The Difference Between the PCI, PAJC, and the New Breed of Mush

Nahum · #1 10-03-2007, 12:10 AM

I, for one, am more than a little weary of the misrepresentation of what it meant to be PCI and PAJC that is constantly pushed on this site.

Let me point out a couple of things to you new so-called PCIers.

1. PCI and PAJC were ONENESS. They did not accept trinitarianism as an equal view of the Godhead. They came out of the AOG because they did not believe in a trinity.

2. PCI folks, while having a difference of opinion as to timing, believed in the necessity of water baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

They did not minimize these experiences. They preached Acts 2:38 every bit as strong as PAJCers. They felt that the mode of baptism was important. They would have never accepted baptism in the titles.

Some of you are masquerading as PCI, when all you really are is shake-the-preachers-hand-trinitarians! The PCI would have thrown you out on your ear! All you really are is classic AOG converts.

So please, stop with the games.

James Griffin · #2 10-03-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I, for one, am more than a little weary of the misrepresentation of what it meant to be PCI and PAJC that is constantly pushed on this site.

Let me point out a couple of things to you new so-called PCIers.

1. PCI and PAJC were ONENESS. They did not accept trinitarianism as an equal view of the Godhead. They came out of the AOG because they did not believe in a trinity.

2. PCI folks, while having a difference of opinion as to timing, believed in the necessity of water baptism in Jesus name, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.

They did not minimize these experiences. They preached Acts 2:38 every bit as strong as PAJCers. They felt that the mode of baptism was important. They would have never accepted baptism in the titles.

Some of you are masquerading as PCI, when all you really are is shake-the-preachers-hand-trinitarians! The PCI would have thrown you out on your ear! All you really are is classic AOG converts.

So please, stop with the games.

Interesting, from the histories I have read the AoG passed resolutions FORCING the Oneness ministers out. Most would have preferred to stay in fellowship. (Just a historical point)

Nahum · #3 10-03-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Interesting, from the histories I have read the AoG passed resolutions FORCING the Oneness ministers out. Most would have preferred to stay in fellowship. (Just a historical point)

Agreed, but the fact remains they left over a difference in their understanding of the Godhead.

James Griffin · #4 10-03-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Agreed, but the fact remains they left over a difference in their undertsanding of the Godhead.

The point being (and which you agreed to) is they would have stayed in fellowship with Trinitarians if allowed, and these were the founders of the Oneness movement. They seemed to realize that one can worship with someone that does not absolutely share a belief system, and still maintain their own spiritual integrity.

I am just amazed by how often the "guilt by association" is thrown around in this forum!

So and so shook hands with a Trinitarian so they must be one too.

#5 10-03-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Griffin

The point being (and which you agreed to) is they would have stayed in fellowship with Trinitarians if allowed, and these were the founders of the Oneness movement. They seemed to realize that one can worship with someone that does not absolutely share a belief system, and still maintain their own spiritual integrity.

I am just amazed by how often the "guilt by association" is thrown around in this forum!

So and so shook hands with a Trinitarian so they must be one too.

Bro. Griffin,

I agree with you that the guilt by association is used quite often... I am thought of by some as an ultra con because I go to AMC in Nashville and I am friends with many who are ultra conservative.

That said, there is no guilt by association with some that PP is referring to. The folks PP is referring to are some self proclaimed PCI folks who feel that trinitarians are just as saved as oneness folks and that the mode of baptism, while correctly executed in the Jesus' name, is so insignificant in terms of one's salvation that there is no need to be rebaptized in Jesus name.

That WAS NOT a position held by the original PCI group. Else, why would they have been rebaptized and continued in their efforts to get their brethren to be rebaptized?

deltaguitar · #6 10-03-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philjones

Bro. Griffin,

I agree with you that the guilt by association is used quite often... I am thought of by some as an ultra con because I go to AMC in Nashville and I am friends with many who are ultra conservative.

That said, there is no guilt by association with some that PP is referring to. The folks PP is referring to are some self proclaimed PCI folks who feel that trinitarians are just as saved as oneness folks and that the mode of baptism, while correctly executed in the Jesus' name, is so insignificant in terms of one's salvation that there is no need to be rebaptized in Jesus name.

That WAS NOT a position held by the original PCI group. Else, why would they have been rebaptized and continued in their efforts to get their brethren to be rebaptized?

But if you believe in salvation at repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ then how do you then turn around and say you have to be rebaptized to be saved?

Baptism comes because of obedience to the word of God after our faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ has already saved us, according to the PCI view. Am I correct in this or not?

stmatthew · #7 10-03-2007, 12:23 AM

PP,

I disagree with you. The PCI men from the past looked at the trinies as saved, and had no problem fellowshipping them. Their views differed, but to them it was like 2 brothers in a family disagreeing.

James Griffin · #8 10-03-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

PP,

I disagree with you. The PCI men from the past looked at the trinies as saved, and had no problem fellowshipping them. Their views differed, but to them it was like 2 brothers in a family disagreeing.

Evening Matt.