Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
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 ....