Apostolic Friends Forum - New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- The D.A.'s Office (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65)

- - New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentance (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=18322)

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams (Post 584175)

Broad is the way to destruction and narrow is the way to life. Few find the latter and many the former. 32 to 3, maybe?

Or it might be the sign of a cultist view. Pick your poison.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 584177)

Or it might be the sign of a cultist view. Pick your poison.

I'll pick the Words of our Saviour. They are Spirit and they are Life, not poison. Consider my signature.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Just a reminder:

Quote:

First a presupposition: Remission and Forgiveness is the same thing, they come from the same Greek word. This is not to say a Greek word cannot have a variety of meanings, but the meanings of "aphesis" are all very similar: release, pardon, cancellation, forgiveness, remission and the majority of the time are linked with sin. (I would like to see someone present a contrary opinion with scriptural proof.)

And another reminder: without faith in Christ and repentance preceding, water baptism doesn't amount to anything.

Quote:

Premise 1) Sins are remitted by the applied blood of Jesus Christ.

Remission/forgiveness of sin by God is Biblically a removal of sin and is likened to a washing, a cleansing, a blotting out, and a circumcision.

Where does the Bible teach that remission/forgiveness is a removal of sin?

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. NASB

Colossians 2:11-13 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

There is a circumcision of the Spirit (made without hands) which puts off the body of the sins of the flesh and it happens at water baptism where we are figuratively "buried". This act causes the forgiveness of our trespasses.

Romans 6:3-6 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Paul restates his same assertion that baptism removes sin in Romans 6. The first few verses 3-5 are figurative speech. Our baptism is liken to Christ's burial in which we are planted in the LIKENESS of Christ's death. But it is verse 6 in which Paul brings out once again that there is a "body of sin" that must be destroyed. This body of sin is destroyed by repentance and water baptism. From Colossians we know the body of sin is "put off" by the circumcision made without hands in water baptism (burial) and in this passage in Romans, the body of sin is destroyed or done away with in the context of baptism and "our old self was crucified with Him"...ie: repentance. We die to sin at repentance and baptism removes the body of sin from our hearts...totally destroying sin in our lives at that point.

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Another indication that remission involves a removal is found by the reference to "washing" as part of our salvation. This washing involves the name of Jesus and the Spirit of God and is connected to the new birth (regeneration). We can't be saved or justified without being forgiven of our sins. That was the whole purpose of Christ going to the cross...to be the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the whole world by His shed blood.

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The blood of Jesus Christ remits sin.

1 John 1:7 ..the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5....Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 7:14 .... These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The blood of Jesus Christ is literally applied to our conscience where the removal of sins takes place.

Both verses teach that our hearts/consciences are cleansed by the blood of Christ... IOW the blood is applied to our hearts and cleanses/purges our sins. It's not figurative but a real Spiritual experience. And this event happens when we are baptized in Jesus name. That was my point by quoting those verses.

Heb 9:13-14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works (sins) to serve the living God?

Heb 10:19-22 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water

Dan, that was my proof of premise #1. I'll deal with premise # 2 in another post. You have to prove either premise to be invalid (unscriptural) to refute my conclusion, because I'm pretty certain my argument is sound.

Premise 1)Sins are remitted by the applied blood of Jesus Christ.

Premise 2) Remission of sins takes place at water baptism in Jesus name.

Conclusion: Therefore, the blood of Christ is applied at water baptism.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

So, any comments on the UPC articles of faith and the post by daniel Segraves?

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 584224)

So, any comments on the UPC articles of faith and the post by daniel Segraves?

I liked the post by DS.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 584224)

So, any comments on the UPC articles of faith and the post by daniel Segraves?

Praxeas, earlier in this thread I posted my thoughts on the inherent contradiction between the AOF's article on repentance and Bernard's (and Mizpeh's) view that repentance + baptism = full forgiveness ...

very early in this thread ..... here: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...6&postcount=86

The article on repentance is almost straight from the original PCI manual.

In the past, I have shared this quote from Fudge's research on this article here:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...?t=9314&page=3

He states:

From Christianity Without the Cross, Thomas Fudge, page 148

Quote:

“ … one factor acknowledged by all that the PCI was by far better organized of the two merging bodies. Therefore, it made sense not only to adopt certain doctrinal positions but also much of their polity and discipline as well. On the article, ‘pertaining to repentance and conversion’, 3 of the 4 statements therein can be traced to the PCI. The statement on ‘water baptism’ is also PCI in origin. On the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, all 9 statements in these articles are derived from the PCI. Three of four statements likewise come from the PCI, with the fourth statement previously alluded added in 1954. All of this means that of the 18 statements in these [original] articles, 16 are PCI in origin, one from the PAJC, and one was added after the merger.”

Footnote: David Bernard has done his denomination a great service by tracing out the origin and development of the “Articles of Faith”. While I do not always agree with the conclusions he draws, his work on this aspect of Oneness Pentecostal history is to be commended. See his Understanding the Articles of Faith, 26-39. In the terms of the entire Articles of Faith it can be shown that 75% of the statements come from the PCI. Of the 73 separate identical clauses the breakdown of origins is – PCI: 55, PAJC:5, New/Other: 13. It is worth pointing out that many of the clausal statements are effectively citations of the Biblical texts and are not to be understood as 20th century theological statements.

Dr. Segraves was adamant over 20 years ago about the contradictions found in the AOF as they apply to the common beliefs of most of the org's ministerial constituents ... here are some of his concerns:

Quote:

While the author recognizes and briefly discusses the differing opinions on this subject as they related to the 1945 merger of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ and the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, and he notes that the statement "for the remission of sins" was later appended to the Fundamental Doctrine, he does not recognize what seems to some an inconsistency this amendment produced.

The Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International, under the heading "Repentance and Conversion," presently reads: "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins:1

The context concerns conversion, not the obtaining of forgiveness by a born-again believer, says nothing about water baptism, and would lead one to believe that repentance alone is sufficient to produce forgiveness of sins.2

A study of the Greek text would indicate that "forgiveness" and "remission" are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.3

Does the assertion that, on the one hand, forgiveness is obtained by repentance alone and, on the other hand, remission of sins is obtained by baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ present a contradiction in the Articles of Faith of the U.P.C.I.?

Should there be an examination of the somewhat popular teaching that sins are forgiven at repentance but are not remitted until water baptism?

The Articles of Faith offer no Scripture to support the statement that "pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance."

While the author thoroughly examined the relationship of both repentance and water baptism as they relate to remission of sins in the text of Acts 2:38, he did not discuss the fact that the Fundamental Doctrine of the U.PC.I. does not necessarily endorse this idea.

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and 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 for the remission of sins. ..:'4 The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but. are instead separated by a comma.

Neither did the author discuss the significance of the word "full" in the Fundamental Doctrine. ("The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation...:') At the merging conference, "a motion was made to take the word `full' out of the Fundamental Doctrine, but was defeated:'5 The significance of this is obvious. Without this word, the Fundamental Doctrine would have read, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of salvation. ..:' The word full is an adjective which modifies the noun salvation.

While it may be difficult for those who were not present to understand or appreciate the importance of this word to those involved in the merger, it obviously suggests that the majority present and voting viewed "full salvation" as one thing and "salvation" as another. A discussion of this element of U.PC.I. history would be a worthy subject for a subsequent symposium.

The schizophrenic nature of the varying and divergent soteriological views within the org seems to be encapsulated in the contradictory language found in the AOF dealing with repentance, water baptism and the Fundamental Doctrine.

I still find it interesting that Bernard being the chief apologist for the org in the last 20 some odd years .... blatantly contradicts an article of faith that appears to be a core doctrine ....

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

I don't consider him "chief" Apologist...just the most published I guess.

However what does it mean by "full forgiveness" as oppossed to partial?

What do they mean by that?

I know Segraves spoke about a different kind of cleansing, that being a washing of the body of the sins of the flesh or something there from Col...

I wonder if there IS two kinds...on refering to our record in heaven and one refering to the very sins we carry IN ourselves if that is possible. For Peter spoke of the conscious and baptism

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 584247)

I don't consider him "chief" Apologist...just the most published I guess.

However what does it mean by "full forgiveness" as oppossed to partial?

What do they mean by that?

I know Segraves spoke about a different kind of cleansing, that being a washing of the body of the sins of the flesh or something there from Col...

I wonder if there IS two kinds...on refering to our record in heaven and one refering to the very sins we carry IN ourselves if that is possible. For Peter spoke of the conscious and baptism

Here is Bernard's exact quote... from his New Birth book:

Quote:

Repentance and water baptism together complete the full work of forgiveness. At baptism God washes away sin by removing the eternal record and penalty of sin. (See Chapter 6 - Water Baptism.)

Some like to say that God forgives sin at repentance arid remits sin at water baptism. This is a fairly good description based on the English wording in the KJV. However, the original text does not support a clear-cut distinction, for these two words, forgive and remit, come from only one Greek word, aphesis. (See Chapter 6 - Water Baptism.) Theologically speaking, then, forgiveness and remission are equivalent terms, and forgiveness (or remission) comes with the combination of repentance and water baptism. We should not separate the two experiences.

For purposes of study only, perhaps we can make the following distinction: at repentance, God destroys sin's present dominion in a person's life, and He removes the barrier preventing a personal relationship with Him. At water baptism, God removes the legal record of sin and erases the penalty for that sin, namely death. God deals with the present consequences of sin at repentance and with the future consequences of sin at water baptism.

Both are necessary for forgiveness. Thus Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). (The New International Version is more emphatic: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven.")

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

When one compares the AOF's article on repentance and it's assertion that forgiveness happens at repentance and then you examine CW's recent beef w/ "relevant" preachers that he griped to KH about ... you have to ask if CW is in agreement with his org's article on repentance, also.

CW stated in his January 2008 letter to KH:

Quote:

Let me share some things which I have discovered in just a small amount of
time while doing some research and checking:First, a significant portion of these young men among us are questioning"when the blood is applied." The result of their "searching" is that they have concluded that it is applied at repentance, producing the conclusion that Water Baptism and Receiving the Holy Ghost is NOT necessary for salvation. They have concluded that all "holiness" is Phariseeism - that all of our standards are traditions of men, traditions of an older, out of date generation. This thinking is already affecting young men from Every area of our nation. I have several in my district that at leaning this direction. I have talked to several men from different areas of the country and it is happening to men they know as well.

Re: New Doctrine Emerges: NOT Forgiven at Repentan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 584224)

So, any comments on the UPC articles of faith and the post by daniel Segraves?

In his summary, DS makes a case that baptism is "connected with the purpose of remission on sins" but he does not say how and in what way this connection exists.

Remission of sins is required to be made acceptable in God's eyes - hence remission is necessarily when justification occurs - IMHO.

The "connection" is one of public proclaimation for the new Christian. It is a part of the induction into the body, yet justification can and should have occurred proir to the baptism.

DS: To summarize: If the second humon in Acts 2:38 is not original, Beisner’s argument ceases to exist. If it is original, there is no grammatical requirement that connects the remission of sins only to repentance. If the first humon is connected with baptism, and it is, there is no reason the second humon could not also be connected with baptism. In general, it seems best to understand everything Peter said to be addressed to the entire group present on the Day of Pentecost. All of them were to repent; each [another way of saying “all” with the emphasis on individual responsibility] was to be baptized, with both the repentance and baptism connected with the purpose of the remission of sins.