PCI lite

[Amanah]

When you say someone is PCI lite, what does that mean?

[Timmy]

Half the calories of regular PCI.

(You knew someone was gonna say it! :lol)

[Amanah]

Half the calories of regular PCI.

(You knew someone was gonna say it! :lol)

Timmy, I know you don't like giving straight answers, but help a Sister out.

[Timmy]

Timmy, I know you don't like giving straight answers, but help a Sister out.

Oh, I give straight answers, too. ;) It just depends. For this one, sorry, I don't know what PCI lite means.

[Hoovie]

When you say someone is PCI lite, what does that mean?

First, do you know what is commonly meant by PCI?

[Dedicated Mind]

pci could refer to the doctrine of saved at repentance as opposed to the pajc position which is saved after 3 steps of repentance, water and spirit baptism. the pci and the pajc merged in 1945 to form the upc. pci was one step and pajc was 3 step. you can read about the controversy in christianity without the cross by thomas fudge. if you search that title here at aff you can find a few threads. not sure what lite means.

[Hoovie]

The PCI faction was generally very insistent that everyone get baptised in Jesus Name and speak in tongues, even while not seeing justification as occurring in the same.

Today there are many that baptise in Jesus Name and speak in tongues without absolutely demanding all others in the body do the same.

This may be referred to as PCI Lite I suppose...

And I guess it also makes me PCI Lite. :)

[coadie]

When you say someone is PCI lite, what does that mean?

Low fat?

My company years ago went AFZ

That stands for achronym free zone.

[Amanah]

The PCI faction was generally very insistent that everyone get baptised in Jesus Name and speak in tongues, even while not seeing justification as occurring in the same.

Today there are many that baptise in Jesus Name and speak in tongues without absolutely demanding all others in the body do the same.

This may be referred to as PCI Lite I suppose...

And I guess it also makes me PCI Lite. :)

are you saying that you believe in baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues, but believe salvation is at repentance?

if that were true, then who else would be included in the body? everyone who has repented? Catholics, Mormons, Protestants of all sorts, Baptists, lots of people have repented, AoG, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.?

if this were true, the what is the point of saying, repent, be baptized and receive the HG?

[Amanah]

pci could refer to the doctrine of saved at repentance as opposed to the pajc position which is saved after 3 steps of repentance, water and spirit baptism. the pci and the pajc merged in 1945 to form the upc. pci was one step and pajc was 3 step. you can read about the controversy in christianity without the cross by thomas fudge. if you search that title here at aff you can find a few threads. not sure what lite means.

Is Thomas Fudge's book worth reading? Is it an unbiased historical account?

ok searching the Forums for stuff on Thomas fudge now then.

[houston]

You didn't ask FERD!

[Amanah]

You didn't ask FERD!

I can't find FERD :(

[Timmy]

I can't find FERD :(

You do not find Ferd. Ferd finds you.

[BrotherEastman]

since I weigh alot, I am probably PCI heavy????? heh heh heh

[Hoovie]

are you saying that you believe in baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues, but believe salvation is at repentance?

if that were true, then who else would be included in the body? everyone who has repented? Catholics, Mormons, Protestants of all sorts, Baptists, lots of people have repented, AoG, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.?

if this were true, the what is the point of saying, repent, be baptized and receive the HG?

Alot of questions you ask here!

First, yes I do believe a sinner is forgiven when he calls on the name of the Lord in repentance. This is when he becomes a Christian. He should then be baptized immediately (or at least soon) and receive the Holy Spirit.

I truly hope there are Christians in all the groups you mentioned, but would have very serious concerns about the faith of some (as a group). For example Mormons and JWs do not generally believe Jesus is God - the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Also, the Catholic Santa Maria being held as super human or divine, along with other saints being the object of prayer and devotion is very problematic.

In short, I think many people have a serious and authentic relationship with Jesus, sometimes not because of, but in spite of their particular church denomination.

As far as "what is the point"?

It is simply because the scriptures teach it.

Not everything is done in order to obtain justification. In fact, after you have turned to Jesus and become a Christian, pretty much everything we do is because we have received him, as the Holy Spirit works within to do the will of God in our lives.

[Amanah]

thank you for your help

[Amanah]

are TF Tenney and TD Jakes one steppers, my mind is reeling atm.

[Dedicated Mind]

Alot of questions you ask here!

First, yes I do believe a sinner is forgiven when he calls on the name of the Lord in repentance. This is when he becomes a Christian. He should then be baptized immediately (or at least soon) and receive the Holy Spirit.

I truly hope there are Christians in all the groups you mentioned, but would have very serious concerns about the faith of some (as a group). For example Mormons and JWs do not generally believe Jesus is God - the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Also, the Catholic Santa Maria being held as super human or divine, along with other saints being the object of prayer and devotion is very problematic.

In short, I think many people have a serious and authentic relationship with Jesus, sometimes not because of, but in spite of their particular church denomination.

As far as "what is the point"?

It is simply because the scriptures teach it.

Not everything is done in order to obtain justification. In fact, after you have turned to Jesus and become a Christian, pretty much everything we do is because we have received him, as the Holy Spirit works within to do the will of God in our lives.

you know hoovie, dkb has a new book called "holy spirit and justification". i haven't read it yet, but am assuming he is going to teach that the hs is required for justification.

I had a conversation with a jewish person on paltalk and she asked me, "what is the difference between a jewish person who believes in God and keeps the law and a good christian who doesn't keep the law"? is one more righteous than the other? her question got me to thinking that the real difference between the 2 covenants is the role of the holy spirit. i am wondering if it is the holy spirit that makes us righteous after faith or if it solely faith. i never liked the saying by faith alone, i think it adds to the scripture. that is why i am eager to read dkb's book. what are your thoughts on what makes us righteous and what do you see as the role of the hs in that process?

[BrotherEastman]

are TF Tenney and TD Jakes one steppers, my mind is reeling atm.

Not sure about TFT, but I do believe that Jakes is.

[Hoovie]

Not sure about TFT, but I do believe that Jakes is.

Tommy Tenny is, but TF is less vocal on this.

[Amanah]

I need a PCI person to exegisis, or whatever its called, Acts 2:38 for me please

[Dedicated Mind]

are TF Tenney and TD Jakes one steppers, my mind is reeling atm.

i don't know if tft is a one stepper but i know he fellowships trinnies. Jetezen franklin is one he fellowships. i heard jetezen on today's program quote the great commission as, "go ye into all the world, baptizing them in the name of the lord jesus christ" no kidding, my jaw dropped, i am sure he is familiar with upc doctrine.

[Hoovie]

you know hoovie, dkb has a new book called "holy spirit and justification". i haven't read it yet, but am assuming he is going to teach that the hs is required for justification.

I had a conversation with a jewish person on paltalk and she asked me, "what is the difference between a jewish person who believes in God and keeps the law and a good christian who doesn't keep the law"? is one more righteous than the other? her question got me to thinking that the real difference between the 2 covenants is the role of the holy spirit. i am wondering if it is the holy spirit that makes us righteous after faith or if it solely faith. i never liked the saying by faith alone, i think it adds to the scripture. that is why i am eager to read dkb's book. what are your thoughts on what makes us righteous and what do you see as the role of the hs in that process?

Well, I would certainly reject the notion that I am made righteous by the keeping of anything... There is of course human righteousness which is not a terrible thing in it'self. The problem is, it's always less than perfect and is therefore never, ever salvific for anyone.

About the Holy Spirit's role... I see the Holy Spirit having an active role in the lives of people even before conversion. He is THE operative force in bringing us to initial repentance and initiation into the body of Christ. So I would agree the Holy Spirit is needed for justification, and not just relegated to a subsequent event when one might speak in tongues.

[Hoovie]

i don't know if tft is a one stepper but i know he fellowships trinnies. Jetezen franklin is one he fellowships. i heard jetezen on today's program quote the great commission as, "go ye into all the world, baptizing them in the name of the lord jesus christ" no kidding, my jaw dropped, i am sure he is familiar with upc doctrine.

LOL! Hey i like UPC doctrine about as much as the next guy, but it does not give license for misquoting scripture! :foottap

[Dedicated Mind]

I need a PCI person to exegisis, or whatever its called, Acts 2:38 for me please

i think if you search "one step" or pci on this forum, you will find a few threads. we have hacked this horse to death. dan alicea was the main proponent. you might want to search his section, the da's office. bottom section of forum.

[Dedicated Mind]

I need a PCI person to exegisis, or whatever its called, Acts 2:38 for me please

i think if you search "one step" or pci on this forum, you will find a few threads. we have hacked this horse to death. dan alicea was the main proponent. you might want to search his section, the da's office. bottom section of forum.

i searched one step and pci and the top 3 threads were ones that you bumped. not sure if results are by date or relevance in thread title. i'm sure there are more threads and polls but i don't have the patience for research. where is renda when you need her (probably drooling over perry). lol jk

[Michael The Disciple]

Hoovie

First, yes I do believe a sinner is forgiven when he calls on the name of the Lord in repentance. This is when he becomes a Christian. He should then be baptized immediately (or at least soon) and receive the Holy Spirit.

In this view it works like this:

He who believes and is saved SHOULD BE baptized

Problem is Jesus said He who believes AND IS baptized shall be saved

They do a subtle shift in the meaning of Jesus words.

[Hoovie]

In this view it works like this:

He who believes and is saved SHOULD BE baptized

Problem is Jesus said He who believes AND IS baptized shall be saved

They do a subtle shift in the meaning of Jesus words.


If you are asking whether I think baptism is optional - I do not. All true believers will be baptized IMO.

[Pressing-On]

are you saying that you believe in baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues, but believe salvation is at repentance?

if that were true, then who else would be included in the body? everyone who has repented? Catholics, Mormons, Protestants of all sorts, Baptists, lots of people have repented, AoG, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.?

if this were true, the what is the point of saying, repent, be baptized and receive the HG?

Exactly! Thank you for this post. :thumbsup

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

There is no getting around this scripture. It's not even up for debate in my book. :thumbsup

[Hoovie]

Exactly! Thank you for this post. :thumbsup

"But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:9

There is no getting around this scripture. It's not even up for debate in my book. :thumbsup

Amen.

Well, I would certainly reject the notion that I am made righteous by the keeping of anything... There is of course human righteousness which is not a terrible thing in it'self. The problem is, it's always less than perfect and is therefore never, ever salvific for anyone.

About the Holy Spirit's role... I see the Holy Spirit having an active role in the lives of people even before conversion. He is THE operative force in bringing us to initial repentance and initiation into the body of Christ. So I would agree the Holy Spirit is needed for justification, and not just relegated to a subsequent event when one might speak in tongues.

[Dedicated Mind]

I need a PCI person to exegisis, or whatever its called, Acts 2:38 for me please

I'm not pci, but the main argument against acts 2:38 is that the greek word for "remission" is the same greek word for "forgiveness" and something about the word "for" in greek; So acts 2:38 could read. repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of jesus christ "because of the forgiveness" of your sins. That is the whole argument in a nutshell.

the DA's office has several threads with this theme, even on the first page. DA went by sdg and daII and is probably lulu.

[Falla39]

These were the instructions given by Jesus to his disciples just prior to his ascension.

Luke 24:44-53
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Acts 2:38-41
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:


Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

To me, it is just simpler to obey what Jesus said than arge. I want that same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, to dwell in me.

Falla39

[Dedicated Mind]

These were the instructions given by Jesus to his disciples just prior to his ascension.

Luke 24:44-53
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.

51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Acts 1:8
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


Romans 8:11
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

To me, it is just simpler to obey what Jesus said than arge. I want that same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ from the dead, to dwell in me.

Falla39

sis falla, i don't disagree with your post, the problem is that many christians including some apostolics believe they have the spirit of god dwelling in them even though they have not spoken in tongues as the spirit gives the utterance.

[canam]

I'm not pci, but the main argument against acts 2:38 is that the greek word for "remission" is the same greek word for "forgiveness" and something about the word "for" in greek; So acts 2:38 could read. repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of jesus christ "because of the forgiveness" of your sins. That is the whole argument in a nutshell.

the DA's office has several threads with this theme, even on the first page. DA went by sdg and daII and is probably lulu.

:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee :heeheehee poor lu lu daniel he cant even fire back !!

[houston]

amanah,

it depends on what the meaning of "eis" is!!

[mrnbcox]

Nobody is saved without repenting, being baptized in Jesus Name & receiving the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues. Just doing one or 2 of the above without completing all 3 will not save you.

Nobody will stay saved without then obeying God's commandments of living a Godly Seperated life & tryin to reach others.

[Hoovie]

Nobody is saved without repenting, being baptized in Jesus Name & receiving the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues. Just doing one or 2 of the above without completing all 3 will not save you.

Nobody will stay saved without then obeying God's commandments of living a Godly Seperated life & tryin to reach others.

Ok, I think that shows where you are at.

Of course that does nothing to address the thread and it's initial questions...

:)

[pelathais]

are TF Tenney and TD Jakes one steppers, my mind is reeling atm.

Generally speaking, they probably would be considered so, though I don't know of either of them using that phrase specifically to describe themselves. They do fellowship with other "Spirit filled" believers outside of the Oneness ranks, thus I would lump them into that group ("One Steppers").

As to "PCI Lite" - who said that and in what context? Many members within the PCI ranks (and most within the PAJC, for that matter) held to a "Light Doctrine."

"PCI LITE" sounds like a rip on that theme, something pejorative that may not have been intended to even have a specific meaning.

[houston]

You do not find Ferd. Ferd finds you.

bwahahaha

[Hoovie]

Generally speaking, they probably would be considered so, though I don't know of either of them using that phrase specifically to describe themselves. They do fellowship with other "Spirit filled" believers outside of the Oneness ranks, thus I would lump them into that group ("One Steppers").

As to "PCI Lite" - who said that and in what context? Many members within the PCI ranks (and most within the PAJC, for that matter) held to a "Light Doctrine."

"PCI LITE" sounds like a rip on that theme, something pejorative that may not have been intended to even have a specific meaning.

I had not thought of that.

It's possible I suppose, but it does seem like I heard the term used here on AFF to describe churches like Nashville's Christ Church.

They would baptise in Jesus Name and accept speaking in tongues, but would not require re-baptism or say one does not have the Spirit if they do not speak in tongues. I think this would be a bit more liberal than the PCI position of bygone years.

Whether that is appalling or appealing is of course the question.

[pelathais]

I need a PCI person to exegisis, or whatever its called, Acts 2:38 for me please

Bernie Gillespie has a large number of articles available on his website dealing with this. For example:

"Remission of Sins in Acts 2:38"
http://www.inchristalone.org/RemissionOfSins.htm

When is the Blood Applied?
http://www.inchristalone.org/WhenBloodAppliedpt1.html

Does the Word “For” in “For the Remission of Sins" in Acts 2:38 Signify that Water Baptism Remits Sin?
http://www.inchristalone.org/Does%20the%20Word_For.htm

What Does It Mean to be "Born Again?" (several articles here)
http://www.inchristalone.org/WhatMeanBornAgain1.htm

The True Plan of Salvation
http://www.inchristalone.org/html%20True%20Plan.htm

Hearts Purified by Faith
http://www.inchristalone.org/PurifiedByFaith.htm

[pelathais]

Concerning the attitudes of the those who held to a more "open" view of the application of Acts 2:38...

From the PCI Manual (1945):

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4129/4847590477_3cc348e727.jpg

Interestingly, this was one of the first things crossed out by the PAJC men at the time of the merger.

[Amanah]

thank you for your help

[pelathais]

Notice the highlighted statements (boxed) in a more recent UPCI Manual (1994).

"Pardon and remission of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins."

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/4508990507_5553b6621d_b.jpg

The is NOTHING under the heading for Water Baptism that even hints that this is when sins are remitted. At its founding, the UPC was clearly a "One Stepper" organization - at least officially.

It has been the successful attempts by radicals to change these beliefs that has been the cause of so much pain over the years. The label "cult" might never have been applied to the UPC, even with its strong Oneness views, if effective leadership had reined in these radicals.

So many lives could have been saved. So many good ministers could have been kept in fellowship if only the UPC had followed its own documents and Manual.

... but get ready for it! Even more significant changes to the Manual are said to be in store for this fall's General Conference.

[pelathais]

These were the instructions given by Jesus to his disciples just prior to his ascension.

Luke 24:44-53
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

...

Falla39

Notice Sister Falla, that as of this moment, the UPC has ALWAYS applied Luke's record of Jesus' words in Luke 24:47, NOT TO WATER BAPTISM - but to the act of sincere repentance; for THAT is when the "remission of sins" is said to take place.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/4508990507_5553b6621d_b.jpg

[Amanah]

Generally speaking, they probably would be considered so, though I don't know of either of them using that phrase specifically to describe themselves. They do fellowship with other "Spirit filled" believers outside of the Oneness ranks, thus I would lump them into that group ("One Steppers").

As to "PCI Lite" - who said that and in what context? Many members within the PCI ranks (and most within the PAJC, for that matter) held to a "Light Doctrine."

"PCI LITE" sounds like a rip on that theme, something pejorative that may not have been intended to even have a specific meaning.

the term "PCI lite" was actually used by someone on this forum to describe someone else on this forum.

I'm in the process right now of reading "Christianity Without the Cross." The whole thing is fascinating.

It is explaining some things that I've been on periphery of but had no idea what was really going on. I think it may explain why my former Pastor left the UPC and quit preaching standards, and is friendly with TFT and TD Jakes. It also explains why my current Pastor's Father of the UPC church I am now attending (who used to Pastor the church) believes that people from other denominations are saved, but are going to another place in heaven. (not sure i have that right)

[pelathais]

"Repentance and remission of sins..." That's what Jesus said. And, the "remission of sins" is obtained through genuine faith when one repents and believes on Christ (Romans 5:1). "Peace with God" means that God's angry wrath has been satisfied and that the sinner is now saved.

How did the UPC view these things? The UPC officially believed that one was saved at repentance.

Matthew 26:28: "... this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
John 3:16-18: "... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life..."
Acts 13:38-39: "by him all that believe are justified from all things..."
Acts 2:38-39: "... for the remission of sins..."
Acts 5:31: "... a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Acts 10:43: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
Acts 15:9: "... purifying their hearts through faith."
Acts 26:18: (Paul quoting Jesus) "... that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Romans 1:7: "... the just shall live by faith..."
Romans 5:9: "justified by his blood..."
Romans 5:18: "... by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Romans 3:22-28: "... the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus..." "... a man is justified by faith..."
Ephesians 1:7: "... we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace"
Colossians 1:4: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
Colossians 1:20: "... having made peace by the blood of his cross..."
Hebrews 9:22: "...without shedding of blood is no remission."
Hebrews 9:28: "... unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
James 1:25: "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, ... but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."
1 Peter 1:19: "... redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ."
1 John 1:7: "... the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

Revelation 7:9-14

[pelathais]

the term "PCI lite" was actually used by someone on this forum to describe someone else on this forum.

I'm in the process right now of reading "Christianity Without the Cross." The whole thing is fascinating.

It is explaining some things that I've been on periphery of but had no idea what was really going on. I think it may explain why my former Pastor left the UPC and quit preaching standards, and is friendly with TFT and TD Jakes. It also explains why my current Pastor's Father of the UPC church I am now attending (who used to Pastor the church) believes that people from other denominations are saved.

The "PCI/PAJC" divide is kind of handy and it really illuminates the politics of the UPC. However, there have been many PAJC ministers who have held to aspects of the "Light Doctrine" - and, as in my own former pastor's case, non-PAJC men who were "converted" to the "Three Step" and became more zealous than most of the PAJC had ever been.

[Hoovie]

The "PCI/PAJC" divide is kind of handy and it really illuminates the politics of the UPC. However, there have been many PAJC ministers who have held to aspects of the "Light Doctrine" - and, as in my own former pastor's case, non-PAJC men who were "converted" to the "Three Step" and became more zealous than most of the PAJC had ever been.

Ironically, the existence of a "light doctrine" allowed/allows some to be hardliner three steppers practically speaking... and when pressed hard, they could always fall back on LD.

[houston]

I am so glad that I started this thread.

[Jermyn Davidson]

"PCI lite" doesn't exist.

"PCI" on AFF is a referrence to people who, in a nutshell, believe that salvation occurs at faith that leads to repentance.

"Lite" is actually supposed to be, "light" and it's a referrence to those who believe repentance, baptism in Jesus Name (only) and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but also believe that others are indeed saved as they walk in the "light" of the Christian doctrine they have received and believe.

PCI doctrine.

Light docrine.

Two different ideas.


"PCI lite" is a misnomer.

[Amanah]

It is explaining some things that I've been on periphery of but had no idea what was really going on. I think it may explain why my former Pastor left the UPC and quit preaching standards, and is friendly with TFT and TD Jakes. It also explains why my current Pastor's Father of the UPC church I am now attending (who used to Pastor the church) believes that people from other denominations are saved, but are going to another place in heaven. (not sure i have that right)

I should have said Tommy Tenny, not TFT in the above reference.

[houston]

Don't mind JD. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

It is said that the men that were in the PCI preached the message so hard that you couldn't differ between them and those of the PAJC.
PCI lite refers to those who today claim a PCI position, but you'd think they were from Lakewood...

[Jermyn Davidson]

"PCI lite" doesn't exist.

"PCI" on AFF is a referrence to people who, in a nutshell, believe that salvation occurs at faith that leads to repentance.

"Lite" is actually supposed to be, "light" and it's a referrence to those who believe repentance, baptism in Jesus Name (only) and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but also believe that others are indeed saved as they walk in the "light" of the Christian doctrine they have received and believe.

PCI doctrine.

Light docrine.

Two different ideas.


"PCI lite" is a misnomer.

Don't mind JD. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

It is said that the men that were in the PCI preached the message so hard that you couldn't differ between them and those of the PAJC.
PCI lite refers to those who today claim a PCI position, but you'd think they were from Lakewood...

I do too know what I am talking about.

:)

I have explained it just as it is.

[houston]

I do too know what I am talking about.

:)

I have explained it just as it is.

No, dweeb. The "lite" in PCI lite has nothing to do with the "friends of the bride" (false) doctrine.

[Apocrypha]

are you saying that you believe in baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues, but believe salvation is at repentance?

if that were true, then who else would be included in the body? everyone who has repented? Catholics, Mormons, Protestants of all sorts, Baptists, lots of people have repented, AoG, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.?

if this were true, the what is the point of saying, repent, be baptized and receive the HG?

Its the topic of many threads on here. But if you come from the UPCI your history was doctored to be presented as something other than what it is. Two groups merged together the PCI (saved at repentance) and the PAJC (saved 3 steps ala UPCI today).

In the beginning it was in the original manual to not disagree (the statement was later modified). and we have posted proof from the first Pentecostal Herald on here that they took articles from both positions. Later the PAJC (which was larger) essentially engaged in a 50+ year of attrittion to get rid of saved at repentance ministers helped by several generations of ABI college students who took over the older PCI churches. Those few left over were finally wiped out pretty much by the 1992 affirmation statement.

Thomas Fudge is a professor of history who did a deep project on it, found alot of original documents in the UPCI historical library in St. Louis and was banned. He put out a letter to all the UPCI ministers to share any older documents they had, and using the treasure trove he found he wrote Christianity without the Cross which pretty much buries any disputing about the real history with a TON of foot notes.

Fudges book has caused massive debate in the ministerial circles that still hasn't stopped. Ask any UPCI minister if he has read it and you will get the gamut from instant anger to a sad insecure look... and of course those enlightened souls who say they will never read that garbage from a backslider anyhow.

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-without-Cross-Salvation-Pentecostalism/dp/1581125844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316356739&sr=8-1

[Amanah]

Its the topic of many threads on here. But if you come from the UPCI your history was doctored to be presented as something other than what it is. Two groups merged together the PCI (saved at repentance) and the PAJC (saved 3 steps ala UPCI today).

In the beginning it was in the original manual to not disagree (the statement was later modified). and we have posted proof from the first Pentecostal Herald on here that they took articles from both positions. Later the PAJC (which was larger) essentially engaged in a 50+ year of attrittion to get rid of saved at repentance ministers helped by several generations of ABI college students who took over the older PCI churches. Those few left over were finally wiped out pretty much by the 1992 affirmation statement.

Thomas Fudge is a professor of history who did a deep project on it, found alot of original documents in the UPCI historical library in St. Louis and was banned. He put out a letter to all the UPCI ministers to share any older documents they had, and using the treasure trove he found he wrote Christianity without the Cross which pretty much buries any disputing about the real history with a TON of foot notes.

Fudges book has caused massive debate in the ministerial circles that still hasn't stopped. Ask any UPCI minister if he has read it and you will get the gamut from instant anger to a sad insecure look... and of course those enlightened souls who say they will never read that garbage from a backslider anyhow.

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-without-Cross-Salvation-Pentecostalism/dp/1581125844/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316356739&sr=8-1

I'm reading his book as we speak, I started last night and am on page 58 right now.

[houston]

Thanks for the history lesson.

SAM has CWOTC in pdf. He has made it available in the past to anyone who requested.

I was 3 chapters into it when some jack deleted it off of the hard drive.

[Amanah]

Thanks for the history lesson.

SAM has CWOTC in pdf. He has made it available in the past to anyone who requested.

I was 3 chapters into it when some jack deleted it off of the hard drive.

every pentecostal needs to read it imo

[Apocrypha]

every pentecostal needs to read it imo

Almost everyone who does has to do some serious thinking and make decisions.

Many ministers who have left to go independent will cite this book. Plus AFF itself is has been a wrecking ball to the entire party line of the UPCI. Jim Yohe accomplished what he set out to do before he passed away with the earlier versions of this forum and the community that grew from it... he was a friend, and he would seriously be getting a kick from all this. He was a evangelist so had to keep his opinions under wraps usually while on the field, but this would be the fulfillment of his wishes.

[BrotherEastman]

I think I am more PCI than I am PAJC.

[Amanah]

Andrew Urshan described God as a tri-unity, CWOTC, page 74

[Amanah]

joining with the PJAC was a hugh mistake for the PCI, they should reform

[Hoovie]

I think I am more PCI than I am PAJC.

Ditto

[Amanah]

I think I am more PCI than I am PAJC.

I love that pic of you hugging your kid, it makes me smile

[Sarah]

Almost everyone who does has to do some serious thinking and make decisions.

Many ministers who have left to go independent will cite this book. Plus AFF itself is has been a wrecking ball to the entire party line of the UPCI. Jim Yohe accomplished what he set out to do before he passed away with the earlier versions of this forum and the community that grew from it... he was a friend, and he would seriously be getting a kick from all this. He was a evangelist so had to keep his opinions under wraps usually while on the field, but this would be the fulfillment of his wishes.

I really believe Jim Yohe believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved until the day he died...

[BrotherEastman]

I love that pic of you hugging your kid, it makes me smile

lol, he's the only male I give kisses to right now.:highfive

[Amanah]

pci could refer to the doctrine of saved at repentance as opposed to the pajc position which is saved after 3 steps of repentance, water and spirit baptism. the pci and the pajc merged in 1945 to form the upc. pci was one step and pajc was 3 step. you can read about the controversy in christianity without the cross by thomas fudge. if you search that title here at aff you can find a few threads. not sure what lite means.

Well, now the UPC actually has 4 steps:

Repentance
Baptism
HG infilling
The Standards

[pelathais]

No, dweeb. The "lite" in PCI lite has nothing to do with the "friends of the bride" (false) doctrine.

The "friends of the bride(groom)" was a doctrine taught by S.G. Norris of the PAJC. Whether "false" or "true" - it was PAJC in origin. Just FWIW... uh... "dweeb."

[pelathais]

Well, now the UPC actually has 4 steps:

Repentance
Baptism
HG infilling
The Standards

Some teach "Seven Steps." ...http://upcsevier.org/seven.html#top

But you gotta pay to read them now - or see the Google cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QGIm8-MjxUcJ:upcsevier.org/%3Fp%3D8+%2BUPC+%2Bsteps+%2Bsalvation+%2B5&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QGIm8-MjxUcJ:upcsevier.org/%3Fp%3D8+%2BUPC+%2Bsteps+%2Bsalvation+%2B5&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

[pelathais]

I really believe Jim Yohe believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved until the day he died...

I did not know Jim well. I knew his parents and one definitely got the impression that they "believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved."

In discussions on FCF, however, Jim did express confidence that the Body of Christ extended well beyond the "Acts 2:38 or hell" crowd. I also don't remember him ever expressing such a view. As I recall, he was of the opinion that this "exclusiveness" was actually the source of a lot of the problems within the UPC and other Oneness churches.

[Jermyn Davidson]

No, dweeb. The "lite" in PCI lite has nothing to do with the "friends of the bride" (false) doctrine.

Dweeb?

:thumbsup
.

The "Light" doctrine is just as I have explained it.

Neither was I wrong in my summation of PCI.

Reading "PCI lite" on this thread was the first time I've read or heard that phrase.


What gives?

[Hoovie]

I did not know Jim well. I knew his parents and one definitely got the impression that they "believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved."

In discussions on FCF, however, Jim did express confidence that the Body of Christ extended well beyond the "Acts 2:38 or hell" crowd. I also don't remember him ever expressing such a view. As I recall, he was of the opinion that this "exclusiveness" was actually the source of a lot of the problems within the UPC and other Oneness churches.

That's how I recall him too. I wish he were still around to ask and thank for this forum.

For those who do not know, AFF is the remnant of Faithchild Forum whose founder was Jim Yohe.

[kclee4jc]

Well, now the UPC actually has 4 steps:

Repentance
Baptism
HG infilling
The Standards

I'm not UPC, but i do believe without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It's not about "Standards" but about doing what is pleasing to God and refraining from doing what is not.

[Sarah]

I did not know Jim well. I knew his parents and one definitely got the impression that they "believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved."

In discussions on FCF, however, Jim did express confidence that the Body of Christ extended well beyond the "Acts 2:38 or hell" crowd. I also don't remember him ever expressing such a view. As I recall, he was of the opinion that this "exclusiveness" was actually the source of a lot of the problems within the UPC and other Oneness churches.

I remember that Jim didn't agree with the UPC in a lot of areas, including some of the standards, but I'm pretty sure he was a stickler for the Acts 2:38 message.

I could be wrong....wish there was some way of getting some of those old posts back!

[Hoovie]

Perhaps Vicky might chime in on this?

There certainly are folks that post here who knew Jim very personally.

[commonsense]

I did not know Jim well. I knew his parents and one definitely got the impression that they "believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved."

In discussions on FCF, however, Jim did express confidence that the Body of Christ extended well beyond the "Acts 2:38 or hell" crowd. I also don't remember him ever expressing such a view. As I recall, he was of the opinion that this "exclusiveness" was actually the source of a lot of the problems within the UPC and other Oneness churches.

The Senior, Jimmy Yohe officiated at my wedding 40+ years ago. He was strong on all aspects of the UPCI doctrine.....AND the standards....

I knew Jim Yohe as well, and I suspect he would be delighted at how FCF has evolved.:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

Jim Yohe called me one day saying he was going to be away from his computer. This was during the time of the PCI controversary . He told me please do not let them get away with the PCI view without an argument. I oblidged him. He most certainly believed Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The only saving message since Pentecost.

[houston]

Jim Yohe called me one day saying he was going to be away from his computer. This was during the time of the PCI controversary . He told me please do not let them get away with the PCI view without an argument. I oblidged him. He most certainly believed Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The only saving message since Pentecost.

True.

[houston]

Dweeb?

:thumbsup
.

The "Light" doctrine is just as I have explained it.

Neither was I wrong in my summation of PCI.

Reading "PCI lite" on this thread was the first time I've read or heard that phrase.


What gives?

PCI lite has nothing to do with the light doctrine.

I already explained the use of PCI lite.

[commonsense]

every pentecostal needs to read it imo

I've owned it (CWOTC) for several years, but have not read it in it's entirety. Just scanned through all of it.
I do plan to read it :bigbaby

[pelathais]

Jim Yohe called me one day saying he was going to be away from his computer. This was during the time of the PCI controversary . He told me please do not let them get away with the PCI view without an argument. I oblidged him. He most certainly believed Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The only saving message since Pentecost.

"... during the time of the PCI controversy..."

Could you elaborate? Technically, that "time" would include a great deal of time before any of us had computers with which to quarrel with one another. :heeheehee

Many of us believe that the "Acts 2:38 message" represents the pattern and method of the first century apostles in converting and initiating new believers into the Christian community. We do not, however, feel that God and His salvation is exclusive to the 20th century Apostolic Faith movement.

In the following article, which really deals more with the TV issue, Jim is actually rather effusive in his admiration for the Crouch family at TBN: http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20030106/cover.htm

One does get the impression that this praise seems contingent upon the "Acts 2:38 message" being adopted by TBN. Still, even bubbly "crazimatics" like the Crouches get praise and not condemnation - AND, this is on a network emphatically called "Trinity!"

[Steve Epley]

"... during the time of the PCI controversy..."

Could you elaborate? Technically, that "time" would include a great deal of time before any of us had computers with which to quarrel with one another. :heeheehee

Many of us believe that the "Acts 2:38 message" represents the pattern and method of the first century apostles in converting and initiating new believers into the Christian community. We do not, however, feel that God and His salvation is exclusive to the 20th century Apostolic Faith movement.

In the following article, which really deals more with the TV issue, Jim is actually rather effusive in his admiration for the Crouch family at TBN: http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/20030106/cover.htm

One does get the impression that this praise seems contingent upon the "Acts 2:38 message" being adopted by TBN. Still, even bubbly "crazimatics" like the Crouches get praise and not condemnation - AND, this is on a network emphatically called "Trinity!"

After the Fudge book came out we were discussing the topic alot on FCF. However I was raised in West Kentucky and both West Ky. & Tn. had Gurleyites that believed the false doctrine of saved at repentance. So in my youth we battled this heresy. And the fight was continual on FCF on this subject mainly over baptism FOR the remission of sins.

[BrotherEastman]

After the Fudge book came out we were discussing the topic alot on FCF. However I was raised in West Kentucky and both West Ky. & Tn. had Gurleyites that believed the false doctrine of saved at repentance. So in my youth we battled this heresy. And the fight was continual on FCF on this subject mainly over baptism FOR the remission of sins.

Sad that a God would send someone to hell after being martyred who had not received the fullness of Acts 2:38 ; I find it very difficult to believe that God isn't loving enough to allow them to at least be spared before they perish.

[Steve Epley]

Sad that a God would send someone to hell after being martyred who had not received the fullness of Acts 2:38 ; I find it very difficult to believe that God isn't loving enough to allow them to at least be spared before they perish.

Would that include Catholic priests and nuns, Buddists, JW's, Mormons?

[Jack Shephard]

I have not read all the posts, I know SORRY, but is it PCI "lite" or PCI "light" as in the seeing salvation in the PCI "light"? If I were to say someone is PAJC light, this is the term I would be meaning, in order to say they lean toward the PAJC way of salvational thinking.

[houston]

lite

[Jack Shephard]

Sad that a God would send someone to hell after being martyred who had not received the fullness of Acts 2:38 ; I find it very difficult to believe that God isn't loving enough to allow them to at least be spared before they perish.

Bro. E. you are right on track here, IMO. My Bible says that nothing will separate us from God's love. It is unconditional and one that truly loves, IMO, wouldn't send those to hell that hasn't see the PAJC way of seeing salvation via Act 2:38. Just my thoughts...

[Jack Shephard]

lite

In that case... I agree with Timmy's first post. It is PCI with half the calories. :icecream

[Jack Shephard]

Would that include Catholic priests and nuns, Buddists, JW's, Mormons?


I know you didn't ask me but....

I heard a preacher the other day say there are people in each religious system, including the ones you named above, that are in a passionate pursuit to have a true and deep relationship with God and will do anything to please Him. I see this in scripture and as such I believe that there are some in the catagories you mentioned that will be saved and there are some in the oneness ranks that won't be saved.

[BrotherEastman]

Would that include Catholic priests and nuns, Buddists, JW's, Mormons?

I am not suprised by your tactic to divert the attention off of those that had repented of their sins and loved not their lives unto death. You obviously do not read "Voice of the Martyrs" which do not include any of the bunch you've mentioned.

[johnny44]

I know you didn't ask me but....

I heard a preacher the other day say there are people in each religious system, including the ones you named above, that are in a passionate pursuit to have a true and deep relationship with God and will do anything to please Him. I see this in scripture and as such I believe that there are some in the catagories you mentioned that will be saved and there are some in the oneness ranks that won't be saved.I can't help but think of the Ethiopian out in the middle of the desert and the H.G.sends him a messenger of salvation. Also Cornelius a man who feared God and prayed always was sent an angel to direct him to Peter.

[pelathais]

Would that include Catholic priests and nuns, Buddists, JW's, Mormons?

For me, it would include everyone that the Savior, Jesus Christ, has saved. Since He is the Savior, it really is His decision as to who is saved or not.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9; Matthew 24:31; John 10:16, John 10:28-29; Romans 8:30, Romans 11:5-6; Hebrews 7:25, and etc.

[commonsense]

:thumbsup:thumbsup
I concur.

[Steve Epley]

For me, it would include everyone that the Savior, Jesus Christ, has saved. Since He is the Savior, it really is His decision as to who is saved or not.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9; Matthew 24:31; John 10:16, John 10:28-29; Romans 8:30, Romans 11:5-6; Hebrews 7:25, and etc.

Thus Jesus died in vain ignorance will save more than He. The passages you cite have nothing to do with the subject at hand. No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

[Sabby]

Bro. Epley,

You are as convinced of your opinion of "remission" being applied as I am that forgiveness was given at the cross. Jesus Christ, as my ascended High Priest, at the moment of my repentance/dying to sin, applied His own blood to the heavenly altar for my sins. My atonement is complete in HIM, as sacrifice and intercessor. This is my one-step position.

Additionally, do you understand what a synthetic parallelism is? If you do you would understand that John 3 and the description of the new birth has nothing to do with WATER baptism....

[pelathais]

Thus Jesus died in vain ignorance will save more than He.

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you meant to say here. I don't think you intended to say that Jesus "died in vain ignorance."

The passages you cite have nothing to do with the subject at hand. No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

The passages I cited have a direct bearing on this discussion for Easty had said:

Sad that a God would send someone to hell after being martyred who had not received the fullness of Acts 2:38 ; I find it very difficult to believe that God isn't loving enough to allow them to at least be spared before they perish.

... to which you queried:

Would that include Catholic priests and nuns, Buddists, JW's, Mormons?

And so, I humbly offered: Deuteronomy 7:6-9; Matthew 24:31; John 10:16, John 10:28-29; Romans 8:30, Romans 11:5-6; Hebrews 7:25.

Deuteronomy 7:9 "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations..."

This is the only passage (and it is only one verse out the passage I cited from Deuteronomy) that has any "Dispensational" bearing - the "keep his commandments" part is obviously a reference to the works of the Law.

[pelathais]

... No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

Acts 10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Apparently Peter felt that the remission of sins came about through one's faith and belief in Jesus Christ. The fact that the Holy Ghost fell immediately after this was said (and BEFORE water baptism) filling Peter's audience would indicate that God Himself was satisfied with the blood shed at Calvary and the people's sincere faith in the efficacy of that blood. I'll go with what the Holy Ghost did here along with Peter's preaching.

And, for whatever reason, the "remission of sins" appears to have been something of a "trans-dispensational" phenomena - at least according to Peter's understanding of "the prophets."

See also Paul's discussion in Romans 3:24-26... "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

We are saved by HIS obedience, not because we were clever enough to figure out something that had supposedly eluded the Christian martyrs over the ages.

[Apocrypha]

Andrew Urshan described God as a tri-unity, CWOTC, page 74

At IBC I asked Bro. NA Urshan (his son) about that when he visited as the General Superintendent. He gave a somewhat evasive answer.

They also edited that statement out of later editions of his book, which is kind of like raping a persons legacy after they are dead.

[Apocrypha]

I really believe Jim Yohe believed the 'Acts 2:38' message was the only way to be saved until the day he died...

That I can agree on. He was anti-standards though. And even with the three step stuff he became less militant later in life... but he was still a 3 stepper.

[Steve Epley]

I can't help but think of the Ethiopian out in the middle of the desert and the H.G.sends him a messenger of salvation. Also Cornelius a man who feared God and prayed always was sent an angel to direct him to Peter.

Amen.

[Steve Epley]

Bro. Epley,

You are as convinced of your opinion of "remission" being applied as I am that forgiveness was given at the cross. Jesus Christ, as my ascended High Priest, at the moment of my repentance/dying to sin, applied His own blood to the heavenly altar for my sins. My atonement is complete in HIM, as sacrifice and intercessor. This is my one-step position.

Additionally, do you understand what a synthetic parallelism is? If you do you would understand that John 3 and the description of the new birth has nothing to do with WATER baptism....

ALL remission and forgiveness took place HISTORICALLY at the cross it PERSONALLY takes place for the penitent when they are baptized in Jesus Name. I didn't write it I just preach it.
You would give a different answer than Peter did at Pentecost. Since the question is the same the answer is still the same. He had the keys by the way not you and I.

[TGBTG]

I think it is interesting that some believe that the HolyGhost sent Philip to minister a "half-salvation" to the Ethopian eunuch...

[Steve Epley]

I think it is interesting that some believe that the HolyGhost sent Philip to minister a "half-salvation" to the Ethopian eunuch...

Are you saying he did not receive the Holy Ghost? If so why?

[TGBTG]

Are you saying he did not receive the Holy Ghost? If so why?

Here's why:

Philip preached the same gospel to the eunuch as he had preached to the samarians. Under Philip's preaching, the samarians believed on the Lord Jesus and they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but they DID NOT experience the baptism of the HolyGhost.

It was not until Peter and John came to lay hands on them that they received the HolyGhost.

So, we see Philip doing the same thing to the eunuch. The eunuch declared his faith in Jesus Christ and Philip baptized him. So, we see that's what happened to the samarians.

However, in the eunuch's case, nobody laid hands on him to receive the HolyGhost. The bible says the eunuch went his way.

Therefore, the eunuch did not receive the baptism of the HolyGhost (according to what the bible says)...

[Steve Epley]

Here's why:

Philip preached the same gospel to the eunuch as he had preached to the samarians. Under Philip's preaching, the samarians believed on the Lord Jesus and they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but they DID NOT experience the baptism of the HolyGhost.

It was not until Peter and John came to lay hands on them that they received the HolyGhost.

So, we see Philip doing the same thing to the eunuch. The eunuch declared his faith in Jesus Christ and Philip baptized him. So, we see that's what happened to the samarians.

However, in the eunuch's case, nobody laid hands on him to receive the HolyGhost. The bible says the eunuch went his way.

Therefore, the eunuch did not receive the baptism of the HolyGhost (according to what the bible says)...

My feeble thoughts it said by Jesus inn Acts 1:8 the initial spread of the Church Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria-then the uttermost parts which would be the Gentiles in Acts 10. I do not believe Phillip was unable to see them recieve the HGB but rather these are GROUPS which had been divided by centuries(here the Northern & Southern kingdoms) and God was going to use Peter who had the keys to unite and vindicate the accepting of the Samaritains and Gentiles into the Church. It did not apply to the Eunuch who evidently was a Jew since he had been to Jerusalem to worship the door had already been opened to him thus no need of Peter personally involved in the process. I hope this makes sense whether you accept it or not. Nothing in the passage suggests he did not recieve the HGB. It was part of the package.

[TGBTG]

My feeble thoughts it said by Jesus inn Acts 1:8 the initial spread of the Church Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria-then the uttermost parts which would be the Gentiles in Acts 10. I do not believe Phillip was unable to see them recieve the HGB but rather these are GROUPS which had been divided by centuries(here the Northern & Southern kingdoms) and God was going to use Peter who had the keys to unite and vindicate the accepting of the Samaritains and Gentiles into the Church. It did not apply to the Eunuch who evidently was a Jew since he had been to Jerusalem to worship the door had already been opened to him thus no need of Peter personally involved in the process. I hope this makes sense whether you accept it or not. Nothing in the passage suggests he did not recieve the HGB. It was part of the package.

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Interesting thought you presented. However, I would like to say that there's nothing in the passage that suggests he received the HGB. On the contrary, the passage says the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away when the baptism was over with.

If I may ask, based on your thoughts, when do you think the eunuch received the HGB? before baptism or after baptism?

[Steve Epley]

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
40But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Interesting thought you presented. However, I would like to say that there's nothing in the passage that suggests he received the HGB. On the contrary, the passage says the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away when the baptism was over with.

If I may ask, based on your thoughts, when do you think the eunuch received the HGB? before baptism or after baptism?

Isn't the promise of the Spirit given to those who are baptized? Acts 2:38 I just believe he recieved it like it was promised and in truth it can't be disproven. Just a thought.

[TGBTG]

Isn't the promise of the Spirit given to those who are baptized? Acts 2:38 I just believe he recieved it like it was promised and in truth it can't be disproven. Just a thought.

Yes, the promise of the Spirit is given to those who repent and are baptized.

Therefore, the samarians received the promise of the spirit before Peter and John came to samaria. The HGB is a further experience with God which is available for all those who have believed and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

That is why Paul asked "Have you received the HolyGhost SINCE you believed?"

The promise of the Spirit is for those who have been baptized right? so why is Paul then asking such a question? the HGB is a further exprience with God

my thoughts anyway...

[Falla39]

pci could refer to the doctrine of saved at repentance as opposed to the pajc position which is saved after 3 steps of repentance, water and spirit baptism. the pci and the pajc merged in 1945 to form the upc. pci was one step and pajc was 3 step. you can read about the controversy in christianity without the cross by thomas fudge. if you search that title here at aff you can find a few threads. not sure what lite means.

Bro. Jim Ellis posted the following on the Apostolic Forum on Facebook.

James Ellis
The basic 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, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.

This was spelled out at the beginning of the merger, so why the problem with it today!
I don't care who came along and wrote a book or books against what was spelled out
in the beginnng.

I asked Bro. C.M. Becton about this at Nona Freeman's visitation, the night before her
funeral. He said, "I was of the PCI persuasion, but it wasn't like they try to explain it today"!
There were others waiting to speak with Bro. Becton so I did not have a chance to dialogue
farther with him. I regret that and now he's gone.

I was born in 1939 and the merger was in 1945. My late father founded and pastored a work
in our city for over 30 yrs. Not one time did I ever hear anything about the difference between
those who merged in 1945. I am thankful for that as I would not have understood it back then.

As a mature adult, I have no confusion as I was taught the basic fundamental that Bro. Jim posted
on Facebook. Could it be that somewhere along the way much confusion has been caused by possibly
unsuspecting "enemies of the Cross". Paul spoke of some in his day who were enemies of the Cross.

Philippians 3:17,18
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Quiet possibly there are other well known ministers who evidently were of the PCI persuasion, who pastored UPC churches and held positions in the organization.

I mean no offense to anyone!

Falla39

[Steve Epley]

Yes, the promise of the Spirit is given to those who repent and are baptized.

Therefore, the samarians received the promise of the spirit before Peter and John came to samaria. The HGB is a further experience with God which is available for all those who have believed and put their faith in Jesus Christ.

That is why Paul asked "Have you received the HolyGhost SINCE you believed?"

The promise of the Spirit is for those who have been baptized right? so why is Paul then asking such a question? the HGB is a further exprience with God

my thoughts anyway...

This was during a dispensational change and John's preaching was introduction these folks had obeyed what John said but Calvary & Pentecost had taken place thus repentance and remission of sins was being preached in Jesus Name. They did not know it had came but when they heard it had they were baptized with NT baptism and recieved His Spirit.

[TGBTG]

This was during a dispensational change and John's preaching was introduction these folks had obeyed what John said but Calvary & Pentecost had taken place thus repentance and remission of sins was being preached in Jesus Name. They did not know it had came but when they heard it had they were baptized with NT baptism and recieved His Spirit.

Yes, these folks were John the baptist's followers, so they did not know Christ yet.

However, as of the time Paul asked them "Have you received the HolyGhost since you BELIEVED?" Paul himself did not know that these folks had not heard about Christ.

Paul said "...since you believed". IOW, Paul thought they had believed on Christ already and yet, Paul still went ahead to ask them such a question?

Also, Paul was surprised that these folks had NOT heard of the HolyGhost. IOW, Paul thought they had already heard of the HolyGhost. So Paul assumed that they had already heard of the HolyGhost, and yet he goes ahead to ask "Have you received the HolyGhost since you believed?"

[Steve Epley]

Yes, these folks were John the baptist's followers, so they did not know Christ yet.

However, as of the time Paul asked them "Have you received the HolyGhost since you BELIEVED?" Paul himself did not know that these folks had not heard about Christ.

Paul said "...since you believed". IOW, Paul thought they had believed on Christ already and yet, Paul still went ahead to ask them such a question?

Also, Paul was surprised that these folks had NOT heard of the HolyGhost. IOW, Paul thought they had already heard of the HolyGhost. So Paul assumed that they had already heard of the HolyGhost, and yet he goes ahead to ask "Have you received the HolyGhost since you believed?"

They had believed John's preaching and John preached Christ and the Holy Ghost Baptism thus they were disciples. However even though all this time had lapsed though they believed the did not know the promise was available.
NOt enough to believe John's message if you don't experience the promise he was preaching. John was Holy Ghost preacher. (Mt.3:11, Acts 1:5)

[TGBTG]

They had believed John's preaching and John preached Christ and the Holy Ghost Baptism thus they were disciples. However even though all this time had lapsed though they believed the did not know the promise was available.
NOt enough to believe John's message if you don't experience the promise he was preaching. John was Holy Ghost preacher. (Mt.3:11, Acts 1:5)

Acts 19 (KJV)
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Well, their own words said they hadn't heard of the HolyGhost

[johnny44]

Here's why:

Philip preached the same gospel to the eunuch as he had preached to the samarians. Under Philip's preaching, the samarians believed on the Lord Jesus and they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but they DID NOT experience the baptism of the HolyGhost.

It was not until Peter and John came to lay hands on them that they received the HolyGhost.

So, we see Philip doing the same thing to the eunuch. The eunuch declared his faith in Jesus Christ and Philip baptized him. So, we see that's what happened to the samarians.

However, in the eunuch's case, nobody laid hands on him to receive the HolyGhost. The bible says the eunuch went his way.

Therefore, the eunuch did not receive the baptism of the HolyGhost (according to what the bible says)...Did Peter or John lay hands on you to recieve the H.G.?

[TGBTG]

Did Peter or John lay hands on you to recieve the H.G.?

Actually, Paul laid hands on me to receive the HGB.

[Amanah]

Actually, Paul laid hands on me to receive the HGB.

no one touched me when i received the HG, I was praying at the altar alone

[houston]

ACCORDING TO FALLA, Y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS.

[TGBTG]

no one touched me when i received the HG, I was praying at the altar alone

my post was TIC...lol

[RandyWayne]

no one touched me when i received the HG, I was praying at the altar alone

Ya, no one was touching me either. I was standing during song service.

Of course at the end of the service I was flash mobbed at the alter (since NO ONE gets the Holy Ghost without praying there whilst having ones head shaken). If that scene ever happened again I would be like Neo when the dozen Smiths were piled on him and he threw them off.

[Jack Shephard]

Ya, no one was touching me either. I was standing during song service.

Of course at the end of the service I was flash mobbed at the alter (since NO ONE gets the Holy Ghost without praying there whilst having ones head shaken). If that scene ever happened again I would be like Neo when the dozen Smiths were piled on him and he threw them off.

There are those that are "well-meaning" but there are also those that are wise and know when it is or isn't the time to do the attack of the hands.

[Steve Epley]

Acts 19 (KJV)
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Well, their own words said they hadn't heard of the HolyGhost

John preached the Holy Ghost. Mt. 3:11 & Acts 1:5 Thery hadn't heard the Holy Ghost that was promised had came. Very simple. They were disciples of John were they not and you did read what he preached did you not?

[Steve Epley]

Did Peter or John lay hands on you to recieve the H.G.?

Yea Lord.:highfive

[Steve Epley]

ACCORDING TO FALLA, Y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS.

She is correct.

[houston]

ACCORDING TO FALLA, Y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS.

She is correct.

Funny. I can count the number of times that I have heard the preaching of the cross in a 3 step UC church on one hand and have fingers left ovah.

[Steve Epley]

Funny. I can count the number of times that I have heard the preaching of the cross in a 3 step UC church on one hand and have fingers left ovah.

All I can say is you have ran in the wrong circles. I was preached the beauty of the cross-Calvary-the blood-redemption-reconciliation-atonement my whole life in the church. I have probably preached more on the blood than any other subject in the Bible including sleeves.:heeheehee
I have sat for hour upon hour hearing messages on the blood and Calvary and resurrection. I feel sorry for you.

[houston]

according to FALLA and EPLEY, y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS!!!!

[houston]

All I can say is you have ran in the wrong circles. I was preached the beauty of the cross-Calvary-the blood-redemption-reconciliation-atonement my whole life in the church. I have probably preached more on the blood than any other subject in the Bible including sleeves.:heeheehee
I have sat for hour upon hour hearing messages on the blood and Calvary and resurrection. I feel sorry for you.

Sounds like a great experience. That may have saved me. LOL

[Steve Epley]

according to FALLA and EPLEY, y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS!!!!

Write it down and make it plain anyone who teaches a person can be saved in this dispensation without obeying Acts 2:38 is an enemy of the cross AND an enemy of your soul.

[Steve Epley]

Sounds like a great experience. That may have saved me. LOL

I am not saying what you reported did not happen in some circles but that is so foreign to me and the exact opposite of what I was exposed to. Blood preaching and Blood singing made my experience what it is.

[Amanah]

It certainly is a serious matter to be sure of exactly what is meant by obeying the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 1

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

[Steve Epley]

It certainly is a serious matter to be sure of exactly what is meant by obeying the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 1

7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
The gospel is the death-burial-resurrection of Jesus and our identity with it through repentance(death)-burial(baptism in Jesus Name)resurrection(recieiving His Spirit.

[Hoovie]

Elder Epley, are you still pastoring a church in MO?

[Steve Epley]

Elder Epley, are you still pastoring a church in MO?

Trying to.

[Hoovie]

Trying to.

Great! If you ever want to take a road trip for a couple days, please come see me. I'll take you to a few Old Order Mennonite shops and we'll do dinner too... I guess I am about three hrs from you.

[Falla39]

ACCORDING TO FALLA, Y'all PCI Lite are ENEMIES OF THE CROSS.

Houston, here is what I said!

Could it be that somewhere along the way much confusion has been caused by possibly
unsuspecting "enemies of the Cross". Paul spoke of some in his day who were enemies of the Cross.

Philippians 3:17,18
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

Quiet possibly there are other well known ministers who evidently were of the PCI persuasion, who pastored UPC churches and held positions in the organization.

I mean no offense to anyone!

Houston, you just like to stir the pot! LOL!

[Steve Epley]

Great! If you ever want to take a road trip for a couple days, please come see me. I'll take you to a few Old Order Mennonite shops and we'll do dinner too... I guess I am about three hrs from you.

Where do y'all live at?

[Hoovie]

Where do y'all live at?

The North side of the Lake of the Ozarks.

[pelathais]

Write it down and make it plain anyone who teaches a person can be saved in this dispensation without obeying Acts 2:38 is an enemy of the cross AND an enemy of your soul.

So, that would include the Apostle Peter in Acts 10:43.

What is clear is that you are dodging both the plain Word of God and some rather direct questions here on this board. I thought you came out to play and have some fun, but you're still "tortoised" up in your little shell. C'mon Steve.

Anyone who denies that the remission of sins is found through sincere and genuine repentance and faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ is tearing pages out of their Bible and has "become the enemy of both God and the Gospel" (Galatians 1:8-9).

Steve, you haven't come on here to dialogue. :ignore You've merely come back to play your whiny little passive aggressive game again. You call names, pick fights and when someone stands up to you - you're next step will be to whine something like "I'm not gonna post anymore... y'all so mean to me!" :tissue

[houston]

PEL, that was VERY childish of you.

[Steve Epley]

PEL, that was VERY childish of you.

Some only change for the worse.

[pelathais]

PEL, that was VERY childish of you.

Thanks houston. However, it is true. Steve's done this for years. In both this thread and other threads he resorts to childish name calling and passing harsh condemnation upon other people who post on AFF.

When someone calls him on it - he whines and cries and says that he'll never post on AFF again because somebody called HIM a name.

Steve promotes a "gospel" that is simply "another gospel" and not the one preached by the apostles. For years, we've had to bite our tongues while he carried on with his name calling and condemnation. I'm just calling him out on it at the outset this time.

In person, Steve's actually a really great guy. I sneaked into a meeting he was preaching and he came across the pulpit like a big teddy bear. Great message. But, online he projects a completely different persona. All of the "enemies of the cross" and "you've got a strong delusion" stuff are just empty phrases and name calling.

C'mon Steve. Either engage in the discussion, answer the questions that are put to you or do what you've always done in the past. It's probably inevitable any way. Your pattern of behavior on here is really like B. Price's notorious "flip flops." You can almost set your watch by Steve's behavior. Name calling now, whining coming up shortly.

Either we're going to have respectful dialogue or it's going to be "all out" on Steve's terms with the condemnation and name calling. What's it going to be?

[pelathais]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
... No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

Acts 10:43: To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Apparently Peter felt that the remission of sins came about through one's faith and belief in Jesus Christ. The fact that the Holy Ghost fell immediately after this was said (and BEFORE water baptism) filling Peter's audience would indicate that God Himself was satisfied with the blood shed at Calvary and the people's sincere faith in the efficacy of that blood. I'll go with what the Holy Ghost did here along with Peter's preaching.

And, for whatever reason, the "remission of sins" appears to have been something of a "trans-dispensational" phenomena - at least according to Peter's understanding of "the prophets."

See also Paul's discussion in Romans 3:24-26... "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

We are saved by HIS obedience, not because we were clever enough to figure out something that had supposedly eluded the Christian martyrs over the ages.

BUMP!

[pelathais]

Thus Jesus died in vain ignorance will save more than He.

I'm having some difficulty understanding what you meant to say here. I don't think you intended to say that Jesus "died in vain ignorance."

...No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

The passages I cited have a direct bearing on this discussion for Easty had said:



... to which you queried:



And so, I humbly offered: Deuteronomy 7:6-9; Matthew 24:31; John 10:16, John 10:28-29; Romans 8:30, Romans 11:5-6; Hebrews 7:25.

Deuteronomy 7:9 "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations..."

This is the only passage (and it is only one verse out the passage I cited from Deuteronomy) that has any "Dispensational" bearing - the "keep his commandments" part is obviously a reference to the works of the Law.

BUMP!

[pelathais]

Some only change for the worse.

You're the one who said that "Jesus died in vain ignorance." Or do you deny that? You were given opportunities to repent, but you chose to maintain your ugly manner.

Thus Jesus died in vain ignorance will save more than He. The passages you cite have nothing to do with the subject at hand. No one is saved in this dispensation without remission of sins and ONLY in water baptism in Jesus Name are the sins of the penitent remitted.

:crazy

[Steve Epley]

BUMP!

Bump it all you want NOTHING in this says they recieved remission of sins without water baptism in Jesus Name. Of course one has to believe in order to recieve remission of sins. The verse(43) THAT THROUGH HIS NAME. While Peter was preaching remission of sins in Jesus Name the Holy Ghost fell then he commanded to be baptized in the Name in order to have their sins remitted.V.48 You have no argument in this passage. Try another.:thumbsup

[Hoovie]

Write it down and make it plain anyone who teaches a person can be saved in this dispensation without obeying Acts 2:38 is an enemy of the cross AND an enemy of your soul.

I think most agree with this statement.
In general terms I would agree that if someone is saying the gospel and Acts 2:38 is optional they are not of God.

For example: if someone teaches baptism is optional I would not give them ear. It certainly is part and partial of initiation into the body of Christ.

We may disagree on the moment of justification, but that in no way discards Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

[Steve Epley]

You're the one who said that "Jesus died in vain ignorance." Or do you deny that? You were given opportunities to repent, but you chose to maintain your ugly manner.



:crazy

Sir you are misreading what I wrote. According to your false doctrine Jesus died in vain if ignorance saves. That is the point. I am seen as ugly because I maintain the doctrine you was raised in and deny today.

[TGBTG]

I think most agree with this statement.
In general terms I would agree that if someone is saying the gospel and Acts 2:38 is optional they are not of God.

For example: if someone teaches baptism is optional I would not give them ear. It certainly is part and partial of initiation into the body of Christ.

We may disagree on the moment of justification, but that in no way discards Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Every christian obeys acts 2:38 (maybe just not the way some here see)

Baptists surely stress repentance
Baptists surely baptize by the authority of Jesus Christ

and they receive the spirit

the problem is when some people want to add "...with d initial evidence of tongues" to Acts 2:38

[Hoovie]

Well I don't know about "every Christian"... but yes, I hear you.

[Steve Epley]

Every christian obeys acts 2:38 (maybe just not the way some here see)

Baptists surely stress repentance
Baptists surely baptize by the authority of Jesus Christ

and they receive the spirit

the problem is when some people want to add "...with d initial evidence of tongues" to Acts 2:38

Baptist baptize using the formula fo Rome and do NOT baptize by the authority of Jesus and the spirit they recieve is a false spirit. But you are true ALL Christians have obeyed Acts 2:38 because no one is a Christian until they do.

[pelathais]

Baptist baptize using the formula fo Rome and do NOT baptize by the authority of Jesus and the spirit they recieve is a false spirit. But you are true ALL Christians have obeyed Acts 2:38 because no one is a Christian until they do.

Sabellius was led in to "heresy" by the Bishop of Rome, Pope Calixtus I. Later, in order to "prove" his own orthodoxy, Calixtus was forced to banish his friend, Sabellius, from Rome. It's all rather messy, but the point is, when YOU knit your doctrine together with Sabellius' you are in fact joining up with ROME and the teachings of the Popes. Be careful how you condemn the "Baptists" and others. For with the same measure you mete out, you will be judged as well.

[Steve Epley]

Sabellius was led in to "heresy" by the Bishop of Rome, Pope Calixtus I. Later, in order to "prove" his own orthodoxy, Calixtus was forced to banish his friend, Sabellius, from Rome. It's all rather messy, but the point is, when YOU knit your doctrine together with Sabellius' you are in fact joining up with ROME and the teachings of the Popes. Be careful how you condemn the "Baptists" and others. For with the same measure you mete out, you will be judged as well.

Remember Paul preached in Rome. Everyone in Rome was not part of what became the RCC.

[pelathais]

Remember Paul preached in Rome. Everyone in Rome was not part of what became the RCC.

That's not what the RCC says. ... but wait a minute.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem embracing Pope Calixtus or just about any one else prior to about the 5th century as a "brother." (There may be some notable exceptions, so don't hold me to every name that comes up).

You are correct, the RCC didn't really even exist until about the 5th or 6th centuries. The RCC as we know it today didn't exist until around 1000 AD. Many if not most of those early "saints and martyrs" were family men. According to computer studies, about 80% of the people in North America today are descended from St. Arnulf, Bishop of Paris. He even had a funny hat.

Still, we can't find that "full package" example, can we?

[TGBTG]

Baptist baptize using the formula fo Rome and do NOT baptize by the authority of Jesus and the spirit they recieve is a false spirit. But you are true ALL Christians have obeyed Acts 2:38 because no one is a Christian until they do.

You don't think Matt 28:19 should be in the bible?

[johnny44]

That's not what the RCC says. ... but wait a minute.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem embracing Pope Calixtus or just about any one else prior to about the 5th century as a "brother." (There may be some notable exceptions, so don't hold me to every name that comes up).

You are correct, the RCC didn't really even exist until about the 5th or 6th centuries. The RCC as we know it today didn't exist until around 1000 AD. Many if not most of those early "saints and martyrs" were family men. According to computer studies, about 80% of the people in North America today are descended from St. Arnulf, Bishop of Paris. He even had a funny hat.

Still, we can't find that "full package" example, can we?You mean we be Frenchies?Wow Pel we could be cousins.

[Steve Epley]

You don't think Matt 28:19 should be in the bible?

I baptize according to Mt. 28:19 not the Baptist nor the Church of Rome. Commanded in Mt. 28:19 and obeyed in Acts 2:38.

[Ferd]

That's not what the RCC says. ... but wait a minute.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem embracing Pope Calixtus or just about any one else prior to about the 5th century as a "brother." (There may be some notable exceptions, so don't hold me to every name that comes up).

You are correct, the RCC didn't really even exist until about the 5th or 6th centuries. The RCC as we know it today didn't exist until around 1000 AD. Many if not most of those early "saints and martyrs" were family men. According to computer studies, about 80% of the people in North America today are descended from St. Arnulf, Bishop of Paris. He even had a funny hat.

Still, we can't find that "full package" example, can we?


MEMEMEME!!! I am I am! I can even prove it.

[Ferd]

When you say someone is PCI lite, what does that mean?


Is Thomas Fudge's book worth reading? Is it an unbiased historical account?

ok searching the Forums for stuff on Thomas fudge now then.


I suspect you have gotten an ear full of answers. Since someone suggested me let me try to give you an unbiased answer. I cannot promise my answer will truely be unbiased but it will be as close as possible.

You see the answer to these questions are just nearly impossible to answer without bringing perspective (read bias) to the table.

First, lets deal with Fudge.

I have the book. I have read it. I have talked about it in forums so I am pretty well versed in what it says. I even know several of the players personally.

The book is a history and Fudge did deep research and from an histoical perspective he did a good job... but you cannot discount the power of bias.

Fudge or Fudges father was an apostolic preacher. Fudge left the OP path and became a mininster in the Anglican Church. You cannot seperate those facts from the book.

While the history is accurate, the book also shades in a direction. The title of the book is the thesis. Christianity Without The Cross. Fudge's point is that the Oness Pentecostals.... more particularly those who taught/teach the Water Spirit Doctrine (that one must be born of water = Baptism and Spirit = infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues) have abandonded the cross.


For the first question, as has been stated the PCI and PAJC merged to form the UPCI. There was a strong element in the PCI that belived one was saved at repenance. Those men generally preached Acts 2:38 as strong as the Water Spirit men and only the well versed knew the difference.

We now see a "revival" of Jesus Name people who claim this PCI tradition. However in the modern version that I call the Neo-PCI they preach repentance and baptize generally in Jesus Name. But this is no real issue. They generally are spirit filled but again, not really an issue.

Of course putting everyone in one catagory is impossible. MANY of these Modern PCI folks are still strong on infilling of the Holy Ghost and some well teach Jesus Name baptism. But the Neo-PCI people really are moving far from what those older ones taught.

While I have not seen PCI LITE in any post, and would want to know who posted it, and what the context is, I suspect that term is much like the Neo-PCI term I use. They claim the PCI legacy but are far softer on the Oneness message than those older men were.


So you know my own bias, I am Water Spirit in doctrine. I grew up in a church that was both PCI before the merge and ALWAYS Water/Spirit in doctrine.


There you have it. Ferds answer. That and a buck still wont get you a good cup of coffee.

[pelathais]

I baptize according to Mt. 28:19 not the Baptist nor the Church of Rome. Commanded in Mt. 28:19 and obeyed in Acts 2:38.

I agree that baptism "in Jesus' name" almost certainly represents the earliest "formula." However, the case has never been made that Acts 2:38, represents some kind of "more literal" fulfillment of Matthew 28:19, then simply repeating the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew's Gospel.

The spirit of pride (Ephesians 4:17) that goes along with these boasts just ring hollow. Better to allow the Savior to save those whom He has chosen than to try and brag our way into heaven (2 Corinthians 10:18).

The fact that you still haven't answered any of my questions still looms large here. What are you trying to prove? Trying to convince yourself that you really do have the answers? Sorry, Bro. You've come up empty (Galatians 6:3).

[pelathais]

...
You see the answer to these questions are just nearly impossible to answer without bringing perspective (read bias) to the table.

First, lets deal with Fudge.

I have the book. I have read it. I have talked about it in forums so I am pretty well versed in what it says. I even know several of the players personally.

The book is a history and Fudge did deep research and from an histoical perspective he did a good job... but you cannot discount the power of bias.

Fudge or Fudges father was an apostolic preacher. Fudge left the OP path and became a mininster in the Anglican Church. You cannot seperate those facts from the book.

Actually, Professor Fudge taught at a Church of England approved university as a history professor. He himself never became an Anglican "minister." In the Anglican churches (and there are several different flavors) the "minister" is an ordained priest with the same responsibilities and "powers" that a RCC priest has (in theory, at any rate).

The book never tells us whether the writer took holy orders or became a minister in any denomination. What you have stated as being some sort of "fact that cannot be separated from the book" isn't a "fact" at all. You've just drawn something up from your recollections of past discredited posts. Fudge is NOT an "Anglican minister" or priest of any kind. I don't know the man myself, but from what some who are distantly related to him have said, he probably isn't even all that concerned with such matters outside of academia.

While the history is accurate, the book also shades in a direction. The title of the book is the thesis. Christianity Without The Cross. Fudge's point is that the Oness Pentecostals.... more particularly those who taught/teach the Water Spirit Doctrine (that one must be born of water = Baptism and Spirit = infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues) have abandonded the cross.


For the first question, as has been stated the PCI and PAJC merged to form the UPCI. There was a strong element in the PCI that belived one was saved at repenance. Those men generally preached Acts 2:38 as strong as the Water Spirit men and only the well versed knew the difference.

We now see a "revival" of Jesus Name people who claim this PCI tradition. However in the modern version that I call the Neo-PCI they preach repentance and baptize generally in Jesus Name. But this is no real issue. They generally are spirit filled but again, not really an issue.

Then how do we explain the "revival of PCI men" that were targeted in 1992? This was well before Fudge's book came out - in fact, it was what motivated Fudge in the first place.

How do we explain those of us who were taught that the UPCI actually endorsed the "PCI message" when we were told that we were required to read those 100 Bible Studies by John Dearing before we could get even a local license (1980s)? Why were those Bible Studies "disappeared" and only the PAJC studies kept in the Pentecostal Home Study Course (1990s)? When I came into the UPC ministerial fellowship, I was told that the attached document (see below) was REQUIRED READING for ALL UPC MINISTERS. This is what united us (at least that's what the official statements said).

How do we explain the fact that pioneers like AD Urshan, SG Norris and so many others taught along lines similar to the "PCI" position? And this, long before the merger and then longer after as well.

How do we explain the fact that as of this moment, the Articles of Faith of the UPC positively promote the "PCI" teaching of "remission of sins" occurring at repentance?

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/repent_conversion.png

NOTICE: Where the UPCI Manual says salvation and "remission of sins" occurs. It's under the heading "Repentance and Conversion." Nothing whatsoever about the "remission of sins" under "Water Baptism." This has been the official belief of the UPC since the merger.

[pelathais]

... Of course putting everyone in one catagory is impossible. MANY of these Modern PCI folks are still strong on infilling of the Holy Ghost and some well teach Jesus Name baptism. But the Neo-PCI people really are moving far from what those older ones taught.

While I have not seen PCI LITE in any post, and would want to know who posted it, and what the context is, I suspect that term is much like the Neo-PCI term I use. They claim the PCI legacy but are far softer on the Oneness message than those older men were.


So you know my own bias, I am Water Spirit in doctrine. I grew up in a church that was both PCI before the merge and ALWAYS Water/Spirit in doctrine.


There you have it. Ferds answer. That and a buck still wont get you a good cup of coffee.

(See the bolded part in your post above) - No, your so-called "Neo-PCI people have held onto the old paths as I have just demonstrated from the UPC Manual and other official publications of the UPC. Radicals have hijacked the movement and insinuated the ranks with so severe a "Water & Spirit Doctrine" that GT Haywood himself wouldn't recognize it (Brother Haywood also taught the "Light Doctrine").

Concerning how "harder" those "older men were" with the Oneness message... why have the writings of AD Urshan been scrubbed of the word "tri-unity" in describing the Godhead? Why was the word "trinity" used in the PCI Manual as part of its description of the nature of God? I sat for a full year and listened to Stanley Chambers talk about the merger, the old PCI and I listened to his burden that all of this some how could be made relevant and brought into the new century that was then on the horizon. I then listened to the derision and contempt the "holiness" guys had for Bro. Chambers. "A compromiser!" he was called.

[Amanah]

I suspect you have gotten an ear full of answers. Since someone suggested me let me try to give you an unbiased answer. I cannot promise my answer will truely be unbiased but it will be as close as possible.

You see the answer to these questions are just nearly impossible to answer without bringing perspective (read bias) to the table.

First, lets deal with Fudge.

I have the book. I have read it. I have talked about it in forums so I am pretty well versed in what it says. I even know several of the players personally.

The book is a history and Fudge did deep research and from an histoical perspective he did a good job... but you cannot discount the power of bias.

Fudge or Fudges father was an apostolic preacher. Fudge left the OP path and became a mininster in the Anglican Church. You cannot seperate those facts from the book.

While the history is accurate, the book also shades in a direction. The title of the book is the thesis. Christianity Without The Cross. Fudge's point is that the Oness Pentecostals.... more particularly those who taught/teach the Water Spirit Doctrine (that one must be born of water = Baptism and Spirit = infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues) have abandonded the cross.


For the first question, as has been stated the PCI and PAJC merged to form the UPCI. There was a strong element in the PCI that belived one was saved at repenance. Those men generally preached Acts 2:38 as strong as the Water Spirit men and only the well versed knew the difference.

We now see a "revival" of Jesus Name people who claim this PCI tradition. However in the modern version that I call the Neo-PCI they preach repentance and baptize generally in Jesus Name. But this is no real issue. They generally are spirit filled but again, not really an issue.

Of course putting everyone in one catagory is impossible. MANY of these Modern PCI folks are still strong on infilling of the Holy Ghost and some well teach Jesus Name baptism. But the Neo-PCI people really are moving far from what those older ones taught.

While I have not seen PCI LITE in any post, and would want to know who posted it, and what the context is, I suspect that term is much like the Neo-PCI term I use. They claim the PCI legacy but are far softer on the Oneness message than those older men were.


So you know my own bias, I am Water Spirit in doctrine. I grew up in a church that was both PCI before the merge and ALWAYS Water/Spirit in doctrine.


There you have it. Ferds answer. That and a buck still wont get you a good cup of coffee.

Thank you Ferd, the context was Houston actually, he said that Prax was PCI lite, probably in the way of teasing Prax. I had never heard the term so set out to find out what it meant. Since then I have read Fudge's book, and some of the threads on this forum about it.

by saying you are water/spirit, you are saying you must be born again of the water (baptism in Jesus name) and filled with the HG (evidenced by tongues).

the question is do you believe that remission of sins takes place at repentance or at baptism.

isn't that the main difference between PCI and PAJC? when remission takes place?

[TGBTG]

Actually, Professor Fudge taught at a Church of England approved university as a history professor. He himself never became an Anglican "minister." In the Anglican churches (and there are several different flavors) the "minister" is an ordained priest with the same responsibilities and "powers" that a RCC priest has (in theory, at any rate).

The book never tells us whether the writer took holy orders or became a minister in any denomination. What you have stated as being some sort of "fact that cannot be separated from the book" isn't a "fact" at all. You've just drawn something up from your recollections of past discredited posts. Fudge is NOT an "Anglican minister" or priest of any kind. I don't know the man myself, but from what some who are distantly related to him have said, he probably isn't even all that concerned with such matters outside of academia.



Then how do we explain the "revival of PCI men" that were targeted in 1992? This was well before Fudge's book came out - in fact, it was what motivated Fudge in the first place.

How do we explain those of us who were taught that the UPCI actually endorsed the "PCI message" when we were told that we were required to read those 100 Bible Studies by John Dearing before we could get even a local license (1980s)? Why were those Bible Studies "disappeared" and only the PAJC studies kept in the Pentecostal Home Study Course (1990s)? When I came into the UPC ministerial fellowship, I was told that the attached document (see below) was REQUIRED READING for ALL UPC MINISTERS. This is what united us (at least that's what the official statements said).

How do we explain the fact that pioneers like AD Urshan, SG Norris and so many others taught along lines similar to the "PCI" position? And this, long before the merger and then longer after as well.

How do we explain the fact that as of this moment, the Articles of Faith of the UPC positively promote the "PCI" teaching of "remission of sins" occurring at repentance?

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/pelathais/repent_conversion.png

NOTICE: Where the UPCI Manual says salvation and "remission of sins" occurs. It's under the heading "Repentance and Conversion." Nothing whatsoever about the "remission of sins" under "Water Baptism." This has been the official belief of the UPC since the merger.

Pel, the pdf you attached, whose lesson notes was that?
All I can simply say is wow to that lesson note. I 100% wholeheartedly agree with what it says.

[Steve Epley]

I suspect you have gotten an ear full of answers. Since someone suggested me let me try to give you an unbiased answer. I cannot promise my answer will truely be unbiased but it will be as close as possible.

You see the answer to these questions are just nearly impossible to answer without bringing perspective (read bias) to the table.

First, lets deal with Fudge.

I have the book. I have read it. I have talked about it in forums so I am pretty well versed in what it says. I even know several of the players personally.

The book is a history and Fudge did deep research and from an histoical perspective he did a good job... but you cannot discount the power of bias.

Fudge or Fudges father was an apostolic preacher. Fudge left the OP path and became a mininster in the Anglican Church. You cannot seperate those facts from the book.

While the history is accurate, the book also shades in a direction. The title of the book is the thesis. Christianity Without The Cross. Fudge's point is that the Oness Pentecostals.... more particularly those who taught/teach the Water Spirit Doctrine (that one must be born of water = Baptism and Spirit = infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues) have abandonded the cross.


For the first question, as has been stated the PCI and PAJC merged to form the UPCI. There was a strong element in the PCI that belived one was saved at repenance. Those men generally preached Acts 2:38 as strong as the Water Spirit men and only the well versed knew the difference.

We now see a "revival" of Jesus Name people who claim this PCI tradition. However in the modern version that I call the Neo-PCI they preach repentance and baptize generally in Jesus Name. But this is no real issue. They generally are spirit filled but again, not really an issue.

Of course putting everyone in one catagory is impossible. MANY of these Modern PCI folks are still strong on infilling of the Holy Ghost and some well teach Jesus Name baptism. But the Neo-PCI people really are moving far from what those older ones taught.

While I have not seen PCI LITE in any post, and would want to know who posted it, and what the context is, I suspect that term is much like the Neo-PCI term I use. They claim the PCI legacy but are far softer on the Oneness message than those older men were.


So you know my own bias, I am Water Spirit in doctrine. I grew up in a church that was both PCI before the merge and ALWAYS Water/Spirit in doctrine.


There you have it. Ferds answer. That and a buck still wont get you a good cup of coffee.

Very accurate and many PCI guys were water & Sprit guys and NONE of PCI guys would be comfortable in their descendent's churches who have moved away from their foundation. For example 1sr Church in Corinth is nothing like the church Gurley founded.

[Ferd]

See. It really does matter who answers the question.

pelatheis is a great guy and very smart. We likely don't agree on some of the finer points and differ on some of the more interpretive points of the history

I mean no disrespect when I point out that he is more of the Neo-PCI view.

[Steve Epley]

See. It really does matter who answers the question.

pelatheis is a great guy and very smart. We likely don't agree on some of the finer points and differ on some of the more interpretive points of the history

I mean no disrespect when I point out that he is more of the Neo-PCI view.

Tis true and far from his roots by the way.

[Jack Shephard]

(See the bolded part in your post above) - No, your so-called "Neo-PCI people have held onto the old paths as I have just demonstrated from the UPC Manual and other official publications of the UPC. Radicals have hijacked the movement and insinuated the ranks with so severe a "Water & Spirit Doctrine" that GT Haywood himself wouldn't recognize it (Brother Haywood also taught the "Light Doctrine").

Concerning how "harder" those "older men were" with the Oneness message... why have the writings of AD Urshan been scrubbed of the word "tri-unity" in describing the Godhead? Why was the word "trinity" used in the PCI Manual as part of its description of the nature of God? I sat for a full year and listened to Stanley Chambers talk about the merger, the old PCI and I listened to his burden that all of this some how could be made relevant and brought into the new century that was then on the horizon. I then listened to the derision and contempt the "holiness" guys had for Bro. Chambers. "A compromiser!" he was called.


I have a question or two for Elder Epley, but I think he still has me on ignore from a long time back. Here we go... We have heard that all these guys preached as hard as the PAJCers, but were ALL of them that way? There are some W&S people now that don't yell much are they considered less by the other PAJCers? Maybe, but for other reasons like they have a bigger church or something. So what does it matter the volume one uses and manner in which the gospel is delivered and all that? The people that the church serves today is much different that the people of old. The world is different and thus the manner in which the word is delievered should adjust, shouldn't it?

[Steve Epley]

I have a question or two for Elder Epley, but I think he still has me on ignore from a long time back. Here we go... We have heard that all these guys preached as hard as the PAJCers, but were ALL of them that way? There are some W&S people now that don't yell much are they considered less by the other PAJCers? Maybe, but for other reasons like they have a bigger church or something. So what does it matter the volume one uses and manner in which the gospel is delivered and all that? The people that the church serves today is much different that the people of old. The world is different and thus the manner in which the word is delievered should adjust, shouldn't it?

I do NOT have you on ignore if I did not reply it only means I did not come here often and really had determined never to post here again. IF I understand your question the main difference then and now among that group the PCI men such as Gurley-Greer-Yadon-others preached Acts 2:38 fervently. They insisted on rebaptisms and recieving the HGB. Sitting hearing them you would think their position was the same as the PAJC men. They were strong Oneness preachers. Their descendents(those that I know) do not even emphasize the HGB with tongues(both Pianoman & CC1 cerifided this). Though they baptize in Jesus Name there is no emphasis on it. This is so at Christ Church & First Church I know personally. I do not believe those mentors of the neo-PCI guys today would be comfortable sitting in those churches. They are not the churches they built.

[houston]

I just want to say that ...I am old PCI :happydance

[Amanah]

I just want to say that ...I am old PCI :happydance

PCI heavy?

[houston]

PCI heavy?

HAHA. In sin we used to refer regular BUDWEISER as Bud Heavy.

[Steve Epley]

Many in the area I was raised in taught salvation at repentance and others taught some form of the light doctrine. I was more of an oddity than the norm. I fought them as a teenager and still fighting them today.

[Amanah]

Many in the area I was raised in taught salvation at repentance and others taught some form of the light doctrine. I was more of an oddity than the norm. I fought them as a teenager and still fighting them today.

It's better to err on the side of being zealous for God and what you believe is right, then to be so liberal that people don't know where you stand any more.

[Jack Shephard]

I do NOT have you on ignore if I did not reply it only means I did not come here often and really had determined never to post here again. IF I understand your question the main difference then and now among that group the PCI men such as Gurley-Greer-Yadon-others preached Acts 2:38 fervently. They insisted on rebaptisms and recieving the HGB. Sitting hearing them you would think their position was the same as the PAJC men. They were strong Oneness preachers. Their descendents(those that I know) do not even emphasize the HGB with tongues(both Pianoman & CC1 cerifided this). Though they baptize in Jesus Name there is no emphasis on it. This is so at Christ Church & First Church I know personally. I do not believe those mentors of the neo-PCI guys today would be comfortable sitting in those churches. They are not the churches they built.

Yes, you pretty much read it correctly. Maybe you know if you were ever in one of those PCI churches or services. I don't but what I know it what I learn from my teachers/pastors. I would imagine though that the PCI men you knew or heard weren't like their predicessors either, don't you think?

[Hoovie]

It's better to err on the side of being zealous for God and what you believe is right, then to be so liberal that people don't know where you stand any more.

I don't know about that Amanah... Being zealous for God personally is one thing, but zealots of condemnation of those less zealous is another thing entirely.

Let's just say I don't like those choices!

Reminds me of the one where you have to choose to throw grandma or the newborn overboard.

[BrotherEastman]

I don't know about that Amanah...

Let's just say I don't like those choices!

Reminds me of the one where you have to choose to throw grandma or the newborn overboard.

:heeheehee

[Sabby]

ALL remission and forgiveness took place HISTORICALLY at the cross it PERSONALLY takes place for the penitent when they are baptized in Jesus Name. I didn't write it I just preach it.
You would give a different answer than Peter did at Pentecost. Since the question is the same the answer is still the same. He had the keys by the way not you and I.

I would have preached the same message as Peter, bro. If you attach any forgiveness to something you physically DO then you become like those Paul chided in Galatians...
Baptism is for identification WITH Jesus Christ, not John the baptist, not the cerermonies of the Pharisees or of the temple, but to identify with He that was crucified.
Forgiveness is proferred on our knees in faith at the foot of the cross. We are undeserving. We GET to be baptized in Jesus' name, and it IS a command, but salvationally, it is post-facto.

[pelathais]

Pel, the pdf you attached, whose lesson notes was that?
All I can simply say is wow to that lesson note. I 100% wholeheartedly agree with what it says.

That was one of the Lessons from the book "Pentecostal Home Study Course" that all prospective UPC ministers were required to read from about the time soon after the merger until the early or mid - 1990s. This lesson was written by John Dearing - who along with Howard Goss, was one of the principle organizers of the Pentecostal Church, Inc. (PCI).

"The Pentecostal Home Study Course" came in a large three-ring binder that a lot of folks simply called, "The big three-ring binder." It contained 250 Bible Studies. There were 100 brief studies like this penned by Bro. Dearing. 100 studies written by a Sister Rohn from the PAJC and another 50 studies written by a "post-merger" writer. The idea was to give the ministers some idea of the diversity of opinion that existed within the fellowship.

Sometime in the early to mid-1990s, all of Bro. Dearing's writings were removed, Sis. Rohn's were kept and more were added to make it "250 Bible Studies" again so that the title of the book would not have to be changes. A few years later it was quietly dropped from the list of required reading.

[Sabby]

And Steve, you don't have the keys.
Neither does the local preacher who takes the prerogative of the verse, "whomsoever sins ye retain they are retained" by intentionally not baptizing someone they deem as unworthy for whatever reason. I'm not talking about hearsay, bro; I have seen it done too many times. NO HUMAN can confer forgiveness by an act. The only human act ever done to apply forgiveness to ourselves was the crucifixion, when Jesus Christ Himself declared the works to be "Finished". God is not a debtor to anyone. He is a forgiver, but not a debtor.
When egotists think they can actually confer forgiveness to someone from GOD through an act of their own, they are mistakenly full of themselves.

[Sabby]

That was one of the Lessons from the book "Pentecostal Home Study Course" that all prospective UPC ministers were required to read from about the time soon after the merger until the early or mid - 1990s. This lesson was written by John Dearing - who along with Howard Goss, was one of the principle organizers of the Pentecostal Church, Inc. (PCI).

"The Pentecostal Home Study Course" came in a large three-ring binder that a lot of folks simply called, "The big three-ring binder." It contained 250 Bible Studies. There were 100 brief studies like this penned by Bro. Dearing. 100 studies written by a Sister Rohn from the PAJC and another 50 studies written by a "post-merger" writer. The idea was to give the ministers some idea of the diversity of opinion that existed within the fellowship.

Sometime in the early to mid-1990s, all of Bro. Dearing's writings were removed, Sis. Rohn's were kept and more were added to make it "250 Bible Studies" again so that the title of the book would not have to be changes. A few years later it was quietly dropped from the list of required reading.

I believe it was Emmanuel Rohn, of Caldwell Idaho.

[pelathais]

I believe it was Emmanuel Rohn, of Caldwell Idaho.

Was it? Maybe the sister was the "more contemporary writer." I don't have my hard copy anymore and the scanned version doesn't have the introductory stuff. Bro. Strange has one of the antique copies.

[TGBTG]

It's better to err on the side of being zealous for God and what you believe is right, then to be so liberal that people don't know where you stand any more.

Amanah, I'm not exactly sure I would agree with the emboldened statement.

Consider this:

Rom 10
1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Israel sure had a zeal for God, but they rejected the counsel of the very God they had "zeal" for...

[pelathais]

Many in the area I was raised in taught salvation at repentance and others taught some form of the light doctrine. I was more of an oddity than the norm. I fought them as a teenager and still fighting them today.

This would seem to run counter to the earlier claims made by you and others that "the old PCI men" weren't as "soft on doctrine" as the "Neo-PCI" folks.

For me, the "PCI view" was crucial in my even joining the UPC (I know that you're not UPC). I was concerned about being part of a group that believed only those who thought just like they did were saved. Not only is that cultish, but it sets up some very dangerous social dynamics.

Reading Bro. Dearing's writings was the clincher for me. He clearly showed that the UPC was NOT a "cult" (at least it wasn't early on). When they kicked him out of the UPC (long after he was dead) and the manner in which his writings were kicked out, I was alarmed. Then, I began to see those dangerous social dynamics. The bodies started to pile up (literally at times).

When you remove God from the position of Sovereignty in your life and church, you put yourself into a very bad situation. Denying the cross leads to denying God himself. It's really a form of atheism - except, instead of denying the existence of any god, these folks create one of their own. Themselves and their own emotions.

When you hold the truth, that's a good thing. When you hold the truth in unrighteousness - lying to the brethren to pass your resolutions, lying about your history and etc. - you end up changing "the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:20-26).

[Hoovie]

This would seem to run counter to the earlier claims made by you and others that "the old PCI men" weren't as "soft on doctrine" as the "Neo-PCI" folks.

For me, the "PCI view" was crucial in my even joining the UPC (I know that you're not UPC). I was concerned about being part of a group that believed only those who thought just like they did were saved. Not only is that cultish, but it sets up some very dangerous social dynamics.

Reading Bro. Dearing's writings was the clincher for me. He clearly showed that the UPC was NOT a "cult" (at least it wasn't early on). When they kicked him out of the UPC (long after he was dead) and the manner in which his writings were kicked out, I was alarmed. Then, I began to see those dangerous social dynamics. The bodies started to pile up (literally at times).

When you remove God from the position of Sovereignty in your life and church, you put yourself into a very bad situation. Denying the cross leads to denying God himself. It's really a form of atheism - except, instead of denying the existence of any god, these folks create one of their own. Themselves and their own emotions.

When you hold the truth, that's a good thing. When you hold the truth in unrighteousness - lying to the brethren to pass your resolutions, lying about your history and etc. - you end up changing "the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:20-26).

Per the bolded statement - I agree. I would never have considered "joining a church" that believed they served any God other than the one my family prayed to. Nor would I have wanted anything to do with a group that believed most all other Christians were lost.

About the bodies... I ain't touchin that!

[Ferd]

(See the bolded part in your post above) - No, your so-called "Neo-PCI people have held onto the old paths as I have just demonstrated from the UPC Manual and other official publications of the UPC. Radicals have hijacked the movement and insinuated the ranks with so severe a "Water & Spirit Doctrine" that GT Haywood himself wouldn't recognize it (Brother Haywood also taught the "Light Doctrine").

Concerning how "harder" those "older men were" with the Oneness message... why have the writings of AD Urshan been scrubbed of the word "tri-unity" in describing the Godhead? Why was the word "trinity" used in the PCI Manual as part of its description of the nature of God? I sat for a full year and listened to Stanley Chambers talk about the merger, the old PCI and I listened to his burden that all of this some how could be made relevant and brought into the new century that was then on the horizon. I then listened to the derision and contempt the "holiness" guys had for Bro. Chambers. "A compromiser!" he was called.

Two points my Neo-PCI brother,
1. I can live with your correction. Fudge isnt a minister. He has however found a home in the Anglican church and he is decidedly of the view that the W/S doctrine is heresy. And the book, while a history was designed to point this out.

2. about Old Paths you are asking the wrong fellow. Ive posted many things about my consternation with certain segments taking "ownership" of the term. That conservatives use the term to suggest the rest of us have diviated from the historical path is simply wrong.

I have never been on what a devotee to the "Westburg Way" might consider the old path. My Old Path is quite different, much more moderate and just as old if not older. I give room for you to follow yours.

3. Speaking of Westburg, I have always decried the 1992 resolution and the insuing insanity of the Affermation Statement. It is wrong headed now and it was worse then. If you dont remember, I am the one that has always called it the Infernal Document.

I personally believe what happened then forced some very good men on both sides to become vastly more dogmatic about their approach and the baby got tossed out with the bathwater.

WE ARE ALL THE LESS BECAUSE OF IT.

I still love you and Elder Epley and respect you both.... and neither one of you can stop me! LOL.

[Jack Shephard]

This would seem to run counter to the earlier claims made by you and others that "the old PCI men" weren't as "soft on doctrine" as the "Neo-PCI" folks.

For me, the "PCI view" was crucial in my even joining the UPC (I know that you're not UPC). I was concerned about being part of a group that believed only those who thought just like they did were saved. Not only is that cultish, but it sets up some very dangerous social dynamics.

Reading Bro. Dearing's writings was the clincher for me. He clearly showed that the UPC was NOT a "cult" (at least it wasn't early on). When they kicked him out of the UPC (long after he was dead) and the manner in which his writings were kicked out, I was alarmed. Then, I began to see those dangerous social dynamics. The bodies started to pile up (literally at times).

When you remove God from the position of Sovereignty in your life and church, you put yourself into a very bad situation. Denying the cross leads to denying God himself. It's really a form of atheism - except, instead of denying the existence of any god, these folks create one of their own. Themselves and their own emotions.

When you hold the truth, that's a good thing. When you hold the truth in unrighteousness - lying to the brethren to pass your resolutions, lying about your history and etc. - you end up changing "the truth of God into a lie" (Romans 1:20-26).

Wow...very well said. I couldn't agree more.

[Jack Shephard]

Two points my Neo-PCI brother,
1. I can live with your correction. Fudge isnt a minister. He has however found a home in the Anglican church and he is decidedly of the view that the W/S doctrine is heresy. And the book, while a history was designed to point this out.

2. about Old Paths you are asking the wrong fellow. Ive posted many things about my consternation with certain segments taking "ownership" of the term. That conservatives use the term to suggest the rest of us have diviated from the historical path is simply wrong.

I have never been on what a devotee to the "Westburg Way" might consider the old path. My Old Path is quite different, much more moderate and just as old if not older. I give room for you to follow yours.

3. Speaking of Westburg, I have always decried the 1992 resolution and the insuing insanity of the Affermation Statement. It is wrong headed now and it was worse then. If you dont remember, I am the one that has always called it the Infernal Document.

I personally believe what happened then forced some very good men on both sides to become vastly more dogmatic about their approach and the baby got tossed out with the bathwater.

WE ARE ALL THE LESS BECAUSE OF IT.

I still love you and Elder Epley and respect you both.... and neither one of you can stop me! LOL.

Awesome post Ferd. That was great!

[Amanah]

Amanah, I'm not exactly sure I would agree with the emboldened statement.

Consider this:

Rom 10
1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Israel sure had a zeal for God, but they rejected the counsel of the very God they had "zeal" for...

your are right, my post was not well worded.

[pelathais]

Two points my Neo-PCI brother,
1. I can live with your correction. Fudge isnt a minister. He has however found a home in the Anglican church and he is decidedly of the view that the W/S doctrine is heresy. And the book, while a history was designed to point this out.

I know that it probably ends up being something of a quibble, but I not all that certain the Fudge "has found a home in the Anglican Church." He ultimately resigned from the university in protest in an unrelated academic matter, then when he sought reinstatement, they threw him out.

I spoke to a member of Fudge's extended family a couple of years ago. He told me that from his observations, Fudge didn't really adhere to any particular denomination. I suppose only Thomas Fudge himself could give us clarity on this, however, I think it is inaccurate to say "he's an Anglican now..." as if that serves to dismiss his scholarship in the Oneness movement.

2. about Old Paths you are asking the wrong fellow. Ive posted many things about my consternation with certain segments taking "ownership" of the term. That conservatives use the term to suggest the rest of us have diviated from the historical path is simply wrong.

I have never been on what a devotee to the "Westburg Way" might consider the old path. My Old Path is quite different, much more moderate and just as old if not older. I give room for you to follow yours.

:highfive

3. Speaking of Westburg, I have always decried the 1992 resolution and the insuing insanity of the Affermation Statement. It is wrong headed now and it was worse then. If you dont remember, I am the one that has always called it the Infernal Document.

I personally believe what happened then forced some very good men on both sides to become vastly more dogmatic about their approach and the baby got tossed out with the bathwater.

WE ARE ALL THE LESS BECAUSE OF IT.

I still love you and Elder Epley and respect you both.... and neither one of you can stop me! LOL.

Thanks Bro. And I too greatly appreciate Steve-a-rino - in a different format. He's a great guy in person. On the forums, however, he seems to be satisfied with make pithy assertions and handing out blanket condemnations without ever offering any support for his position. It's probably just a communication thing - everyone usually ends up coming across differently when trying to squeeze their thoughts into these little boxes on the screen.

[canam]

I suspect you have gotten an ear full of answers. Since someone suggested me let me try to give you an unbiased answer. I cannot promise my answer will truely be unbiased but it will be as close as possible.

You see the answer to these questions are just nearly impossible to answer without bringing perspective (read bias) to the table.

First, lets deal with Fudge.

I have the book. I have read it. I have talked about it in forums so I am pretty well versed in what it says. I even know several of the players personally.

The book is a history and Fudge did deep research and from an histoical perspective he did a good job... but you cannot discount the power of bias.

Fudge or Fudges father was an apostolic preacher. Fudge left the OP path and became a mininster in the Anglican Church. You cannot seperate those facts from the book.

While the history is accurate, the book also shades in a direction. The title of the book is the thesis. Christianity Without The Cross. Fudge's point is that the Oness Pentecostals.... more particularly those who taught/teach the Water Spirit Doctrine (that one must be born of water = Baptism and Spirit = infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues) have abandonded the cross.


For the first question, as has been stated the PCI and PAJC merged to form the UPCI. There was a strong element in the PCI that belived one was saved at repenance. Those men generally preached Acts 2:38 as strong as the Water Spirit men and only the well versed knew the difference.

We now see a "revival" of Jesus Name people who claim this PCI tradition. However in the modern version that I call the Neo-PCI they preach repentance and baptize generally in Jesus Name. But this is no real issue. They generally are spirit filled but again, not really an issue.

Of course putting everyone in one catagory is impossible. MANY of these Modern PCI folks are still strong on infilling of the Holy Ghost and some well teach Jesus Name baptism. But the Neo-PCI people really are moving far from what those older ones taught.

While I have not seen PCI LITE in any post, and would want to know who posted it, and what the context is, I suspect that term is much like the Neo-PCI term I use. They claim the PCI legacy but are far softer on the Oneness message than those older men were.


So you know my own bias, I am Water Spirit in doctrine. I grew up in a church that was both PCI before the merge and ALWAYS Water/Spirit in doctrine.


There you have it. Ferds answer. That and a buck still wont get you a good cup of coffee.

Fudges father James IS an apostolic preacher and a good one !

[Steve Epley]

I think Elder Westburg is getting a bad rap but if he was alive he would be man enough to take it. I was at the Junction City church last week in a service which was the memorial of the 10th year of his death. There is still a strong Apostolic church there of better than 500 and the platfrom was full of preachers who were either out from under him or strongly influenced by him. So his works speak for him. Just saying......................................The church is preaching the SAME message and practicing it unlike the PCI churches that resemble very little if any at all of their roots?

[Jack Shephard]

I think Elder Westburg is getting a bad rap but if he was alive he would be man enough to take it. I was at the Junction City church last week in a service which was the memorial of the 10th year of his death. There is still a strong Apostolic church there of better than 500 and the platfrom was full of preachers who were either out from under him or strongly influenced by him. So his works speak for him. Just saying......................................The church is preaching the SAME message and practicing it unlike the PCI churches that resemble very little if any at all of their roots?

It's good to know that there are still people at his old church, but the fact remains that the "issue" he brought up and the subsequent card that followed did more to divide than to unite. Just saying...............................

[Steve Epley]

It's good to know that there are still people at his old church, but the fact remains that the "issue" he brought up and the subsequent card that followed did more to divide than to unite. Just saying...............................

I do understand. The 'issue' should have never been in my opinion for what it is worth the merger should have never taken place.

[Ferd]

I think Elder Westburg is getting a bad rap but if he was alive he would be man enough to take it. I was at the Junction City church last week in a service which was the memorial of the 10th year of his death. There is still a strong Apostolic church there of better than 500 and the platfrom was full of preachers who were either out from under him or strongly influenced by him. So his works speak for him. Just saying......................................The church is preaching the SAME message and practicing it unlike the PCI churches that resemble very little if any at all of their roots?

Brother Epley, I felt the 1992 event was wrong before I knew it was Elder Westburg behind it. The Elder built a fine church and in an era when a lot of Apostolic men were at best scared of building a multi racial church, he was doing it and standing tall on the issue. He certainly was no bad guy.


I do think that he was wrong on this. I think it cost the UPCI and a lot of men who were in the UPCI a lot. Only heaven will tell the full story.

But my momma taught me not to speak ill of the dead. So I will stop here.

[Steve Epley]

Brother Epley, I felt the 1992 event was wrong before I knew it was Elder Westburg behind it. The Elder built a fine church and in an era when a lot of Apostolic men were at best scared of building a multi racial church, he was doing it and standing tall on the issue. He certainly was no bad guy.


I do think that he was wrong on this. I think it cost the UPCI and a lot of men who were in the UPCI a lot. Only heaven will tell the full story.

But my momma taught me not to speak ill of the dead. So I will stop here.

IN reality I shouldn't even comment I have never belonged to the UPC and in truth this was the very reason. I knew guys in the org that did not believe the necessity of the new birth message so I could not join.

[Sarah]

I do understand. The 'issue' should have never been in my opinion for what it is worth the merger should have never taken place.

I've always thought this too, Bro Epley. Either you believe the message that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and the answer he gave to those who asked him 'what shall we do', or you don't.

I'm just surprised the uproar didn't happen before 1992.

[Steve Epley]

I've always thought this too, Bro Epley. Either you believe the message that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and the answer he gave to those who asked him 'what shall we do', or you don't.

I'm just surprised the uproar didn't happen before 1992.

I will compliment them it took from 45 to 92 before the issue caused the split and honestly I think there are many closet PCI guys who remain.

One always wonders:
1.What would be the landscape of Pentecost is the majority of the white brethren would have stayed with the PAW?
2. What would be the landscape of Pentecost if there had been no merger?

I have often ponders these two questions.

[Ferd]

IN reality I shouldn't even comment I have never belonged to the UPC and in truth this was the very reason. I knew guys in the org that did not believe the necessity of the new birth message so I could not join.

and I fully respect that. My history is a bit different. I came up in Papa George Glass's home church. My view is a bit different.

[Steve Epley]

and I fully respect that. My history is a bit different. I came up in Papa George Glass's home church. My view is a bit different.

I understand however originally if not always Elder Glass believed the new birth message.

[Chateau d'If]

I've followed this conversation with great interest, and believe an entirely new forum devoted to this one topic could thrive.

The real issue is often missed because we are only a generation or two past the merger and many of are related to the key players either by blood or spiritual succession. Those relationships portend our historical view.

IMO, there are larger issues involved in the PCI/PAJC historical debate than water/spirit or saved at repentance soteriologies. Those issues are spiritual pride, spiritual abuse and, most importantly, the streams of doctrines which flowed from each ideology over the course of the last few decades.

[Jack Shephard]

I do understand. The 'issue' should have never been in my opinion for what it is worth the merger should have never taken place.

Thanks for your response....

I agree now being able to look backwards and see how it turned out. If people can fellowship and do so without strife and bitterness then great. But if either side begans to look at the other and thinking they are better or more "right" after they have clearly come to an understanding that both sides were right, or they wouldn't have merged at the beginning, then that is just asking for trouble. I know that you wouldn't merge with some PCI folk, even if they were the "old PCI" because you don't agree and I commend that because you are solid for what you believe regardless of everyone else. I would rather be more inclusive in fellowship than exclusive, but if it works for you then more power to ya.

[Chateau d'If]

I've followed this conversation with great interest, and believe an entirely new forum devoted to this one topic could thrive.

The real issue is often missed because we are only a generation or two past the merger and many of are related to the key players either by blood or spiritual succession. Those relationships portend our historical view.

IMO, there are larger issues involved in the PCI/PAJC historical debate than water/spirit or saved at repentance soteriologies. Those issues are spiritual pride, spiritual abuse and, most importantly, the streams of doctrines which flowed from each ideology over the course of the last few decades.

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

[Amanah]

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

well said

but also, if one believes in saved at repentance, the circle becomes wider and wider until there is no where to make a stand.

[Jack Shephard]

I've followed this conversation with great interest, and believe an entirely new forum devoted to this one topic could thrive.

The real issue is often missed because we are only a generation or two past the merger and many of are related to the key players either by blood or spiritual succession. Those relationships portend our historical view.

IMO, there are larger issues involved in the PCI/PAJC historical debate than water/spirit or saved at repentance soteriologies. Those issues are spiritual pride, spiritual abuse and, most importantly, the streams of doctrines which flowed from each ideology over the course of the last few decades.

Interesting post, in a good way! I am pretty much 1st/2nd generation Pentecost, my parents and I all came into at the same time so they didn't really precede me. So I really don't have any historical vehicle driving my choice or beliefs other than the bible and what I feel God is directing me to believe. That being said I don't have a dog in that fight....but I do lean to the PCI way of belief. From what I have heard is that the PCI were forward thinkers even back then. Accounts have been given that they were just as hard as the PAJC peeps were so it seems a lil contrary, but whatever. If they saw completely eye then it wouldn't have been that big of a deal. But it ended up being sorta like a hostile take over...

[Jack Shephard]

well said

but also, if one believes in saved at repentance, the circle becomes wider and wider until there is no where to make a stand.

I don't agree. I think that the lines and stances are pretty clear in the churches I have been involved with that are "saved at repentance".

[Steve Epley]

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

Yes there are those of us who believe Acts 2:38 is just the beginning of our walk with God and more is required if we are going to please him. A thought the Epistles were written to born again saints so it does seem it takes more than the new birth to please God?

[Steve Epley]

well said

but also, if one believes in saved at repentance, the circle becomes wider and wider until there is no where to make a stand.

All sails and not anchors is what I have seen personally. Look at Christ Church & First Church they have an identity crisis? Anything but their roots.

[Ferd]

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

the part i put in bold simply is not true. It may be your opinion but you are wrong.

[Ferd]

I don't agree. I think that the lines and stances are pretty clear in the churches I have been involved with that are "saved at repentance".

JT, I have a good friend that is proof that those lines are very fluid on this side of the equastion.

I think the thing that made the UPCI work in those early days, and what is lacking in many ways right now is that the two sides kept each other from drifting too far to extreme...not that there werent plenty of examples of extreme on both sides in the UPCI before the merger... there were...

I still say that 1992 was the mistake. the merger wasnt the problem and without it neither organization would have been nearly as successfull as the UPCI became.

[johnny44]

the part i put in bold simply is not true. It may be your opinion but you are wrong.I agree.

[Jack Shephard]

JT, I have a good friend that is proof that those lines are very fluid on this side of the equastion.

I think the thing that made the UPCI work in those early days, and what is lacking in many ways right now is that the two sides kept each other from drifting too far to extreme...not that there werent plenty of examples of extreme on both sides in the UPCI before the merger... there were...

I still say that 1992 was the mistake. the merger wasnt the problem and without it neither organization would have been nearly as successfull as the UPCI became.

I'm sure it is possible, but the churches I have been a part of you know where they stand on issues, but it is different than most UPC churches. I think that most of the PCI churches are "seeker-friendly" ( I hate that term, but it kinda fits ) and most of the UPC churches are exclusive and not as friendly to the seekers. There are several excpetions to that though. But to be fair...in some UPC churches after a "certain" amount of time is given and "the changes" haven't taken place...they can be treated much differently. This is my experience.

[Jack Shephard]

the part i put in bold simply is not true. It may be your opinion but you are wrong.

The part you had bolded is pretty true. Think about it. Most OP's say Acts 2:38 saves you but the standards are taught hardcore to "keep you saved" and that makes the bolded part true. If it weren't true the the "standards" would be all a personal choice and not a corporate rule. IMO.

[Ferd]

The part you had bolded is pretty true. Think about it. Most OP's say Acts 2:38 saves you but the standards are taught hardcore to "keep you saved" and that makes the bolded part true. If it weren't true the the "standards" would be all a personal choice and not a corporate rule. IMO.

JT, our friend said the following:
If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed...

Either you or he is confusing Water/Spirit doctrine with holding to traditional Holiness Standards view.

That simply cannot be done. I could if I wanted name you a long list of churches where this is not true.

[Chateau d'If]

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

the part i put in bold simply is not true. It may be your opinion but you are wrong.

JT, our friend said the following:
If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed...

Either you or he is confusing Water/Spirit doctrine with holding to traditional Holiness Standards view.

That simply cannot be done. I could if I wanted name you a long list of churches where this is not true.

It is, by and large, true and entirely possible to prove.

One needs only to look at the holiness position at the merger and then watch it morph over the decades to what the UPC is today. As the PAJC faction took control holiness standards became as important as water/spirit doctrine. In fact, Elder Epley would probably say that the two are inseparable.

Of course there are random deviants, but this basic modus operandi holds true.

[Chateau d'If]

If one believes in "saved at repentance" then every thing after repentance is done simply to please God and draw closer to Him. The body of Christ is large and inclusive.

If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed just to maintain basic relationship with Christ. Anyone who rejects these standards rejects Christ and is not worthy of fellowship, therefore the fellowship circle is small and tends to become abusive and cult-like.

Yes there are those of us who believe Acts 2:38 is just the beginning of our walk with God and more is required if we are going to please him. A thought the Epistles were written to born again saints so it does seem it takes more than the new birth to please God?

Ferd, please note Steve Epley's response.

[Sarah]

Ferd, please note Steve Epley's response.

Chateau...do you disagee with Bro Epley's response? How can you? What he said is true. The epistles are full of instructions for new saints of God. AND for this old saint too!

[Steve Epley]

It is, by and large, true and entirely possible to prove.

One needs only to look at the holiness position at the merger and then watch it morph over the decades to what the UPC is today. As the PAJC faction took control holiness standards became as important as water/spirit doctrine. In fact, Elder Epley would probably say that the two are inseparable.

Of course there are random deviants, but this basic modus operandi holds true.

You are correct I think outward standards among other admonitions are not mutliple choice but necessary in maintaining our distinctions and our walk with God.

[Steve Epley]

Chateau...do you disagee with Bro Epley's response? How can you? What he said is true. The epistles are full of instructions for new saints of God. AND for this old saint too!

Yes the new birth just begins our journey. We must walk with Him.

[Jack Shephard]

JT, our friend said the following:
If one believes water/spirit doctrine they are convinced that even baptism and Holy Ghost infilling is not enough. There is an ever-growing list of standards that must be followed...

Either you or he is confusing Water/Spirit doctrine with holding to traditional Holiness Standards view.

That simply cannot be done. I could if I wanted name you a long list of churches where this is not true.

All I am saying, Ferd, is that the two go together like chicken wings and buffalo sauce. You don't generally have churches where they are hardcore W&S and not hardcore standards too.

[Ferd]

All I am saying, Ferd, is that the two go together like chicken wings and buffalo sauce. You don't generally have churches where they are hardcore W&S and not hardcore standards too.

you aint been walking in my circle for the last 20 years... thats all im saying.

[Jack Shephard]

you aint been walking in my circle for the last 20 years... thats all im saying.

Perhaps, but you ain't been walking in mine either. Believe me, the 2 churches I've been in, 1 UPC and the other ALJC, have both been very much W&S and VERY MUCH hardcore on the standards so based on what I have been around I'm right. You think different and that is cool.

[berkeley]

Ríght, W/S churches tend to be hardcore standards, at least in times past.
CA has many mod upc that are W/S. Moderate is still too UC for me. ha

[Ferd]

Perhaps, but you ain't been walking in mine either. Believe me, the 2 churches I've been in, 1 UPC and the other ALJC, have both been very much W&S and VERY MUCH hardcore on the standards so based on what I have been around I'm right. You think different and that is cool.

the difference is I accept that the kind of churches you speak of exist....

[Jack Shephard]

the difference is I accept that the kind of churches you speak of exist....

???

[Ferd]

???

LOL! kind of a joke. I am not sure those on your side are really willing to accept that there are W/S churches that arent Standards oriented.

[BrotherEastman]

What's WS?

[Amanah]

What's WS?

Water/Spirit :)

[BrotherEastman]

Water/Spirit :)

Oh! Okay. lol

[Jack Shephard]

LOL! kind of a joke. I am not sure those on your side are really willing to accept that there are W/S churches that arent Standards oriented.

I am sure there are, but I haven't seen many. I know of like...1, but never personally attended and 1 I have attended, that belongs to the UPC, but isn't standards oriented. But I am not meaning to paint them all with a board brush, but the ones I have been a part of have been that way. I will say that 1 of the 2 I mentioned that aren't standard oriented used to be very much so, but has lightened up a good touch.

[Jack Shephard]

Oh! Okay. lol

You are goofy....lol

[BrotherEastman]

You are goofy....lol

And your point is?????????

Don't make me hurt you.

[Jack Shephard]

And your point is?????????

Don't make me hurt you.

I love it! I have missed communicating with most of the people on here, including you. I haven't been here much over the past year or so...

:thumbsup

[BrotherEastman]

I love it! I have missed communicating with most of the people on here, including you. I haven't been here much over the past year or so...

:thumbsup

:thumbsup

[berkeley]

:thumbsup

Do you feel special?

[BrotherEastman]

Do you feel special?

naw

[Stephanas]

Fudges father James IS an apostolic preacher and a good one !

Can you comment on how the father feels about the book that his son has written?

[pelathais]

I think Elder Westburg is getting a bad rap but if he was alive he would be man enough to take it. I was at the Junction City church last week in a service which was the memorial of the 10th year of his death. There is still a strong Apostolic church there of better than 500 and the platfrom was full of preachers who were either out from under him or strongly influenced by him. So his works speak for him. Just saying......................................The church is preaching the SAME message and practicing it unlike the PCI churches that resemble very little if any at all of their roots?

Are they still dragging neighboring pastors out of their homes and into their front yards for a good ol' public beat down?

[pelathais]

It's good to know that there are still people at his old church, but the fact remains that the "issue" he brought up and the subsequent card that followed did more to divide than to unite. Just saying...............................

And, that church itself found the UPC to be not to their liking after all and they pulled out of fellowship - but only after whining and crying, throwing a big temper tantrum and making a huge scene.

Uncle Leonard, by the way, died on a cruise ship 10 years ago. It would have been nice if the preachers on the platform "recently" had worn Hawaiian shirts to really commemorate the passing.

[pelathais]

There are records throughout history. I have the Post Nicean Fathers and if you know what you are looking for they are mentioned as hereticks. Remember victors are the folks who write histories. The RCC from the 4th century onward ruled or influenced the world. That does not mean if you search they are not there. There is ample evidence from my studies and I am no historian of folks preaching the Acts 2:38 message and the absolute Oneness of God throughout history until the present.

Name one. From about 200 AD through 1899. Name one.

[Steve Epley]

Are they still dragging neighboring pastors out of their homes and into their front yards for a good ol' public beat down?

Can I tell you I seriously doubt this story?

[pelathais]

Can I tell you I seriously doubt this story?

Sure, but would you instead like to hear it from the mouth of one of that pastor's kids who stood horrified on the porch?

When I say, "Uncle Leonard" I'm not entirely kidding. Though not an uncle, per se, he was a distant relation. More like "Cousin-in-law Leonard." And, I know the "kid."

... when I said "beat down" - I should clarify: The only "physical" contact appears to have been getting the pastor into the yard. Angry shouts were the weapons used in this assault; but you seem to be already familiar with the "story."

[pelathais]

:bump:bump:bump:bump:bump

There are records throughout history. I have the Post Nicean Fathers and if you know what you are looking for they are mentioned as hereticks. Remember victors are the folks who write histories. The RCC from the 4th century onward ruled or influenced the world. That does not mean if you search they are not there. There is ample evidence from my studies and I am no historian of folks preaching the Acts 2:38 message and the absolute Oneness of God throughout history until the present.

Name one. From about 200 AD through 1899. Name one.

[canam]

Can you comment on how the father feels about the book that his son has written?

I have not asked him. I can ask my mom she may have some insight.

[pelathais]

I have not asked him. I can ask my mom she may have some insight.

While I don't know either man personally, the book was dedicated to the author's father along with C.H. Yadon. Also, James Fudge (the author's father) is cited repeatedly in the footnotes. On pages 125-126 there is an account of a public debate between the author's father and Arden Bustard in 1976, with Bro. Bustard taking the "Three Step" position and Bro. Fudge taking the side of salvation by faith at repentance.

[Sarah]

Name one. From about 200 AD through 1899. Name one.

Pel, I believe Apostolic churches existed during that time. Part of that time was the 'dark ages', when it was worth your life to own a bible, right? However, if anyone DID have access to one, I'm sure some, if they could comprehend correctly, obeyed the scripture.

I believe God has always had, and always will, have a church....where people repented of their sins, were baptized in Jesus' Name, and were filled with the Holy Ghost.

Don't know just what kind of book they had, since the KJV wasn't translated until what, the 16th century? But I truly believe some people were born of the water and spirit...if they had access to the Word of God. May not many, but some...

[Steve Epley]

Pel, I believe Apostolic churches existed during that time. Part of that time was the 'dark ages', when it was worth your life to own a bible, right? However, if anyone DID have access to one, I'm sure some, if they could comprehend correctly, obeyed the scripture.

I believe God has always had, and always will, have a church....where people repented of their sins, were baptized in Jesus' Name, and were filled with the Holy Ghost.

Don't know just what kind of book they had, since the KJV wasn't translated until what, the 16th century? But I truly believe some people were born of the water and spirit...if they had access to the Word of God. May not many, but some...

Amen.

He said Sabellius was NOT in the Post Nicene Fathers I gave him page numbers but it does not matter. Any quotes I would dig up would not matter. His mind is set. Some experience or experiences has turned his mind against the church. For this I feel sad.

[berkeley]

Amen.

He said Sabellius was NOT in the Post Nicene Fathers I gave him page numbers but it does not matter. Any quotes I would dig up would not matter. His mind is set. Some experience or experiences has turned his mind against the church. For this I feel sad.

He said that SABBY did not have the full package.

[Steve Epley]

He said that SABBY did not have the full package.

He has ZERO prove of that. And since he stated emphatically Sabellius was not in the Post Nicene Fathers like I made it up and I have furnished ample page numbers to prove he didn't know what he was talking about why should I accept what he is saying about him?

[Amanah]

Thomas Weisser, an OP, in his book "After the way called heresy," (page 24 and 25) could only say this about Sabellius

"Sabellius was a presbyter of the pentapolis in North Africa. He influenced this area greatly by teaching the truth of one person in the the Godhead. He took this truth to Rome in 215 AD, while the Pentapolis continued to be a stronghold for the truth . . .

Sabellius became the successor of Cleomenes in Rome. He asserted that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were not distinict persons but modes of on divine person (hence the term modalistic monarchianism.) God was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Ghost in regeneration.

In the following generations the doctrine of one person in the Godhead became associated with the man (Sabellianism.) the men of later times that were condemned for believing in one person in the Godhead were referred to as Sabellians."

that' it, that's what we know about him.