Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[scotty]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

We already have this in place.

So then all this hoopla is just over some little personal problem stmatthew has.?

[AmazingGrace]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then all this hoopla is just over some little personal problem stmatthew has.?

Well I think as one of the owners he is allowed to have a little personal problem now and then and I for one happen to agree with him...

[scotty]

Originally Posted by AmazingGrace

Well I think as one of the owners he is allowed to have a little personal problem now and then and I for one happen to agree with him...

I agree with him fully , yet some here have stated that they don't see what we are "crying" about

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by scotty

So then all this hoopla is just over some little personal problem stmatthew has.?

I didn't say that. I just was making you aware that we have a section for debate that was designed for the heavy hitters that didn't want to deal with all the fluff stuff of the forum.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The issue is that these are using the PCIers position to justify their liberal approach to Acts 2:38. In the beginning many had yet to come into the full unity of the faith. Today we know the full message and will preach the full message.

Everyone who has not obeyed Acts 2:38 is in disobedience to Scripture and will be lost. I'm not happy with it. I wish it were not so. But if we wish to reach a lost world we have to preach the full message.

You have no idea then of the History of the PCI organization. They did not walk around and look for justification of their convictions.

Iit was not until 1973 at the Salt Lake City GC that the PA-JC crowd pushed through the added words.

27 years the PA-JC crowd compromised their own fundamental beliefs.

After W.T. Witherspoon stated in the Outlook magazine of the PA-JC in July 1945 that the rumors of the need to compromise were totally untrue.

He was the one that penned the Fundamental doctrinal statement that was then accepted in the fall of 1945.

Your historical understanding of the merger needs to be refreshed.

You need to read the 1945 PA-JC Outlook magazines and the Jan 1974 General Conference addition of the Pentecostal Herald.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?

I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.

The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.

I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion.

Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?

Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.

THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.

Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.

What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!

Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by scotty

I agree with him fully , yet some here have stated that they don't see what we are "crying" about

I just don't want to see us "throw the baby out with the bath water" as MP stated previously.

This isn't a UPC forum, it's an Apostolic forum and there is some leeway in that as there are many different "beliefs" within the Apostolic ranks. However, as our forum rules state, we have defined what we expect Apostolic to mean.

There will always be differences of opinions and I do hope we can allow for those, but what needs to be tweaked a bit is the attitudes when posting those opinions.

We don't want to all say and think alike - - how boring would that be.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I didn't say that. I just was making you aware that we have a section for debate that was designed for the heavy hitters that didn't want to deal with all the fluff stuff of the forum.

Oh. Now I understand better why it was said that this thread would have been deleted if it hadn't been started by Matt. I was trying to figure that out. LOL.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?

Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.

THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.

Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.

What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!

Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.

I believe this is the crux of the matter.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I just don't want to see us "throw the baby out with the bath water" as MP stated previously.

This isn't a UPC forum, it's an Apostolic forum and there is some leeway in that as there are many different "beliefs" within the Apostolic ranks. However, as our forum rules state, we have defined what we expect Apostolic to mean.

There will always be differences of opinions and I do hope we can allow for those, but what needs to be tweaked a bit is the attitudes when posting those opinions.

We don't want to all say and think alike - - how boring would that be.