Ripped pages out of the bible!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

All I can say say is...hog wash!

I don't know where you have been and who you have been in contact with, but we evidently haven't ran in the same circles.

I have travelled extensively within the UPCI for over 25 years and never one time have I ever heard one UPCI preacher say anything other than John 3:5 (the New Birth) is accquired by obeying Acts 2:38.

Not one......

BTW

This is the official UPCI statement on water baptism, is this wrong?


The saving gospel is the good news that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. We obey the gospel (II Thessalonians 1:8; I Peter 4:17) by repentance (death to sin), water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (burial), and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (resurrection). (See I Corinthians 15:1-4; Acts 2:4, 37-39; Romans 6:3-4.)


http://www.upci.org/about-us/beliefs

The opinion that "born of water" means water baptism is a later development among Apostolic/Pentecostals. Early Apostolic/Pentecostals believed they were saved prior to and separate from the 2 baptisms (water and Spirit). The 3 step salvation theory has been pushed and promoted by a vocal and militant minority of Apostolic Pentecostals until now they've filled the UPC with that theory and are trying to get people to believe that it has always been the teaching of the UPC. When the UPC was formed in 1945 some believed in a three-step plan of salvation and some believed in a one-step plan of salvation. The first issue of the Pentecostal Herald said that articles from both viewpoints would be accepted.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

The opinion that "born of water" means water baptism is a later development among Apostolic/Pentecostals. Early Apostolic/Pentecostals believed they were saved prior to and separate from the 2 baptisms (water and Spirit). The 3 step salvation theory has been pushed and promoted by a vocal and militant minority of Apostolic Pentecostals until now they've filled the UPC with that theory and are trying to get people to believe that it has always been the teaching of the UPC. When the UPC was formed in 1945 some believed in a three-step plan of salvation and some believed in a one-step plan of salvation. The first issue of the Pentecostal Herald said that articles from both viewpoints would be accepted.

Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth was Acts 2:38 and it was in the articles of faith in the PAW early on.

[seekerman]

Same old same old that's been posted over and over and over and over and over.

But...what about the blood of Jesus?

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Same old same old that's been posted over and over and over and over and over.

But...what about the blood of Jesus?

Come on, don't be skeered.

You tell us.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Come on, don't be skeered.

You tell us.

Let the mass pentecostal choir lift their voices.....a one and a two....

Nothing About The Blood of Jesus.

Sing it, sing it loud and proud!!

[Old Paths]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Let the mass pentecostal choir lift their voices.....a one and a two....

Nothing About The Blood of Jesus.

Sing it, sing it loud and proud!!

Typical for a trinitarian..........

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Typical for a trinitarian..........

You sure know how to hurt a guy.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth was Acts 2:38 and it was in the articles of faith in the PAW early on.

When was the PAW originally chartered/organized?

How early did Acts 2:38 become the plan of salvation in the PAW?

Can anyone let us know from the minutes of the meetings when that was adopted and by what margin it passed?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

When was the PAW originally chartered/organized?

How early did Acts 2:38 become the plan of salvation in the PAW?

Can anyone let us know from the minutes of the meetings when that was adopted and by what margin it passed?

It really never was controversary in the PAW. The PAW pretty muched towed the line whatever Bishop Haywood said. He wrote a book on the Birth of the Spirit and he died in 29.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It really never was controversary in the PAW. The PAW pretty muched towed the line whatever Bishop Haywood said. He wrote a book on the Birth of the Spirit and he died in 29.

There were a lot of controversies in the PAW early on, but that generally wasn't one of them, at least from my understanding amongst the blacks who generally were under Haywood's teaching. Remember the mostly white PCI split from the PAW in 1924, a lot of people don't realize it. When the PCI split I'd imagine that Haywood's teachings became far more dominant in the PAW then they were before. I'd also imagine that because of Haywoods strong stance and the black members of the PAWs strong allegiance to him the vast majority of the PAW taught water and spirit. I know that it was the primary teaching in the late 30s when Elder Ramsey Butler became the pastor of my former church in DC. There was a reorganization in 1934 I believe, I'd investigate that to see if it was there. I can tell you that 1/2 of the organization (probably more) doesn't believe water-spirit anymore, but that's a very recent development as of maybe the 90s.