Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[returnman]

I would like to see the proof where they mocked Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

[ILG]

I think one thing that needs to be remembered is that things were culturally different. The Jesus name people had common enemies....those who rejected the "new issue" as heresy. I think they put aside their differences for this reason but in time, those differences became more of an issue. I think the common enemy was more a binding force that what they presently believed. All the Jesus name people were being persecuted by the trinitarians of the day.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Barb

Elder, I understand what you mean by "did not believe the new birth message," as you hold to a PAJC form of doctrine, and so do I.

But I keep going back to this point because I think is is so important...

Bro. Goss and others were certain they DID believe the New Birth message, and for the PAJC brethren to merge there had to be an alignment of thought that went deeper than the Oneness of the Godhead.

The saving message is belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and the Spirit infilling...something they ALL believed.

Their differing opinion was at what point the New Birth took place, however, this did not prevent them from calling each other "brother."

If it were only so today...

The bolded was only true when they were at general conf. In a one on one PRIVATE conversation they would say a person didn't nedd the Holy Ghost to go to heaven.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I have no desire to impugn Elder Bernard but trying to rewrite their history to fit this equation is like the Southern guys saying the Civil War was not about slavery.

Actually, it WASN'T "about slavery". Slavery was simply part of the equation. There were other issues which dwarf the slave question which drove the southern states to secede from the Union, like their forefathers had done when they seceded from England.

Just pointing that out.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Barb

Elder, respectfully, if they "fervently preached" baptism in Jesus' Name and Spirit baptism then they believed the whole message...at what point initial salvation takes place is another point, one which did not prevent them from merging.

Amen

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

"My book documents that at UPCI merger 8/9s, or 89% held acts 2:38 to be essential to salvation." - DKB

Wonder what his need to assert facts that are deliberately skewed stems from? Perhaps Fudge's book?

Do you have facts that counter his claim?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I believe the PCI brethern were the more tolerant of the brothers and the others were more vocal, so eventually, the louder voice won out.

Of course, the ones who hold YOUR view are the more 'tolerant' and the 'others' are just loud.

Makes perfect sense!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Barb

I don't think it is wrong to ask the hard questions:

1. Was it truly the intent of the PAJCers to tolerate the PCIers until such time as they either changed their view or left?

2. Did Bro. Witherspoon have to scramble to find the rights words for the FD, and if so, where is the evidence of this? As he was alone in that room, does anyone have documentation in his own words that this was so?

3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes," then why did the PAJCers bother in the first place? Were there not other Oneness Pentecostals they could have aligned with? Were they not strong enough in number to form an organization on their own merit?

OR...

1. Did the fact that they all, PAJC and PCI, baptized folks in the Name and spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came make them one in Body? Is this the common bond that allowed them to merge?

2. Is this the reason they voted or appointed Bro. Howard Goss GS, even though he was PCI in doctrine?

3. The words, "until we all come into the unity of the faith" lead some to think that perhaps Bro. Witherspoon was saying he hoped the PCI brethren would grow into a more and perfect way. But is that not a careless act on the part of the PAJCers, for if they believed the brethren were in error, was there not the possibility of the PCI view becoming the accepted view?

4. As there may have been some in both camps who may not have favored a merger, could not the above quote from the FD mean that until we can agree to disagree we will not contend for our differing views?

All of this is conjecture on our part, yours and mine, for we will never truly know what was in the hearts and minds of these men of God. The only thing we do know is that they thought of each other as men of God or they would not have formed this union of fellowship.

And for 70+ years it worked...

1. No I don't think that was the intent at all.
2. It was said by many present he presented several drafts that were rejected.
3. This is difficult but the politicians in the group put politics over conviction.
the next set
1. Yes
2. He was the best politician they had and was a link all the way back to Parham and was highly visible and many did not have a clue he didn't believe the new birth.
3. The clause simply was a cushion to help facilitate the merger without it there would be no merger this was added after the original had be tenatively approved.
4. You must remember Oneness Pentecost was under attack by Trinity Pentecost and the other denominations and their view of the only Biblical baptism was in Jesus Name and Jesus was the Only God was their message thus this aove their differences was the common bond.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by returnman

I would like to see the proof where they mocked Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5.

Have you ever talked to any of them or their decendants? I have.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Have you ever talked to any of them or their decendants? I have.

What?? Steve and I agree?

Mark it down this is probably the first time on AFF.