Ouestion for those staying in the UPC

[Steve Epley]

This meeting took place a few years back in DC the Charisma magazine reported it and it caused an upheaval. Officials of the UPC were there with Trinity 'Pentecostal' groups. Statements were made by JC & NU that upset many.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Felicity I think that is very true and is at the root of this issue NOT television advertizing. I think the cons are reading the tea leaves and a step backwards to them is about to occur. I could be entirely wrong but many were upset about the 'bridge building' meeting and comments made there.

So true. I have been thinking the same thing.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

This meeting took place a few years back in DC the Charisma magazine reported it and it caused an upheaval. Officials of the UPC were there with Trinity 'Pentecostal' groups. Statements were made by JC & NU that upset many.

I think I vaguely remember hearing something about it. Don't know what happened or what was said though.

[Ferd]

Brother Epley, those Cons that dont like the idea of the UPCI having 2 doctrinal views, came to this some time in the last 30 years or so.

The fact is, the UPCI has always been (from day 1) an organization of men who preach Acts 2:38 but not a group of men who preach the Water Spirit doctrine (which I belive).

It was the ulta cons who wanted to force the PCI doctrine out of the UPCI that worked the change the UPCI.

I am for the UPCI being an organization of men (both PCI and W/S) who seek to share the Gospel and believe that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel.

Any conservitive that can work within the framework that was created in 1948 is welcome too.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Felicity I think that is very true and is at the root of this issue NOT television advertizing. I think the cons are reading the tea leaves and a step backwards to them is about to occur. I could be entirely wrong but many were upset about the 'bridge building' meeting and comments made there.

Bridge building meeting? I never heard about that one, but then I'm wayyyyy behind in the news.

I'm writing this from southern Central America. Hola!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother Epley, those Cons that dont like the idea of the UPCI having 2 doctrinal views, came to this some time in the last 30 years or so.

The fact is, the UPCI has always been (from day 1) an organization of men who preach Acts 2:38 but not a group of men who preach the Water Spirit doctrine (which I belive).

It was the ulta cons who wanted to force the PCI doctrine out of the UPCI that worked the change the UPCI.

I am for the UPCI being an organization of men (both PCI and W/S) who seek to share the Gospel and believe that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel.

Any conservitive that can work within the framework that was created in 1948 is welcome too.

Ferd the difference today than 1948 with the original PCI men is they preached Acts 2:38 so fervently most did not know the difference their decendants do not. They BELIEVE what the PCI men believed but the preaching is NOT the same. Would you be comfortable with that??? A UPC in your town preaching a man can be saved without obeying Acts 2:38?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Ferd the difference today than 1948 with the original PCI men is they preached Acts 2:38 so fervently most did not know the difference their decendants do not. They BELIEVE what the PCI men believed but the preaching is NOT the same. Would you be comfortable with that??? A UPC in your town preaching a man can be saved without obeying Acts 2:38?

Brother Epley we argee on what PCI means. I've stated my opposition to neuvo-PCI on more than one occasion.

I am for PCI being part of the UPCI. I am NOT for

1. A doctrinal view that the Holy Ghost is purely optional
2. A doctrinal view that allows baptisim in any manner.
3. Allowing men into the UPCI that do not believe in Holiness.

to clarify point 3, Holiness doesnt mean conservitive dress standards. BUT it does mean, that I believe the UPCI is and should remain an orgaizaiton that beleives, teaches, and is committed to Holiness.

The real PCI of old fit that completely. This new fangled mess we are seeing everywhere doesnt. (disclaimer, CC1 your church isnt methodist.)

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother Epley we argee on what PCI means. I've stated my opposition to neuvo-PCI on more than one occasion.

I am for PCI being part of the UPCI. I am NOT for

1. A doctrinal view that the Holy Ghost is purely optional
2. A doctrinal view that allows baptisim in any manner.
3. Allowing men into the UPCI that do not believe in Holiness.

to clarify point 3, Holiness doesnt mean conservitive dress standards. BUT it does mean, that I believe the UPCI is and should remain an orgaizaiton that beleives, teaches, and is committed to Holiness.

The real PCI of old fit that completely. This new fangled mess we are seeing everywhere doesnt. (disclaimer, CC1 your church isnt methodist.)

Ferd this group is not the 1948 group and you are going to have them NOT their fahters. Again hoiw would YOU feel about a UPC church in your city preaching you did not have to obey Acts 2:38 to be saved? That is the question that begs an answer?

[Felicity]

Bro. Epley.....

With all respect, the kind of PCIers you're talking about here would probably not be much interested in joining/re-joining the UPCI.

Don't you think?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Bro. Epley.....

With all respect, the kind of PCIers you're talking about here would probably not be much interested in joining/re-joining the UPCI.

Don't you think?

I don't know if it changed enough they might??? If TB wasn't forced to sign something he did not believe he might reconsider maybe??? And I think there may be others? I could be wrong I was ONCE but it has been so long ago I don't remember what it was about.