The Truth About The PCI! - Page 9

Sam · #81 02-03-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barb

...

Would that the spirit of the merger were yet alive and well...

AMEN

Sam · #82 02-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Did you coin that phrase? LOL. I think I shall engrave it upon a plaque in your honor.

"Campbellite Captivity"

I don't know if I coined it or not but I don't remember hearing it or reading it before.

commonsense · #83 02-03-2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Before I get criticized for my "Campbellite Captivity" of the church statement, check out the chart at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/Seven_Church_Ages.gif

This is based on a chart the late S.G. Norris distributed showing how "truth" was restored to the church in steps. Notice where he says we got the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. I realize Bro. Norris was not infallible (some times he presented himself as such) but, he was an esteemed teacher in our ranks and therefore I think I can cite him as an expert.

Absolutely! Through the years I've heard different teachings and ideas and sometimes even rethink some of the previous admonitions.
After 40 years I still think Bro Norris had it right. I've rarely seen anything that trumpted what he taught. (except for some prophecy re 1986 )

SG Norris spoke Truth!!

TJJJ · #84 02-03-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mormons also believe that baptism regenerates as do Catholics. Therefore, all real Apostolics must renounce baptism for the remission of sins lest the angels confuse us with Mormons and Roman Catholics on the Judgment Day.

And no, if the truth was lost to much of recorded history, Hell did not prevail against the Church. I'm hoping that you're living and breathing proof of that today!

The doctrine of a salvational doctrine that was lost then recovered is an erronious doctrine, whoever teaches it. They taught that the truth was hid for a time then "Rediscovered" either in 1820 like the Mormons or in 1901-1915 like some Pentecostals. This is an erronious doctrine either way.

They taught more than just that history did not record it, they taught that it was lost, only to be discovered by them. That is why they made such a fuss about Topeka and Azuza street. This was supposedly the Rediscovering. This doctrine is essential for the doctrine of dispensationalism. Study it out.

Sam · #85 02-03-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commonsense

Absolutely! Through the years I've heard different teachings and ideas and sometimes even rethink some of the previous admonitions.
After 40 years I still think Bro Norris had it right. I've rarely seen anything that trumpted what he taught. (except for some prophecy re 1986 )

SG Norris spoke Truth!!

I'll tell you something else he taught that was proven untrue.
It was before my time but I heard that he had a tract or article out there available to the public that proved that Mussolini was the antichrist. After IL DVCE's execution, Bro. Frank Curts kinda rubbed it in and said, "Well, they just dragged your antichrist out of town." Bro. Norris said something like, "I wish I had that tract back."

TJJJ · #86 02-03-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I'll tell you something else he taught that was proven untrue.
It was before my time but I heard that he had a tract or article out there available to the public that proved that Mussolini was the antichrist. After IL DVCE's execution, Bro. Frank Curts kinda rubbed it in and said, "Well, they just dragged your antichrist out of town." Bro. Norris said something like, "I wish I had that tract back."

That is funny. Not picking on Bro Norris. I am sure that there are times we all wish we had not said one thing or another. The bad thing is when you mass print something like that, it really hurts to have to take it back.

pelathais · #87 02-03-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJJJ

The doctrine of a salvational doctrine that was lost then recovered is an erronious doctrine, whoever teaches it. They taught that the truth was hid for a time then "Rediscovered" either in 1820 like the Mormons or in 1901-1915 like some Pentecostals. This is an erronious doctrine either way.

They taught more than just that history did not record it, they taught that it was lost, only to be discovered by them. That is why they made such a fuss about Topeka and Azuza street. This was supposedly the Rediscovering. This doctrine is essential for the doctrine of dispensationalism. Study it out.

I understand what you're saying (I think) - and I'm no dispy, myself.

The problem with asserting a continuous line of "Apostolic truth" throughout the last 2,000 years is that there is simply no evidence for this. Those that have tried to offer evidence have embarrassed us badly. And it's not just the "absence of evidence;" there's real evidence of absence.

ManOfWord · #88 02-03-2009, 08:53 PM

The sad thing is that there are people who will do ANYTHING to protect the ground they currently hold. To not do so is to risk the FIRST domino to fall. IF the first domino falls, the ENTIRE 3 step plan falls apart causing devastating confusion among the ranks. The truth must be hidden at all costs or the whole history is full of holes.

No matter what, no one in the UPC ranks, among the 3 steppers, will acknowledge any of this as the truth. It just doesn't fit their paradigm.

commonsense · #89 02-03-2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

I'll tell you something else he taught that was proven untrue.
It was before my time but I heard that he had a tract or article out there available to the public that proved that Mussolini was the antichrist. After IL DVCE's execution, Bro. Frank Curts kinda rubbed it in and said, "Well, they just dragged your antichrist out of town." Bro. Norris said something like, "I wish I had that tract back."

A bit before my time!

Too bad I can't ask my mother. She went to ABI in 1942 or 43.

Sam · #90 02-03-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

I understand what you're saying (I think) - and I'm no dispy, myself.

The problem with asserting a continuous line of "Apostolic truth" throughout the last 2,000 years is that there is simply no evidence for this. Those that have tried to offer evidence have embarrassed us badly. And it's not just the "absence of evidence;" there's real evidence of absence.

are you talking about the infamous Arnold book?
There was a thread on one of these forums where it told about those who helped research and put it together have even admitted it was less than "honest."
But I mentioned that one time and was publicly castigated.
There are folks here that believe there has been an "unbroken chain" of people who preached "oneness" as we've defined it and practiced and preached baptism by immersion in Jesus' name and preached the Holy Ghost baptism.

When I was in the Baptist church they had a book promulgating the same thing about an unbroken chain of Baptist Churches. Their book was called The Trail of Blood.