Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history - Page 2

Barb · #11 08-17-2012, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston

It was written like that to give the PCI time to correct their doctrine. JK, JK

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

Sam · #12 08-17-2012, 12:12 AM

The first Gen. Supt (Bro. Goss), first foreign missions supt (Wynn Stairs), first Sunday School supt (Bro. McNatt) were one steppers. Some gen board members (Brother Yadon and Bro. Greer) were one steppers.

Max Cosme · #13 08-17-2012, 12:13 AM

The final one is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was "PROBABLY" about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

Sam · #14 08-17-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Cosme

The final one is the best example of Bernard's shoddy methodology. He borrows a quote from an Ellis Scism book where Scism says a "minority" held that view. Bernard then takes the liberty to decide that Scism would only make this observation if it was about 1/3 to 1/4 of the PCI.

This type of statistical methodology would be laughed at by any serious scholar.

He's trying to prove that his position is the "right" one and believed by an overwhelming majority back in 1945. He and others have redefined what they consider to be Apostolic or Pentecostal.

Max Cosme · #15 08-17-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

He's trying to prove that his position is the "right" one and believed by an overwhelming majority back in 1945. He and others have redefined what they consider to be Apostolic or Pentecostal.

He must have gone to the same school as David Barton.

Sam · #16 08-17-2012, 12:21 AM

There are still some one-steppers around.

I am not UPC but I am a one-stepper.

houston · #17 08-17-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barb

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

Right. Was something like "not contending to the disunity of the body" written back when, or is it more recent?

houston · #18 08-17-2012, 12:35 AM

We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all the brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.

Sam · #19 08-17-2012, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by houston

Right. Was something like "not contending to the disunity of the body" written back when, or is it more recent?

only thing that has changed in the statement as written in 1945 was the addition of the words "for the remission of sins" added in 1973.

The person who moved that the fundamental doctrine statement be revised was S.G. Norris who believed that "for" the remission of sins meant "in order to obtain" remission of sins.

The person who seconded the move that the words be added was W.M. Greer who believed that "for" the remission of sins meant "because of" the remission of sins.

Bro. Greer was asked by Nathan Urshan to second the motion and was assured that he would not have to change anything he believed.

This information is from pages 155-164 of Christianity Without The Cross by Thomas Fudge, copyright 2003

houston · #20 08-17-2012, 12:51 AM

How did things hold up under the leadership of Urshan? Was it similar to Price's leadership of the Western District?

I never heard a bad word against Urshan. Haney was a different story.

In the WD I didn't hear a word against Price. After Price was out of office the holy sanctified ministers FILLED with God's Spirit drew blood.