Quote:
Originally Posted by Coonskinner
The point of this post is doctrinal--the ones who have backed up on the essentiality of the New Birth, and have decided to call themselves PCI.
Standards are a whole other issue.
|
Skinner,
I spoke with Loren Yadon last year about this. LY is still pastoring a church in Boise, Idaho. His uncle, C.H., as you know was a leading voice for (concerning this thread) the PCI position. C.H. said it was like "oil and water" and "never should have happened" and that the founders never thought the "children" of the merger (ie; second generation) would become so adversarial towards each other.
I will explain it a little clearer. C.H. never believed the PAJC-leaning brethren (whom I will call three-step New
Birthers) would silence the influence of the PCI movement as they did.
The destruction of the Idaho district in the late 70's and 80's and the closure of the highly missions-minded Conqueror's Bible College in Portland (Scism, Judd, Nigh, O'Daniel, Ciulla, on and on) are only two examples on a macro scale. The PCI position in Oregon was all but eliminated by the mid-80s. I KNOW that, because I was forced out in '86.
I believe you have a good (if not mischievious) motive with this thread, and wish you WOULD stir the pot about this subject on every apostolic blog on the internet.
In your opinion, what makes a PCI believer a counterfeit? The three step New
Birther denial?
Generally speaking, PCIers did not teach that
salvation is attained through
water baptism and Holy Ghost baptism w/the evidence of speaking in tongues, but rather that those two experiences are
subsequent to salvation which is brought about by repentance (by faith in the finished work of calvary) towards God.
I see no reason to bash anyone that believes either the PAJC or PCI position. Both preach Jesus' name baptism. Both preach HG baptism. The difference is in degree - more so with the latter.
Threaded Mode
