Ouestion for those staying in the UPC

[FRINGE_NUTTER]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Haha! Good questions.

The truth is ..... wake up and smell the roses folks ..... PCI is still alive and well within the UPC.

This is so true. Funny thing is that people don't admit it openly but will privately.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If I were to find out today that my pastor was of the PCI persuasion, I'm not sure I would leave because he preaches and teaches like he's PAJC.

Very good observation! Herein lies the real issue. Many of the new generation of PCIrs have taken a very small doctrinal divide 62 years ago and made it a huge chasm today by the lack of doctrinal integrity. (I know I'll probably take some heat here so let me explain.)

As many of our elders on this forum have stated, the 1st generation UPCI/PCI men preached the message and method of salvation so strongly that one seldom knew if they were of the PCI persuasion. This means that they obviously believed that all three "steps" were essential to salvation once the illumination of the fullness of truth was revealed in ones life. Never did they say that it was not necessary for one to be baptized and filled with the spirit, evidenced with speaking in tongues as it concerned the ones they were preaching to. Rather they would not condemn others to hell who were not under their ministry.

The new PCI mentality seems bent on abolishing the necessity of water and spirit baptism. This is a major departure from the early PCI stance. JMHO

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Very good observation! Herein lies the real issue. Many of the new generation of PCIrs have taken a very small doctrinal divide 62 years ago and made it a huge chasm today by the lack of doctrinal integrity. (I know I'll probably take some heat here so let me explain.)

As many of our elders on this forum have stated, the 1st generation UPCI/PCI men preached the message and method of salvation so strongly that one seldom knew if they were of the PCI persuasion. This means that they obviously believed that all three "steps" were essential to salvation once the illumination of the fullness of truth was revealed in ones life. Never did they say that it was not necessary for one to be baptized and filled with the spirit, evidenced with speaking in tongues as it concerned the ones they were preaching to. Rather they would not condemn others to hell who were not under their ministry.

The new PCI mentality seems bent on abolishing the necessity of water and spirit baptism. This is a major departure from the early PCI stance. JMHO

This is the whole truth in a nutshell. The PCI men of yesterday would not be comfortable with their decendants today for the lack of emphasis on Acts 2:38.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Very good observation! Herein lies the real issue. Many of the new generation of PCIrs have taken a very small doctrinal divide 62 years ago and made it a huge chasm today by the lack of doctrinal integrity. (I know I'll probably take some heat here so let me explain.)

As many of our elders on this forum have stated, the 1st generation UPCI/PCI men preached the message and method of salvation so strongly that one seldom knew if they were of the PCI persuasion. This means that they obviously believed that all three "steps" were essential to salvation once the illumination of the fullness of truth was revealed in ones life. Never did they say that it was not necessary for one to be baptized and filled with the spirit, evidenced with speaking in tongues as it concerned the ones they were preaching to. Rather they would not condemn others to hell who were not under their ministry.

The new PCI mentality seems bent on abolishing the necessity of water and spirit baptism. This is a major departure from the early PCI stance. JMHO

Just to be the first to give you some of that "heat..."

The first generation of "PCI" Apostolics (early 20th Century, men like John Dearing) were enthusiatic about the Acts 2:38 message, but they did not preach that their "Trinitarian brethren" were lost. This led to the development of the "Light Doctine(s)" and the various "One/and/or/Three Stepper" doctrines. The "Water and Spirit" doctrine came later still.

The main differences within the OP movement seem to have all been centered around "Is Everybody Else Going to Hell?" rather than "What Can We Do About It?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

This is the whole truth in a nutshell. The PCI men of yesterday would not be comfortable with their decendants today for the lack of emphasis on Acts 2:38.

You may or may not be correct, but the PCI men from the day before yesterday wouldn't be at all comfortable around those who preach "Acts 2:38 or hell..." I have in fact posted documents from the founders of the PCI that substantiate this.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You may or may not be correct, but the PCI men from the day before yesterday wouldn't be at all comfortable around those who preach "Acts 2:38 or hell..." I have in fact posted documents from the founders of the PCI that substantiate this.

They were constantly in meetings where men preached just that. And hearing most of them you wouldn't have known the difference unless you listened close. They preached Acts 2:38 to Trinitarians just like PAJC preachers did. They were fervent about it. While thye may not have said Acts 2:38 or Hell they were so fervent most of the audience didn't know the difference. My Pastor was of that mindset somewhat and if you asked in the area of the country I was raised everyone would have told you he believed that although he did not. They baptized folks all over the world preaching Acts 2:38.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You may or may not be correct, but the PCI men from the day before yesterday wouldn't be at all comfortable around those who preach "Acts 2:38 or hell..." I have in fact posted documents from the founders of the PCI that substantiate this.

***** Adding the link to download the pdf document: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...363#post248363

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

They were constantly in meetings where men preached just that. And hearing most of them you wouldn't have known the difference unless you listened close. They preached Acts 2:38 to Trinitarians just like PAJC preachers did. They were fervent about it. While thye may not have said Acts 2:38 or Hell they were so fervent most of the audience didn't know the difference. My Pastor was of that mindset somewhat and if you asked in the area of the country I was raised everyone would have told you he believed that although he did not. They baptized folks all over the world preaching Acts 2:38.

They may have hidden it well, but they still didn't believe it down deep. What's the difference in that and those of us today that still preach Acts 2:38 and see hundreds baptized in Jesus' name and filled with the Holy Ghost? Honestly, I can't see any difference. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand. Just because we are upfront about it?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

They were constantly in meetings where men preached just that. And hearing most of them you wouldn't have known the difference unless you listened close. They preached Acts 2:38 to Trinitarians just like PAJC preachers did. They were fervent about it. While thye may not have said Acts 2:38 or Hell they were so fervent most of the audience didn't know the difference. My Pastor was of that mindset somewhat and if you asked in the area of the country I was raised everyone would have told you he believed that although he did not. They baptized folks all over the world preaching Acts 2:38.

That being the case, why would people have a problem with the way TrulyBlessed or Keith4Him have articulated the message?

Both those men (if I have understood them correctly) have stated that salvation occurs upon repentence and that the "gift" of the Holy Ghost is given to those who have obeyed the Gospel and believed. By "obeyed the Gospel" it is meant: believed and repented. Of course a test of genuine faith comes into play at the waters of baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But to be "saved" you must believe.

Preach that today in a lot of Apostolic circles and you will likely be castigated by "conservatives." Yet that is exactly the way the founders of the PCI put it.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That being the case, why would people have a problem with the way TrulyBlessed or Keith4Him have articulated the message?

Both those men (if I have understood them correctly) have stated that salvation occurs upon repentence and that the "gift" of the Holy Ghost is given to those who have obeyed the Gospel and believed. By "obeyed the Gospel" it is meant: believed and repented. Of course a test of genuine faith comes into play at the waters of baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But to be "saved" you must believe.

Preach that today in a lot of Apostolic circles and you will likely be castgated by "conservatives." Yet that is exactly the way the founders of the PCI put it.

I don't know how TB preaches at his church so I cannot judge him however if he teaches at his church what he says here then he does not think baptism nor the HGB are essential and those who preach that it is are preaching salvation by works. That is the difference.