The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sam

Howard Goss told Carl Ballestero at a camp meeting in Indiana that "even the Baptists will be in the Bride of Christ."

They don't want to hear it ... the first UPCI superintendent is among many Apostolic greats that felt this way .... but ... they would rather marginalize modern PCIers ... as they did to Goss after not re-electing him in the early 1950's ... same M.O.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

They don't want to hear it ... the first UPCI superintendent is among many Apostolic greats that felt this way .... but ... they would rather marginalize modern PCIers ... as they did to Goss after not re-electing him in the early 1950's ... same M.O.

Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."

And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.

I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!

I don't get this...not at all!!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Barb

Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."

And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.

I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!

I don't get this...not at all!!

What's rich is that these men were shot down with the same vitriole back then .... and now ... ironically.... the new hardliners will dare say we're not really like the old PCI greats .... you can't win for losing ....

[tv1a]

I'm not a pci'er but I'm disappointed with the first post of this thread... How can CS make a statement like that when there is a plethora of documented evidence that suggests otherwise?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

What's rich is that these men were shot down with the same vitriole back then .... and now ... ironically.... the new hardliners will dare say we're not really like the old PCI greats .... you can't win for losing ....

Originally Posted by tv1a

I'm not a pci'er but I'm disappointed with the first post of this thread... How can CS make a statement like that when there is a plethora of documented evidence that suggests otherwise?

To be disappointed implies he has ANY sense of being obligated to you, or that you have any capacity to overview his thinking or expression. That's ridiculous. Who are you to be 'disappointed' in another person's post as if they have some responsibility to you? tv1a, isn't this really a subtle manipulation, when you say you are 'disappointed'?

[tv1a]

I'm not suggesting anyone owes me anything. When one expects a quality post from someone who has been know to provide in the past, one has a sense of letdown when a post has less substance than tofu. The rant and rave crowd gets a thrill from it.

Which is worse? Someone who presents data with an agenda or an organization who supresses the data that suggest history isn't as accurate as desired?

Originally Posted by apersimmon

To be disappointed implies he has ANY sense of being obligated to you, or that you have any capacity to overview his thinking or expression. That's ridiculous. Who are you to be 'disappointed' in another person's post as if they have some responsibility to you? tv1a, isn't this really a subtle manipulation, when you say you are 'disappointed'?

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I'm not suggesting anyone owes me anything. When one expects a quality post from someone who has been know to provide in the past, one has a sense of letdown when a post has less substance than tofu. The rant and rave crowd gets a thrill from it.

Which is worse? Someone who presents data with an agenda or an organization who supresses the data that suggest history isn't as accurate as desired?

That supposed lack of substance has now garnered almost 700 posts!
As to your last question, neither is preferable. Your question must be rhetorical.

Coonskinner stated his opinion. That's all. And so far we've had many more
"easy believism" posters on this thread that freaky-conservatives.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Barb

Well, ya know, I was told, "Those men are dead and gone now!!" It's as if everything they taught and all that they meant in days gone by is without merit...shot down the tubes because "they were soft on the message" or "never believed the message."

And then I hear, "Well, they were coming out of denomintional churches and were not willing or unable to refute their own experiences there." In other words, our Pentecostal pioneers, not wanting to say they were never saved before, made excuses for themselves.

I have to tell you, it is disheartening...very troubling to know that the church history I thought I knew, I did not. It is equally troubling to read that the men I have held in such high regard spoken of with such disdain...just a shrug of the shoulders and a "they never believed it" and then go about our business?!

I don't get this...not at all!!

There have been many complaints about re-writing and/or denying some of our apostolic history. Don't know why anyone would want to do this really. What are they afraid of? (if indeed fear is a factor here).

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Felicity

There have been many complaints about re-writing and/or denying some of our apostolic history. Don't know why anyone would want to do this really. What are they afraid of? (if indeed fear is a factor here).

afraid of being wrong is the common denominator .... in many aspects and issues.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

afraid of being wrong is the common denominator .... in many aspects and issues.

This is definitely true in TF's attempt to spin the history to his particular bias! If you are trying to persuade anyone, you do not further your cause by citing anything from TF. He is a spin doctor with specific bias!