Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Barb]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

OK, I think that we all need to take a step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath. Most of you on here are not even UPC. I am not UPC. My question is, why in the world do you care? I mean, you are not part of a UPC church or a minister in that organization. Why do you insist on downing the organization right and left? You left, those of you who did. Good. Now, go on with your life. Many post as if their venting will change something. It will not.

Did DKB rewrite UPC history? Don't know and really don't care. Truthfully, I am sick of people who leave something hammering it as if they were still in there. Folks, let it go. It's over. Regardless of whether you agree with their standards or not, the truth of the matter is this, that for all the whining and complaining about things, a bunch of disgruntled people will make not one bit of difference. Be holy as He is holy, cry a river, build a bridge, get over it, and if you have to, burn your own bridge. Our time here is too short to be fussing over something none of us have a part of.

UT or whoever you are, please allow me to set some things in order here...

First, because some in this discussion may not be UPCI affiliated does not mean they do not have an interest in the past or present of an organization they so fervently worked to establish. Be it great or small, they took an active role...in other words, leaving does not mean they don't care. And for someone like Elder Epley, who is not now nor has he ever been UPCI, his knowledge and opinions are invaluable in discussions like this.

Second, I have not read one "venting" post...this is called "discussion..." like you know, you have your opinion and I have mine and someone else has another. This is a forum and discussion is what we do. I have witnessed venting on other subjects and it does sometimes get tiring, but "venting" is not happening in this thread.

Third, if anyone, be it a department head or ordinary Joe rewrites the history of a thing...it matters not if it is in business, politics, or the Church, then yeah...it is a big deal. If that revision is done so as to heighten the credibility and awareness of an idea or theology then it is a huge deal.

Fourth, how did 'standards' get into this mix? This thread and the posts which have followed have nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. Your thinking here is way off base.

Fifth and final, healthy discussion is good. It is needful. It often brings things to light and puts them in a perspective of another man's point of view. Looking at all sides of an issue should not breed contempt...that is, if there is nothing to hide.

Let's discuss it and bring it all out and see if we can learn something in the process.

[Max Cosme]

Bernard's response to the assertion made that the UPCI has no official view in their manual as to what constitutes the New Birth. The lawyer comes out and refers to a Global Missions manual for missionaries that now makes them affirm the 3 step view on the New Birth:

"Mu (sic) comments don't deny that, so not sure why you comment on every post at great length. Actually the UPCI Fundamental Doctrine is a clear statement of soteriology, of what constitutes NT salvation. The UPCI Global Missions Manual states that all missionaries must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth."

See Thurday's post: http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernard/

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Max Cosme

Bernard's response to the assertion made that the UPCI has no official view in their manual as to what constitutes the New Birth. The lawyer comes out and refers to a Global Missions manual for missionaries that now makes them affirm the 3 step view on the New Birth:

"Mu (sic) comments don't deny that, so not sure why you comment on every post at great length. Actually the UPCI Fundamental Doctrine is a clear statement of soteriology, of what constitutes NT salvation. The UPCI Global Missions Manual states that all missionaries must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth."

See Thurday's post: http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernard/

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

Yes, I agree with both points by Baron here

[Sam]

Some of us in this group are still with the UPC.
Some of us in this group have family and friends in the UPC.
Some of us in this group believe that many of the people in the UPC are saved, children of God and part of the Bride of Christ.
Some of us are saddened to see the rewrite of UPC history over the years and this latest discussion here and on facebook by a person of Bro. Bernard's stature.
I don't know Bro. Bernard and certainly can't say why he is so dismissive of those who have or still hold the "one-step" opinion. I don't know if he is sincere in what he is writing, if he is mistaken in his information, or if he is deliberately lying.

[CC1]

I believe the percentage of the PCI folks at the time of the merger who were "one steppers" regarding salvation was 28.7%.

However they believed very strongly that baptism was a command in the Bible and that all people were to desire and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I am not sure that confirming Acts 2:38, is the same as 3 step. The PCI men who held to one step would affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

The problem with DKB is that he feels the need to force his views on an entire movement. One of my frustrations is that men who have different views are sidelined if they dare to speak against him. Minimizing the numbers who held the PCI viewpont is just part of the greater plan of erradicating the one step view from the UPC. He has out right said it would be difficult for a minister to operate in the UPC today with a one step view.

DK said "must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth"

You said "affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation"

Apples and oranges.....

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by CC1

I believe the percentage of the PCI folks at the time of the merger who were "one steppers" regarding salvation was 28.7%.

However they believed very strongly that baptism was a command in the Bible and that all people were to desire and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues.

28.7%...

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ILG

DK said "must affirm Acts 2:38 as the new birth"

You said "affirm Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation"

Apples and oranges.....

Do you mean that he uses the terms differently?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Do you mean that he uses the terms differently?

I think saying Acts 2:38 equals the new birth means three step. And Acts 2:38 equals the plan of salvation could be interpreted either way.