Ouestion for those staying in the UPC

[Ferd]

Brother Epley, those Cons that dont like the idea of the UPCI having 2 doctrinal views, came to this some time in the last 30 years or so.

The fact is, the UPCI has always been (from day 1) an organization of men who preach Acts 2:38 but not a group of men who preach the Water Spirit doctrine (which I belive).

It was the ulta cons who wanted to force the PCI doctrine out of the UPCI that worked the change the UPCI.

I am for the UPCI being an organization of men (both PCI and W/S) who seek to share the Gospel and believe that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel.

Any conservitive that can work within the framework that was created in 1948 is welcome too.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother Epley, those Cons that dont like the idea of the UPCI having 2 doctrinal views, came to this some time in the last 30 years or so.

The fact is, the UPCI has always been (from day 1) an organization of men who preach Acts 2:38 but not a group of men who preach the Water Spirit doctrine (which I belive).

It was the ulta cons who wanted to force the PCI doctrine out of the UPCI that worked the change the UPCI.

I am for the UPCI being an organization of men (both PCI and W/S) who seek to share the Gospel and believe that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel.

Any conservitive that can work within the framework that was created in 1948 is welcome too.

Ferd the difference today than 1948 with the original PCI men is they preached Acts 2:38 so fervently most did not know the difference their decendants do not. They BELIEVE what the PCI men believed but the preaching is NOT the same. Would you be comfortable with that??? A UPC in your town preaching a man can be saved without obeying Acts 2:38?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Ferd the difference today than 1948 with the original PCI men is they preached Acts 2:38 so fervently most did not know the difference their decendants do not. They BELIEVE what the PCI men believed but the preaching is NOT the same. Would you be comfortable with that??? A UPC in your town preaching a man can be saved without obeying Acts 2:38?

Brother Epley we argee on what PCI means. I've stated my opposition to neuvo-PCI on more than one occasion.

I am for PCI being part of the UPCI. I am NOT for

1. A doctrinal view that the Holy Ghost is purely optional
2. A doctrinal view that allows baptisim in any manner.
3. Allowing men into the UPCI that do not believe in Holiness.

to clarify point 3, Holiness doesnt mean conservitive dress standards. BUT it does mean, that I believe the UPCI is and should remain an orgaizaiton that beleives, teaches, and is committed to Holiness.

The real PCI of old fit that completely. This new fangled mess we are seeing everywhere doesnt. (disclaimer, CC1 your church isnt methodist.)

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother Epley we argee on what PCI means. I've stated my opposition to neuvo-PCI on more than one occasion.

I am for PCI being part of the UPCI. I am NOT for

1. A doctrinal view that the Holy Ghost is purely optional
2. A doctrinal view that allows baptisim in any manner.
3. Allowing men into the UPCI that do not believe in Holiness.

to clarify point 3, Holiness doesnt mean conservitive dress standards. BUT it does mean, that I believe the UPCI is and should remain an orgaizaiton that beleives, teaches, and is committed to Holiness.

The real PCI of old fit that completely. This new fangled mess we are seeing everywhere doesnt. (disclaimer, CC1 your church isnt methodist.)

Ferd this group is not the 1948 group and you are going to have them NOT their fahters. Again hoiw would YOU feel about a UPC church in your city preaching you did not have to obey Acts 2:38 to be saved? That is the question that begs an answer?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Ferd this group is not the 1948 group and you are going to have them NOT their fahters. Again hoiw would YOU feel about a UPC church in your city preaching you did not have to obey Acts 2:38 to be saved? That is the question that begs an answer?

Brother E, I think I answered. I dont want the neuvo-PCI crowd. Dont think they belong and I dont think they fit.

I also think, they dont want to belong either.

I am perfectly fine with someone like TB being in the UPCI and in the same town as me.

The clairity comes on the understanding of what we mean by PCI. (I really wish we had a better name for the doctrinal position)

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother E, I think I answered. I dont want the neuvo-PCI crowd. Dont think they belong and I dont think they fit.

I also think, they dont want to belong either.

I am perfectly fine with someone like TB being in the UPCI and in the same town as me.

The clairity comes on the understanding of what we mean by PCI. (I really wish we had a better name for the doctrinal position)

I highly respect TB for his honesty and integrity but no I am sorry I could not belong to a group that allowed preacher to preach one could be saved without obeying Acts 2:38. Evidently the UPC is returning to the 'merger agreement' days which many will not be able to tolerate.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I highly respect TB for his honesty and integrity but no I am sorry I could not belong to a group that allowed preacher to preach one could be saved without obeying Acts 2:38. Evidently the UPC is returning to the 'merger agreement' days which many will not be able to tolerate.

Brother Epley, I fully understand your position and your integrity in the matter. You have never been part of an organizaition that did have different views.

The UPCI, however was always this way. it has only been in recent years that this has been an issue. The fact is, the UPCI was designed a certain way. I like the way it was designed and think it ought to remain true to that design.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I highly respect TB for his honesty and integrity but no I am sorry I could not belong to a group that allowed preacher to preach one could be saved without obeying Acts 2:38. Evidently the UPC is returning to the 'merger agreement' days which many will not be able to tolerate.

Well, maybe that explains why you were never part of the UPC?

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I highly respect TB for his honesty and integrity but no I am sorry I could not belong to a group that allowed preacher to preach one could be saved without obeying Acts 2:38. Evidently the UPC is returning to the 'merger agreement' days which many will not be able to tolerate.

You have to be saved to identify with Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is given to the SONS of God as an inheritance. I have yet to find a sinner who wanted to be baptized or received the gift of the Holy Ghost. There´s a reason for that!

[Straightline]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I highly respect TB for his honesty and integrity but no I am sorry I could not belong to a group that allowed preacher to preach one could be saved without obeying Acts 2:38. Evidently the UPC is returning to the 'merger agreement' days which many will not be able to tolerate.

UPC: The organization founded on a compromise.



BTW Elder Epley (though you know this!): Not all PCI taught saved w/out Acts 2:38. My ancestor was PCI, as were many in that district, but held to the Acts 2:38 or Hell message. David Bernard put out an article 5 years ago stating that only about 30% of the PCI at the time of the merger were "saved at repentance" preachers (A very vocal group, many being in leadership). Someday I will lay my hands on that article and post it here.

The shot heard 'round the world went in a
Straightline