Standards are a whole other issue.

Skinner,
I spoke with Loren Yadon last year about this. LY is still pastoring a church in Boise, Idaho. His uncle, C.H., as you know was a leading voice for (concerning this thread) the PCI position. C.H. said it was like "oil and water" and "never should have happened" and that the founders never thought the "children" of the merger (ie; second generation) would become so adversarial towards each other.
I will explain it a little clearer. C.H. never believed the PAJC-leaning brethren (whom I will call three-step New Birthers) would silence the influence of the PCI movement as they did.
The destruction of the Idaho district in the late 70's and 80's and the closure of the highly missions-minded Conqueror's Bible College in Portland (Scism, Judd, Nigh, O'Daniel, Ciulla, on and on) are only two examples on a macro scale. The PCI position in Oregon was all but eliminated by the mid-80s. I KNOW that, because I was forced out in '86.

I believe you have a good (if not mischievious) motive with this thread, and wish you WOULD stir the pot about this subject on every apostolic blog on the internet.

In your opinion, what makes a PCI believer a counterfeit? The three step New Birther denial?

Generally speaking, PCIers did not teach that salvation is attained through water baptism and Holy Ghost baptism w/the evidence of speaking in tongues, but rather that those two experiences are subsequent to salvation which is brought about by repentance (by faith in the finished work of calvary) towards God.

I see no reason to bash anyone that believes either the PAJC or PCI position. Both preach Jesus' name baptism. Both preach HG baptism. The difference is in degree - more so with the latter.

mizpeh · #**1232** 07-04-2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

There is no Scriptural basis for saying the blood is applied to us personally when we are baptized. The blood is appropriated by faith, not applied through obedience as some teach. Faith precedes obedience and therefore the blood is appropriated prior to obedience. Otherwise we could not even approach God. The Bible is clear in setting forth the blood as a cleansing and covering for our sins so we can approach God with a holy standing. I cannot understand anyone believing that sinful man can enter into a relationship with God apart from the blood, which according to the PAJC position isn't even "applied" until baptism.

Believing men in the OT had a relationship with God apart from the blood of Christ. The prophets of the OT were filled with the Holy Spirit apart from the blood of Christ. Are these enough for you to understand how the Spirit of God can graciously and mercifully move upon a believer in the NT, even put his Spirit in this believer without yet having the blood of Christ applied to their souls for the remission of sin that happens in the water of baptism?

seekerman · #**1233** 07-04-2011, 09:30 AM

The blood was applied, for a person's redemption, 2000 years ago at the cross....long before the individual was born.

mizpeh · #**1234** 07-04-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerman

The blood was applied, for a person's redemption, 2000 years ago at the cross....long before the individual was born.

It takes faith to appropriate the blood of Christ.
Are you a universalist?

seekerman · #**1235** 07-04-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It takes faith to appropriate the blood of Christ.
Are you a universalist?

Sorta, kinda. Why do you not believe the blood was applied when it was shed 2000 years ago?

mizpeh · #**1236** 07-04-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerman

Sorta, kinda. Why do you not believe the blood was applied when it was shed 2000 years ago?

Because I didn't believe 2000 years ago.

seekerman · #**1237** 07-04-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Because I didn't believe 2000 years ago.

So, when He shed His blood, entered into holy place as high priest, He didn't at that time apply the blood for your atonement? Am I understanding your position correctly?

If He didn't apply the blood as high priest at that time, what was the purpose of His entering into the heavenly tabernacle with the atoning blood?

Amanah · #**1238** 09-19-2011, 05:40 AM

bump for reference

Godsdrummer · #**1239** 09-19-2011, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerman

So, when He shed His blood, entered into holy place as high priest, He didn't at that time apply the blood for your atonement? Am I understanding your position correctly?

If He didn't apply the blood as high priest at that time, what was the purpose of His entering into the heavenly tabernacle with the atoning blood?

Good question, Paul states that Jesus entered once for the sin of all mankind. He does not enter ever again. His blood was app"lied once for all mankind that by faith in the cross we can apply the blood to our individual lives. We are then to move on in obediance to the commands of God. As Abraham was not saved (made righteous) by works but by faith, curcumcision came later as a seal of his faith. We seal our faith by works, as James teaches "I will show you my faith by my works" Which is also why Paul can say "it is not of works that any man can boast but by faith are we saved", Peter did not preach baptism until he had first preached "who so ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" .

When Peter preached to Cornelious house it was after they believed God poured out his spirit, then Peter said "who can refuse baptism seeing these too have been given the promise of the spirit as we"

Finally when Paul came upon the diciples of John and ask them "have you recieved the holy ghost" his next question was then to who were you baptized. This question was not what we have made it out to be. Paul was asking to who have you proclaimed your belief on. When they said Johns baptism he knew they had not heard the good news that the kingdom had come and expounded to them Jesus. To which they were rebaptized proclaiming faith in Jesus then the holy Ghost fell on them.

The point is they were believers John preach repentance for the kingdom of God is at hand. They believed in the kingdom of God, they had just not heard who or what the name of the king was so they could proclaim in baptism his name to open themselves up to receive the promise of the holy ghost.

The point is those men like the Yadons had greater insight to the true kingdom of God by faith while the others based thier salvation on works and acheivment rather than true relationship to God. Which I might add was the big problem with the religious leaders of Christ day. They searched the scripture looking for "things" they could do to seem to be righteous in thier own eyes, thinking in this they would find salvation and be pleasing to God. But Jesus told them those same scriptures spoke of him.

Too many times we just miss the boat entirely.

Godsdrummer · #**1240** 09-19-2011, 06:43 AM

Just a couple of notes, we are too many times ascribing scripture like "many shall say Lord we have done many things in your name, even cast out devils, and he will say depart from me you workers of iniquity I never knew you". We think those are those that have not been baptized in his name. Not so. Jesus never said anything of the kind, he said "I never new you" remember he said they claimed to do many things in "his name", just because we proclaim the name does not mean we know him.

All our good works are of nothing if we don't have a personal relationship with Jesus. We must first know Christ before we begin to do works in his name. The example of the seven sons of Seva should let us know this.