Bernard has decided to close the discussion on some of the PCI and PAJC history. This was his last post last night. He has changed his previous tune about the Fundamental Doctrine indicating a "plan of salvation". There are various points in this last post by Bernard that are worth further analysis and examination:
*************, let's bring this to a close. I don't have time to keep arguing with you, yet you are distorting the point that I am trying to make to our constituents. The UPCI did not vote to dissolve our Fundamental Doctrine. We are fulfilling it. We allow diversity, but we are united on
Acts 2:38 as "the Bible standard of full salvation." The unity clause doesn't change that, but it gave time for everyone to develop a better understanding of the theological significance of the three steps listed and to come into greater unity of the faith, which we have done. And the unity clause is not limited to soteriology; it holds true for various other matters, such as eschatology.
My point is a simple one: The basic view of salvation held by the UPCI today is what the overwhelming majority of Oneness ministers have held from the beginning. I mean the basic teaching of the new birth and the plan of salvation (not denying that there were also some doctrines of the new earth, friends of the bride, and so on, as explained in detail in my book). My book documents that the oldest Oneness group, the PAW, out of which the leaders of both the PAJC and PCI came, voted in 1919 that
Acts 2:38 was the new birth. The PAJC, which was twice as large as the PCI, voted in 1936 that
Acts 2:38 was the new birth. In the PCI, the majority (roughly 2/3s) also held this view, as I documented by quotes from Gray, McClintock, Scism (all PCI leaders), as well as Urshan, Chambers, Hall, and Kinzie, all of whom I spoke to personally. The difference was that in the smaller group there was an official policy of toleration on the definition of "the new birth." The diversity wasn't really on
Acts 2:38 as the standard NT plan of salvation but mostly centered on how to view people "in process." In other words, even those in the PCI who said one is "saved" at repentance also said people had a responsibility to continue obeying truth as it was revealed to them, and if they rejected it they would be lost. For example, one time after I preached on Jesus Name baptism, one of the minority-view PCI elders told me, "If someone didn't have enough light before your message, they have enough light now to condemn them if they don't obey." That is a far cry from simply preaching a Baptistic doctrine of salvation.
In short, it is untrue to the spirit of the merger, even of the minority in the PCI, if we do not preach
Acts 2:38 as the salvation message that everyone today needs to obey. We leave exceptional situations in the hands of God, for He is the judge, but we must be clear about the message of salvation that we preach.
Threaded Mode
