Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[James Griffin]

For the most part I have stayed away from these topics for this very reason.

I have the utmost respect for the sincerity and salvation of parties in both "sides".

This thread has devolved into something I believe the Apostles Paul and John warned against often.

Both sides believe in Acts 2:38. Both preach it. Both believe in baptism in Jesus' name. Both believe in the indwelling spirit of God, both believe in being separated unto Him (holiness).

The disagreement comes in what this things mean, and having a deeper fuller understanding. Unfortunately, it has gone from discussion to argument and hurt feelings.

The truth is the UPCI was founded by PCI and PAJC, and they had differences in the understanding as to WHY, NOT WHETHER.

The problem comes in times like 1992 and 2007 when the mentality of "we must be in perfect unison as to understanding the WHY or we cannot walk together" comes to the foreground.

As has been pointed out by Steve Epley and others of us who were old enough to remember the preaching from our childhood. The fact of the matter is from the pulpit one could not distinguish a PCI from PAJC.

It's a New Year. It's the last few minutes of the history of mankind in this dispensation.

Let's spend a little more energy preaching Acts 2:38 than arguing the mechanizations of it.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

For the most part I have stayed away from these topics for this very reason.

I have the utmost respect for the sincerity and salvation of parties in both "sides".

This thread has devolved into something I believe the Apostles Paul and John warned against often.

Both sides believe in Acts 2:38. Both preach it. Both believe in baptism in Jesus' name. Both believe in the indwelling spirit of God, both believe in being separated unto Him (holiness).

The disagreement comes in what this things mean, and having a deeper fuller understanding. Unfortunately, it has gone from discussion to argument and hurt feelings.

The truth is the UPCI was founded by PCI and PAJC, and they had differences in the understanding as to WHY, NOT WHETHER.

The problem comes in times like 1992 and 2007 when the mentality of "we must be in perfect unison as to understanding the WHY or we cannot walk together" comes to the foreground.

As has been pointed out by Steve Epley and others of us who were old enough to remember the preaching from our childhood. The fact of the matter is from the pulpit one could not distinguish a PCI from PAJC.

It's a New Year. It's the last few minutes of the history of mankind in this dispensation.

Let's spend a little more energy preaching Acts 2:38 than arguing the mechanizations of it.

James, we have always had posters with the PCI view. The difference is we agreed to disagree on some issues.

This is no longer the case.

Gone are the posts of MOW, Felicity and others whom we disagreed with but totally respected. In their place is a whole new breed of posters with a totally different emphasis.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

James, we have always had posters with the PCI view. The difference is we agreed to disagree on some issues.

This is no longer the case.

Gone are the posts of MOW, Felicity and others whom we disagreed with but totally respected. In their place is a whole new breed of posters with a totally different emphasis.

Your view of history is filled w/ more hyperbole and revisionism, PP.

You entered NFCF at the very tail end of it's existence ... you are as much a newbie as us all.

Your appeal to wax nostalgic seems distorted especially when one looks at this separate forum starting in early February and your being still wet behind the ears.

Some of the "new breed" posters like Ronzo have seniority ....

Others, like, myself have been w/ the forum since it's inception.

As for MOW leaving the forum for the most part ... do we want to open that can of worms???

We know where he stands ....

he was one that agreed almost w/ regularity w/ the "new breed posts" and expressed this on the forum and via private communication.

What you miss is the Posse ... perhaps, PP ... ???

Those who dogpiled those w/ divergent views?

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Your view is of history is filled w/ more hyperbole and revisionism, PP.

You entered NFCF at the very tail end of it's existence ... you are as much a newbie as us all

You appeal to wax nostalgic seems distorted especially when one looks at this separate forum starting in early February.

Some of the "new breed" posters like Ronzo have seniority ....

Others, like, myself have been w/ the forum since it's inception.

As for MOW leaving the forum for the most part ... do we want to open that can of worms???

We know where he stands ....

he was one that agreed almost w/ regularity w/ the "new breed posts" and expressed this on the forum and via private communication.

What you miss is the Posse ... perhaps, PP ... ???

Those who dogpiled those w/ divergent views?

Daniel...you need to calm down!! Your statement above is untrue and you know it.

For whatever reason, you have been on an argumentative roll since you returned from your 'vacation'.

So, without throwing potshots and getting upset, what is it that is your issue?!

What can we do to help ease the obvious pain you are in?!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Barb

Daniel...you need to calm down!! Your statement above is untrue and you know it.

For whatever reason, you have been on an argumentative roll since you returned from your 'vacation'.

So, without throwing potshots and getting upset, what is it that is your issue?!

What can we do to help ease the obvious pain you are in?!

Before we psychoanalyze Dan ...

Which part of my statement is false or untrue, Barb ...

1. PP is a newbie
2. There are old posters w/ "new breed" views
3. Many of the alleged "new breed" posters have been here since it's inception
3. MOW views on the forum and this soteriological debate.
4. The perception some had of the Posse

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Before we psychoanalyze Dan ...

Which part of my statement is false or untrue, Barb ...

1. PP is a newbie
2. There are old posters w/ "new breed" views
3. Many of the alleged "new breed" posters have been here since it's inception
3. MOW views on the forum and this soteriological debate.
4. The perception some had of the Posse

Hon, I'm not trying to psychoanalyze anyone, but I am concerned. I have just lived long enough to recognize some things...

Your outbursts and hardness are not the Daniel who first appeared on this board. When I see changes in a style of posting, it can only make me wonder what has caused this.

The portion I highlighted re the 'posse' was what I was referring to when I said it was untrue.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Your view of history is filled w/ more hyperbole and revisionism, PP.

You entered NFCF at the very tail end of it's existence ... you are as much a newbie as us all.

Your appeal to wax nostalgic seems distorted especially when one looks at this separate forum starting in early February and your being still wet behind the ears.

Some of the "new breed" posters like Ronzo have seniority ....

Others, like, myself have been w/ the forum since it's inception.

As for MOW leaving the forum for the most part ... do we want to open that can of worms???

We know where he stands ....

he was one that agreed almost w/ regularity w/ the "new breed posts" and expressed this on the forum and via private communication.

What you miss is the Posse ... perhaps, PP ... ???

Those who dogpiled those w/ divergent views?

What a silly post!

Are you really saying your presentation is as kind and loving as MOW's and Felicity's? Get real!

I disagree with them big time, but never once have I felt they have attempted to tell me that my view was false doctrine and cultic.

You are not even in the same league with those folks Fella.

BTW, there can not be divergent views of salvation. Last I read there is only one way. Somebody is wrong and somebody is right.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

For the most part I have stayed away from these topics for this very reason.

I have the utmost respect for the sincerity and salvation of parties in both "sides".

This thread has devolved into something I believe the Apostles Paul and John warned against often.

Both sides believe in Acts 2:38. Both preach it. Both believe in baptism in Jesus' name. Both believe in the indwelling spirit of God, both believe in being separated unto Him (holiness).

The disagreement comes in what this things mean, and having a deeper fuller understanding. Unfortunately, it has gone from discussion to argument and hurt feelings.
The truth is the UPCI was founded by PCI and PAJC, and they had differences in the understanding as to WHY, NOT WHETHER.

The problem comes in times like 1992 and 2007 when the mentality of "we must be in perfect unison as to understanding the WHY or we cannot walk together" comes to the foreground.

As has been pointed out by Steve Epley and others of us who were old enough to remember the preaching from our childhood. The fact of the matter is from the pulpit one could not distinguish a PCI from PAJC.

It's a New Year. It's the last few minutes of the history of mankind in this dispensation.

Let's spend a little more energy preaching Acts 2:38 than arguing the mechanizations of it.

Good post!

A warning was issued last night. I hope it was read.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

For the most part I have stayed away from these topics for this very reason.

I have the utmost respect for the sincerity and salvation of parties in both "sides".

This thread has devolved into something I believe the Apostles Paul and John warned against often.

Both sides believe in Acts 2:38. Both preach it. Both believe in baptism in Jesus' name. Both believe in the indwelling spirit of God, both believe in being separated unto Him (holiness).

The disagreement comes in what this things mean, and having a deeper fuller understanding. Unfortunately, it has gone from discussion to argument and hurt feelings.

The truth is the UPCI was founded by PCI and PAJC, and they had differences in the understanding as to WHY, NOT WHETHER.

The problem comes in times like 1992 and 2007 when the mentality of "we must be in perfect unison as to understanding the WHY or we cannot walk together" comes to the foreground.

As has been pointed out by Steve Epley and others of us who were old enough to remember the preaching from our childhood. The fact of the matter is from the pulpit one could not distinguish a PCI from PAJC.

It's a New Year. It's the last few minutes of the history of mankind in this dispensation.

Let's spend a little more energy preaching Acts 2:38 than arguing the mechanizations of it.

Elder in some ways I agree but now Dan's camp places an emphasis their forefathers may have held somewhat but never sacrificed preaching Acts 2;38 at the expense of it. So I do NOT think it is the same. My pastor believed baptism showed sins were already remitted at repentance however he never taught that he believed that. I guarantee if you asked most folks in West Ky. if my pastor preached baptism in Jesus Name was essential to salvation they would all answer in the affirmative. But in private he held the door open for family and friends who had not obeyed. But his preaching took preeminence over his personal thoughts. He baptized maybe thousands in Jesus Name and numbers of preachers it was a drive with him. His zeal surpasses my own yet his veiw was PCI(though he would have never heard of it). So I do understand.

[James Griffin]

Steve,

Then chalk Dan's perceived "attitude" to the difference the younger culture has of expressing themselves. (No I don't always approve, but I remember being- shall we say- less gracious in youth, in my ability to express myself).

For I have no doubt in spite of what is posted on the forum, his preaching is ACTS 2:38 from the pulpit.

James