The Difference between PCI, PAJC and the New Heritage False Claiming Posers

[bishoph]

Today I saw this thread for the first time, and I must say that while there are contradictions as to what some people claim as their heritage we must be careful in our assessment of "heritage" so as not to skew our understanding.

If we are talking recent "heritage" such as GT Haywood, WT Witherspoon, A Urshan, HA Goss, the PCI/PAJC organizations, etc then there has definitely been an evolving of doctrinal dogma. This was true however with the aforementioned men as well. I came under attack a while ago when I posted that the early framers (1900's) of the Apostolic movement were "new converts" to a new doctrine and revelation/illumination of scripture, yet it is very true. Those early men were of many different denominal backgrounds, and when they saw the "new issue" and the Mighty God In Christ, they were "new converts" to the newly discovered doctrines just as someone coming from a denominal church today is considered a new convert when they first respond to revelatory truth. If we are willing to accept this reality, then we can also accept that as they developed/evolved in their understanding of the "new doctrine" they changed some of their initial beliefs in many areas, including the eternal fate of those that did not obey this truth.

As an example, GT Haywood, went from accepting his trinitarian friends as "saved" or a part of the Bride to calling them "friends of the bridegroom" suggesting that they were not "saved" as part of the "bride" but that they would be accepted by God in some lessor form. My mother attended Bishop Haywoods church for some time and I have read hand written letters that he wrote to my mother in response to her questions on salvation. (unfortunately she turned some of them over to the UPCI historical society before she passed away) In his later years he wrote that there was no other way to be saved (repentance, water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and receivingthe gift of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking with other tongues.)

Obviously, some men such as HA Goss, did not evolve in their belief the same as Bishop Haywood and others. WT Witherspoon (where my mother was baptized and received the Holy Ghost) as well as most of the early pioneers believed in very strong separation doctrines, (standards) that addressed clothing, movies, TV, and many other things.

If we are speaking of ancient "heritage" as in the Apostles and the Post Apostolic Fathers, the Bible and history tells us whether we are living up to our heritage or if we have become sidetracked. Biblically, IMO there is little doubt that the Apostles taught repentance, water baptism, and the in-filling of the Holy Ghost, as salvational. The Apostles also taught a doctrine of separation from the world in dress, attitude, activities, etc.

Historically, the Post Apostolic Fathers, taught very strict separation doctrine which included prohibitions to attending shows, apparel, and other matters. We do not have different "Apostolic" groups to compare with in the early days (early church) because there was only one church, and it eventually evolved into apostasy.

[Theophil]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mizpeh (and others) have then added that "heritage" for the modern day Apostolic ought to be determined by the example of the 1ST century church as recorded in the Bible. I agree with Dan and Mizpeh on this point, though I don't think Mizpeh was intending to agree with Dan.

We should respect the good things that have been done by those who have gone on before, but we should not let their battles cause us to loose focus in today's battle. To survive as a movement, we must be willing to lay aside our man-made traditions whenever it is proven that they are not clearly taught in Scripture. We especially need to do this when our traditions become a stumbling block for others coming into the Christian faith.
The Bible is our authority, not tradition. The Bible tells of how to inherit eternal life, traditions just grow old and moldy if they are not the traditions specifically identified in Scripture.

I hope and pray that there is a majority of ministers of the UPCI that believe this!!!!! God bless pelathais.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

Didn't Paul also mention baptism a time or two?

He sure did. One time in particular he chastised the Corinthian church for their division over water baptism. Isn't it ironic that, we, the New Testament Church of the 21st Century , are still divided over water baptism? Have we gone on into perfection, as Hebrews says, or are still hung up on the "principles of the doctrines of Christ"?

I haven't read Bro. Dans post in depth, but it seems he is on target. Some, it seems, spend alot of time whitewashing our history and, in so doing, have lost the very moorings they claim hold them fast to what the Apostles actually taught.

BTW, we hear alot about "The Apostles' Doctrine". The historical account of Acts 1 and 2 gives us exactly one sermon given by Peter. In Act 1:15-22, as the leader of the NT church, he recommended that they choose a sucessor to Judas. It was in Act 2:14-36, that Peter gives us The Apostles Doctrine. In verses 39-39 Peter answers the question, "Men and brethren, what must we do". And in verse 40 he tesifies and exhorts with many words that can be summed up with this synopsis: Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Has anyone ever stopped to actually study The Apostles Doctrine as it was outlines by the Apostle Peter? I think it would be interesting to read an in-depth study of The Apostles Doctrine (Acts 2:14-36) from the Apostolic viewpoint.

Originally Posted by OneAccord

He sure did. One time in particular he chastised the Corinthian church for their division over water baptism. Isn't it ironic that, we, the New Testament Church of the 21st Century , are still divided over water baptism? Have we gone on into perfection, as Hebrews says, or are still hung up on the "principles of the doctrines of Christ"?

I haven't read Bro. Dans post in depth, but it seems he is on target. Some, it seems, spend alot of time whitewashing our history and, in so doing, have lost the very moorings they claim hold them fast to what the Apostles actually taught.

BTW, we hear alot about "The Apostles' Doctrine". The historical account of Acts 1 and 2 gives us exactly one sermon given by Peter. In Act 1:15-22, as the leader of the NT church, he recommended that they choose a sucessor to Judas. It was in Act 2:14-36, that Peter gives us The Apostles Doctrine. In verses 39-39 Peter answers the question, "Men and brethren, what must we do". And in verse 40 he tesifies and exhorts with many words that can be summed up with this synopsis: Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Has anyone ever stopped to actually study The Apostles Doctrine as it was outlines by the Apostle Peter? I think it would be interesting to read an in-depth study of The Apostles Doctrine (Acts 2:14-36) from the Apostolic viewpoint.

You're wasting your breath...

Originally Posted by staysharp

I asked a famous UPC evangelist why God filled folks with the H.G. before baptism. He said, "they got it on loan." I'm dead serious and he was too.

Never mind... I'll refrain.

[ManOfWord]

I think Dan's original post is very much on target. It almost takes an "outsider" to see it. As most of you know, I spent quite a bit of time in the UPC and consider it my spiritual "heritage" if you will. However, I have also found that there is quite a bit of fear when it comes to examination of where we are today and how we got here. It seems that many are fearful of examining anything that that would hint of anything needing adjustment for fear of the whole thing toppling down.

Why do some fear the fact that G.T Haywood changed his mind on some things or anyone else for that matter. There were clearly some one-steppers who became three-steppers and three-steppers who became one-steppers. (we all know which "steppers" are right)

I also see fear when it comes to the organization itself. When will we realize that God doesn't need the UPC or any organization for that matter? If an organization hinders what God is wanting to do, then I say, "let 'er fall" and let the thing that God wants to birth be born. Change is what puts fear into most men's hearts and change is the only thing that is constant. The sooner we embrace it, the better off we'll be and we may even see more of the moving of the hand of God!!

At least that's my view, anyway.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by staysharp

I asked a famous UPC evangelist why God filled folks with the H.G. before baptism. He said, "they got it on loan." I'm dead serious and he was too.

"Got it on loan?" No way! Someone can't be that stupidly ignorant or even ignorantly stupid! You're making this up, right?

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

"Got it on loan?" No way! Someone can't be that stupidly ignorant or even ignorantly stupid! You're making this up, right?

Well... you said what I was thinking... but you were nicer than I was going to be.

That's not fair. I was hoping to keep my mouth shut. lol

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I also see fear when it comes to the organization itself. When will we realize that God doesn't need the UPC or any organization for that matter? If an organization hinders what God is wanting to do, then I say, "let 'er fall" and let the thing that God wants to birth be born. Change is what puts fear into most men's hearts and change is the only thing that is constant. The sooner we embrace it, the better off we'll be and we may even see more of the moving of the hand of God!!

At least that's my view, anyway.

Get out of my head.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Well... you said what I was thinking... but you were nicer than I was going to be.

That's not fair. I was hoping to keep my mouth shut. lol

Sorry, I couldn't refrain!!

When we have folks, who claim to be so superior when it comes to doctrine, say such stupid things when it comes to theology, it's no wonder why more don't listen to us when we open our mouths. Wonder how I really feel about this?