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

[JN Anderson]

I believe that Justification occurs before any baptism. I believe that Justification refers, naturally, to the declaring of an individual as righteous. God declares us just. How else could the Spirt of God enter Cornelius (c.f. Acts 10:1-46) prior to water baptism?

I believe that baptism requires a synergistic effort and that it means both--symbolic and that genuine spiritual realities are conferred at water baptism. Symbolicly, we are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and are identified with Christ at baptism. Literally, we are now in the "Kingdom of God"; have a record of sin with a penalty of death, remitted or discharged.

How can one "need" something yet receiving what is needed is not important? No analogy is perfect, but here goes one. When HP tells me that a power cord is needed to operate my laptop then I would logically apply a severe degree of importance to the power cord. Because, if I fail in this then my laptop will not be operable. In other words, I do not think we can make a logical distinction between needing to be baptized and baptism essentiality, as it regards baptism alone.

Alicea's view is an anachronism. I cannot substantiate this presently (not enough time), but I believe the biblical writers as well as many trinitarian fathers placed very strong opinions about baptism and a good amount held to baptismal regeneration (baptismal regeneration is not the position of myself nor the UPCI). I believe that the idea of baptism being optional is anachronistic to the normative view.

Originally Posted by Sabellius

I believe that Justification occurs before any baptism. I believe that Justification refers, naturally, to the declaring of an individual as righteous. God declares us just. How else could the Spirt of God enter Cornelius (c.f. Acts 10:1-46) prior to water baptism?

I believe that baptism requires a synergistic effort and that it means both--symbolic and that genuine spiritual realities are conferred at water baptism. Symbolicly, we are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and are identified with Christ at baptism. Literally, we are now in the "Kingdom of God"; have a record of sin with a penalty of death, remitted or discharged.

How can one "need" something yet receiving what is needed is not important? No analogy is perfect, but here goes one. When HP tells me that a power cord is needed to operate my laptop then I would logically apply a severe degree of importance to the power cord. Because, if I fail in this then my laptop will not be operable. In other words, I do not think we can make a logical distinction between needing to be baptized and baptism essentiality, as it regards baptism alone.

Alicea's view is an anachronism. I cannot substantiate this presently (not enough time), but I believe the biblical writers as well as many trinitarian fathers placed very strong opinions about baptism and a good amount held to baptismal regeneration (baptismal regeneration is not the position of myself nor the UPCI). I believe that the idea of baptism being optional is anachronistic to the normative view.

Outstanding Post!


Great to see you Sab, welcome aboard!

[SDG]

A lot of verbosity, some concessions, more analogies and the same stuff repackaged.

I believe that Justification occurs before any baptism. I believe that Justification refers, naturally, to the declaring of an individual as righteous. God declares us just. How else could the Spirt of God enter Cornelius (c.f. Acts 10:1-46) prior to water baptism?

Can't agree with you more. We are definitely on the same page. By stating that we are declared righteous before God before any baptism then you have conceded that if someone were to die before being water baptized or Spirit baptized they are saved ... a view that many in your ranks will not admit.

I believe that baptism requires a synergistic effort and that it means both--symbolic and that genuine spiritual realities are conferred at water baptism. Symbolicly, we are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and are identified with Christ at baptism. Literally, we are now in the "Kingdom of God"; have a record of sin with a penalty of death, remitted or discharged.

How can one "need" something yet receiving what is needed is not important? No analogy is perfect, but here goes one. When HP tells me that a power cord is needed to operate my laptop then I would logically apply a severe degree of importance to the power cord. Because, if I fail in this then my laptop will not be operable. In other words, I do not think we can make a logical distinction between needing to be baptized and baptism essentiality, as it regards baptism alone.

I too believe we are identified with Christ in baptism. I also believe it's necessarily important to be obedient to all of His commands. This being an initial command He has made for all of His children. Willful disobedience of this command will send you to hell ... as will not loving your neighbor or any other of His necessary and important commands - it constitutes unbelief my learned brother

If they aren't all necessary and important He wouldn't ask us to do it. Then, of course, there are promises and gifts ... the baptism of the Holy Ghost being one.

However, to claim some type of synergy takes place during baptism is being BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST at its finest .... no amount of verbal contortion will can justify such statements ... when you have zero bible to support it.

Alicea's view is an anachronism. I cannot substantiate this presently (not enough time), but I believe the biblical writers as well as many trinitarian fathers placed very strong opinions about baptism and a good amount held to baptismal regeneration (baptismal regeneration is not the position of myself nor the UPCI). I believe that the idea of baptism being optional is anachronistic to the normative view.

Baptism, loving you neighbor, living a holy life, etc. are all optional because we have free will, Sabellius .... but if we have placed our faith in Jesus and want to see Him one day ... all of His Words are necessary and important. Please refrain from the the playbook tactic of somehow marginalizing someone's by mentioning trinitarians in the same breath. Most of the Protestant faith stands with me on this Sabellius, sorry.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program ....

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

A lot of verbosity, some concessions, more analogies and the same stuff repackaged.



Can't agree with you more. We are definitely on the same page. By stating that we are declared righteous before God before any baptism then you have conceded that if someone were to die before being water baptized or Spirit baptized they are saved ... a view that many in your ranks will not admit.



I too believe we are identified with Christ in baptism. I also believe it's necessarily important to be obedient to all of His commands. This being an initial command He has made for all of His children. Willful disobedience of this command will send you to hell ... as will not loving your neighbor or any other of His necessary and important commands - it constitutes unbelief my learned brother

If they aren't all necessary and important He wouldn't ask us to do it. Then, of course, there are promises and gifts ... the baptism of the Holy Ghost being one.

However, to claim some type of synergy takes place during baptism is being BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST at its finest .... no amount of verbal contortion will can justify such statements ... when you have zero bible to support it.




Baptism, loving you neighbor, living a holy life, etc. are all optional because we have free will, Sabellius .... but if we have placed our faith in Jesus and want to see Him one day ... all of His Words are necessary and important. Please refrain from the the playbook tactic of somehow marginalizing someone's by mentioning trinitarians in the same breath. Most of the Protestant faith stands with me on this Sabellius, sorry.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program ....

I do not accept ONE word of this Baptist stuff NONE-NADA-ZERO-ZILCH!!!!! Well I am a real Protestant I am certainly protesting this Calvinistic stuff.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Can't agree with you more. We are definitely on the same page. By stating that we are declared righteous before God before any baptism then you have conceded that if someone were to die before being water baptized or Spirit baptized they are saved ... a view that many in your ranks will not admit.

You are speculating on "possibilities" and judgement calls that you nor I are able to judge. I shall leave those to the Almighty. We can contrive "if and but" scenario's at random.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I too believe we are identified with Christ in baptism. I also believe it's necessarily important to be obedient to all of His commands. This being an initial command He has made for all of His children. Willful disobedience of this command will send you to hell ... as will not loving your neighbor or any other of His necessary and important commands - it constitutes unbelief my learned brother.

True. But, what does "necessarily important" really mean if not "essential"?

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

However, to claim some type of synergy takes place during baptism is being BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST at its finest .... no amount of verbal contortion will can justify such statements ... when you have zero bible to support it.

According to this post I realize that you do not or did not really understand BR. That is why I posted what I did earlier concerning BR.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Baptism, loving you neighbor, living a holy life, etc. are all optional because we have free will, Sabellius .... but if we have placed our faith in Jesus and want to see Him one day ... all of His Words are necessary and important. Please refrain from the the playbook tactic of somehow marginalizing someone's by mentioning trinitarians in the same breath. Most of the Protestant faith stands with me on this Sabellius, sorry.

I did not post what I did by mere chance friend. It was for a purpose, as are most things that I will post. I will use them at some point again.

However, you are making a historical faux pas (blunder) here. The Reformation, which lead to Protestantism, historically occured around the 16th century. My reference, in an earlier post, concerned the "biblical writers" as well as the "trinitarian fathers." I am not aware of many "trinitarian fathers" of the 16th Century.

[JN Anderson]

Justification:

The doctrine of Justification knows at least two views (both views were presented at the 2003 UGST Symposium) in the UPC. Dr. Bernard holds the most prominent view (Justification is the experience of salvation) and then there is the second--the view of Dr. Segraves (Justification at the point of faith). The latter view is the one I hold. I would caution my friends and enemies, at this point however, that this view does not do violence to what we currently believe about the New Birth--for the most part (some people have some odd ideas).

In Genesis 15:5-6 Abraham’s only response to God’s promise, at that point, was that "he believed in the LORD." The verb translated "believed," indicates that Abraham trusted God to keep His promise. Actually no other response was even expected at that point. Although the genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated, in a tangible way, as he offered Isaac, it serves Paul’s purpose to focus on the fact that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works (the same example is given of David in Romans 4:5-8). I believe that, although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point of faith.

Genesis 15:6 indicates that because Abraham trusted in the LORD, God imputed or reckoned righteousness to Him. Because Abraham trusted God, he had a relationship with God. Genesis 15:6 says nothing about Abraham’s personal righteousness; it does not suggest that righteousness was imparted to him so that he was regenerated. In fact, according to Paul, just the opposite was the case: God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). The only possible meaning for this is that when ungodly persons put their trust in God, their “faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sabellius

Justification:

The doctrine of Justification knows at least two views (both views were presented at the 2003 UGST Symposium) in the UPC. Dr. Bernard holds the most prominent view (Justification after the entire New Birth) and then there is the view of Dr. Segraves (Justification at the point of faith). The latter view is the one I hold. I would caution my friends and enemies, at this point however, that this view does not do violence to what we currently believe about the New Birth--for the most part (some people have some odd ideas).

In Genesis 15:5-6 Abraham’s only response to God’s promise, at this point, was that "he believed in the LORD." The verb translated "believed," indicates that Abraham trusted God to keep His promise. Actually no other response was expected or possible at this point. Although the genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated, in a tangible way, as he offered Isaac, it serves Paul’s purpose to focus on the fact that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works (the same example is given of David in Romans 4:5-8). I believe that, although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point of faith.

Genesis 15:6 indicates that because Abraham trusted in the LORD, God imputed or reckoned righteousness to Him. Because Abraham trusted God, he had a relationship with God. Genesis 15:6 says nothing about Abraham’s personal righteousness; it does not suggest that righteousness was imparted to him so that he was regenerated. In fact, according to Paul, just the opposite was the case: God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). The only possible meaning for this is that when ungodly persons put their trust in God, their “faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

I will be posting a new thread on this topic of justification and remission ... Sabellius ... I think it's an important topic .... and fascinating that there are atleast 4 schools of thought ... please look for it in the fellowship hall ... and post this again ... give it five minutes.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I will be posting a new thread on this topic of justification and remission ... Sabellius ... I think it's an important topic .... and fascinating that their are actually 4 schools of thought ... please look for it in the fellowship hall ... and post this again ... give it five minutes.

Four and maybe more?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sabellius

Justification:

The doctrine of Justification knows at least two views (both views were presented at the 2003 UGST Symposium) in the UPC. Dr. Bernard holds the most prominent view (Justification is the experience of salvation) and then there is the second--the view of Dr. Segraves (Justification at the point of faith). The latter view is the one I hold. I would caution my friends and enemies, at this point however, that this view does not do violence to what we currently believe about the New Birth--for the most part (some people have some odd ideas).

In Genesis 15:5-6 Abraham’s only response to God’s promise, at that point, was that "he believed in the LORD." The verb translated "believed," indicates that Abraham trusted God to keep His promise. Actually no other response was even expected at that point. Although the genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated, in a tangible way, as he offered Isaac, it serves Paul’s purpose to focus on the fact that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works (the same example is given of David in Romans 4:5-8). I believe that, although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point of faith.

Genesis 15:6 indicates that because Abraham trusted in the LORD, God imputed or reckoned righteousness to Him. Because Abraham trusted God, he had a relationship with God. Genesis 15:6 says nothing about Abraham’s personal righteousness; it does not suggest that righteousness was imparted to him so that he was regenerated. In fact, according to Paul, just the opposite was the case: God “justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). The only possible meaning for this is that when ungodly persons put their trust in God, their “faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

Thank you brother. I believe JD holds to the same position as Segraves as well

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sabellius

I believe that Justification occurs before any baptism. I believe that Justification refers, naturally, to the declaring of an individual as righteous. God declares us just. How else could the Spirt of God enter Cornelius (c.f. Acts 10:1-46) prior to water baptism?

I believe that baptism requires a synergistic effort and that it means both--symbolic and that genuine spiritual realities are conferred at water baptism. Symbolicly, we are buried with Him in the likeness of His death (Colossians 2:12) and are identified with Christ at baptism. Literally, we are now in the "Kingdom of God"; have a record of sin with a penalty of death, remitted or discharged.

How can one "need" something yet receiving what is needed is not important? No analogy is perfect, but here goes one. When HP tells me that a power cord is needed to operate my laptop then I would logically apply a severe degree of importance to the power cord. Because, if I fail in this then my laptop will not be operable. In other words, I do not think we can make a logical distinction between needing to be baptized and baptism essentiality, as it regards baptism alone.

Alicea's view is an anachronism. I cannot substantiate this presently (not enough time), but I believe the biblical writers as well as many trinitarian fathers placed very strong opinions about baptism and a good amount held to baptismal regeneration (baptismal regeneration is not the position of myself nor the UPCI). I believe that the idea of baptism being optional is anachronistic to the normative view.

My friend Sab and I have a major disagreement here rather than justification a measure of sanctification has taken place in that he separated himself to seek God and God sent him a preacher with sayings words that complete the sanctification and declare him justified by giving the the HG and remitting his sins in baptism. I think you have the cart before the horse though we are own the same train. Now Sab you are smarter than I and certainly more wordy but sorry you are wrong on this but we are yet friends before you scald me think it through. The religious world says justified THEN sanctified but actually everything is SET APART unto God and from this world that is repentance BEFORE justification takes place!