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

[Sabby]

Let's not forget that this thread is about the different views of the PAJC and PCI brethren. This is one of the very issues in which they disagreed. The fact that Witherspoon was wise enough to include a compromise clause (and that the brothers at that time were wise enough to agree to it) showed a lot more tolerance than what we see today.
PCI brethren believed in One God, faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues, and living crucified lives in true holiness. The difference between then and now is there is now less tolerance by those holding the PAJC mindset for a different view concerning the application of this set of basic apostolic doctrine.
Revisionists can try to rewrite history if they want, but I knew some of those founders personally and I know what they believed.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

Let's not forget that this thread is about the different views of the PAJC and PCI brethren. This is one of the very issues in which they disagreed. The fact that Witherspoon was wise enough to include a compromise clause (and that the brothers at that time were wise enough to agree to it) showed a lot more tolerance than what we see today.
PCI brethren believed in One God, faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues, and living crucified lives in true holiness. The difference between then and now is there is now less tolerance by those holding the PAJC mindset for a different view concerning the application of this set of basic apostolic doctrine.
Revisionists can try to rewrite history if they want, but I knew some of those founders personally and I know what they believed.

I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG. I think it was more of when they in their mind assumed someone was saved. I'm aware of the belief differences. Matter of fact during the merger the officials spent hours working all that out. Suffice to say what the Bible shows is final authority and when I read the Bible, it says both that we are saved by grace through faith, confession, belief, belief and being baptized, and by being born of water and Spirit, and by being led of the spirit.

Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event. I think the correct question is when does a person's sins be remitted. I believe its at repentance and baptism.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG. I think it was more of when they in their mind assumed someone was saved. I'm aware of the belief differences. Matter of fact during the merger the officials spent hours working all that out. Suffice to say what the Bible shows is final authority and when I read the Bible, it says both that we are saved by grace through faith, confession, belief, belief and being baptized, and by being born of water and Spirit, and by being led of the spirit.

Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event. I think the correct question is when does a person's sins be remitted. I believe its at repentance and baptism.

So the PCI taught sins were remitted at repentance while the PAJC taught sins were not remitted until baptism?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

So the PCI taught sins were remitted at repentance while the PAJC taught sins were not remitted until baptism?

generally speaking, yes

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sam

generally speaking, yes

But yet, they still "united." I guess the reason why there is so much friction today is because the foundation itself was initially shaky. A shaky foundation would definitely crumble after a while (matt 7:27). It probably would have been better if both groups had gone their separate ways. Ofcourse, that is not to say divisions would not still rise among each group.

Random thoughts...
Are we ever gonna see eye to eye?! I think not.
Two people read 1 John 5:7 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Matt 28:19 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Acts 2:38 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read 1 Tim 2:9-10 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
And the list goes on...

Well, as for me...

Mark 9
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Phil 2:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice .

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

But yet, they still "united." I guess the reason why there is so much friction today is because the foundation itself was initially shaky. A shaky foundation would definitely crumble after a while (matt 7:27). It probably would have been better if both groups had gone their separate ways. Ofcourse, that is not to say divisions would not still rise among each group.

Random thoughts...
Are we ever gonna see eye to eye?! I think not.
Two people read 1 John 5:7 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Matt 28:19 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Acts 2:38 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read 1 Tim 2:9-10 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
And the list goes on...

Well, as for me...

Mark 9
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Phil 2:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice .

Bro. Goss was very clear when he spoke to the students at the Bible School in Stockton, CA that he was saved prior to his water and Spirit baptisms. He believed that Baptists would be in the Bride of Christ and in the Rapture.

Today we are presented with a "revisionist history" that "all" Apostolics believe water and Spirit baptisms equal the new birth but that is not actually true. For years Apostolics believed and preached that salvation took place in a person's life prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptism. Later, some began to preach the water and Spirit doctrine and now it has become very commonplace in the UPC and we act like it's the only legitimate Apostolic message.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

Bro. Goss was very clear when he spoke to the students at the Bible School in Stockton, CA that he was saved prior to his water and Spirit baptisms. He believed that Baptists would be in the Bride of Christ and in the Rapture.

Today we are presented with a "revisionist history" that "all" Apostolics believe water and Spirit baptisms equal the new birth but that is not actually true. For years Apostolics believed and preached that salvation took place in a person's life prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptism. Later, some began to preach the water and Spirit doctrine and now it has become very commonplace in the UPC and we act like it's the only legitimate Apostolic message.

Because I believe that a person is justified/saved/born again by faith and prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptisms, I am comfortable going to a trinity church, fellowshipping Christians from both trinity and oneness backgrounds, and accepting people who love Jesus from both trinity and oneness backgrounds as brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG. I think it was more of when they in their mind assumed someone was saved. I'm aware of the belief differences. Matter of fact during the merger the officials spent hours working all that out. Suffice to say what the Bible shows is final authority and when I read the Bible, it says both that we are saved by grace through faith, confession, belief, belief and being baptized, and by being born of water and Spirit, and by being led of the spirit.

Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event. I think the correct question is when does a person's sins be remitted. I believe its at repentance and baptism.

Your point, "I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG." is well taken. It's certainly not my position not to baptize in Jesus' name or not enjoin someone to seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Your point that "Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event." is well taken as well. It very nearly proves both of our points.

Another point you made is also well taken, that is, "when I read the Bible". It is a great comment. Not everyone will come to your conclusion, which is ok. Just as your conclusion is ok. The danger (what we have seen happen) is "contending for our different views"...makes us enemies of one another instead of fellow-heirs and pretty much forget what John 17 was all about. Both of our views were in years past, prior to revisionism, considered apostolic.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

Your point, "I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG." is well taken. It's certainly not my position not to baptize in Jesus' name or not enjoin someone to seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Your point that "Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event." is well taken as well. It very nearly proves both of our points.

Another point you made is also well taken, that is, "when I read the Bible". It is a great comment. Not everyone will come to your conclusion, which is ok. Just as your conclusion is ok. The danger (what we have seen happen) is "contending for our different views"...makes us enemies of one another instead of fellow-heirs and pretty much forget what John 17 was all about. Both of our views were in years past, prior to revisionism, considered apostolic.

Why thank you.

Actually people don't have to see it like I see it. They just need to follow the same plan of salvation the original church believed and follow in the holiness God leads them to. I'm not really out to make copies of onefaith2, just followers of Christ.