Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I can see why Bernard would strongly teach Acts 2:38 is the new birth. What if he told people they are born again without being baptized in water? Or in the Holy Ghost? Then if they did not follow through (this happens many times) and they died lost he would feel responsible. To me its not "harsh" to teach what the Apostles taught from the beginning. It is dangerous to NOT teach it.

Your missing the point. This is a historical issue not whether the water and spirit interpretation is correct.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by ILG

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.

the fundamental doctrine statement said "full salvation" which means God's plan for your life
It had to have the word "full" in there or there would have been no merger.
If it just said "salvation" the PCI guys would not have agreed.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Max Cosme

...A game of semantics of which Bernard has mastered. Sometimes.

he's a lawyer, isn't he?

[llambert]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think that's always been the case, Hoovemeister. I'm thinking of S.G. Norris's views on the matter - views that have been propagated greatly by his student Lee Stoneking over the past few decades.

The move to become "harder" on doctrine seems to have been more politically motivated; and here I'm thinking of T.F. Tenney's famous interjaculation questioning whether the UPC FM department was baptizing in Jesus' name and the surrounding uproar. That move really kicked TFT's career into high gear.

Though, as has been argued for years on these pages, the vast, vast majority of OP's have been and probably always will be "One Steppers" at heart - to deny that plain fact will get you appointed to positions of honor and help fill your speaking calendar.

It's a puzzling part of the OP culture - and almost certainly has parallels in other subcultures as well - if not the entire human race.

Even Steve-a-rino (he of hat fame) has admitted that he can't judge the destinies of human souls. DKB and others of his mindset appear to want to ignore this fact (that they employ practical variants of the "Light Doctrine") and hammer out sterner creeds demanding that all dance the "Three Step" or perish.

What I want to know is why is it that the UPCI is so singled out for critique for believing that Acts 2:38 is the new birth. They aren't the only group that teaches this, COOLJC, PAW, True Jesus Church and a bunch of other groups believe and teach the same doctrine, but it seems like UPCI gets criticized and in some circles even called cultish far more than any other Oneness group.

And from the years that I've been reading this site, there seem to be way more dissatisified customers of the UPCI than of all those organizations put together. I'd say at least 1/3 of the threads on this forum are of people who have had some negative UPCI experience.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by llambert

What I want to know is why is it that the UPCI is so singled out for critique for believing that Acts 2:38 is the new birth. They aren't the only group that teaches this, COOLJC, PAW, True Jesus Church and a bunch of other groups believe and teach the same doctrine, but it seems like UPCI gets criticized and in some circles even called cultish far more than any other Oneness group.

And from the years that I've been reading this site, there seem to be way more dissatisified customers of the UPCI than of all those organizations put together. I'd say at least 1/3 of the threads on this forum are of people who have had some negative UPCI experience.

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC, it is allowed - within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

This was the problem. No amount of revisionism can change this error.

[llambert]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I cant say I disagree that many threads here do criticize the UPC - it is allowed within reason. But the substance of this thread is not arguing doctrinal position so much as considering whether revisionism is occurring.

In particular, is the UPC constituency getting the full story of our formation and the tolerance that was once very prevalent among us? And why has the climate changed towards those of us in the UPC who believe conversion occurs at faith, followed by baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit?

Consider this official statement back when "unity" was a primary UPCI tenet.

"subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945"

So now this is starting to make sense to me- because according to what you have posted here, the UPCI started as a combination of doctrinal positions for political reasons. Is it true that the merger of the different organizations had something to do with having enough strength of numbers so that brothers wouldn't have to be drafted into the military? Apparently, the founders didn't think the doctrinal issues were so major back in 1945 when there were common outside enemies, but with the passage of time, the differences are becoming more irreconcilable and the outside threats less so.

I had been wondering about why the UPCI is so villified in some circles and if it is perceived that they are less than honest about their own history for whatever reason then the fruit that comes out that will bear the tale.

I was in UPCI and am now in COOLJC. COOLJC has some pockets that are very hard core about divorce and remarriage (one spouse for life- in some churches they teach that the person who was already divorced and remarried at conversion is living in sin, needs to leave that partner and go be reconciled to the first). COOLJC is also more staunch against women preachers. Both of these doctrines are a response (from what I have read in histories and from founder RC Lawson's accounts) to PAW. But as strict as these teachings may be to some, I don't see people on here or other forums critiquing COOLJC anywhere near the extent that UPCI has been. There is a wide range of views/beliefs on these and many other doctrines, dress codes, etc. It seems like this organization is much looser and less controlling than UPCI, which may be both good and bad.

[llambert]

Thinking about it now, no disrespect intended, the Pentecostal look of the UPCI women seems almost like a registered trademark branding. One pastor's wife I knew said that when she went out to conferences, amusement parks, etc. she felt comforted seeing other women of like precious faith (in long dress, no jewels, etc) because they looked like her and she was able to identify who was who.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by llambert

Thinking about it now, no disrespect intended, the Pentecostal look of the UPCI women seems almost like a registered trademark branding. One pastor's wife I knew said that when she went out to conferences, amusement parks, etc. she felt comforted seeing other women of like precious faith (in long dress, no jewels, etc) because they looked like her and she was able to identify who was who.

I know this is so and understand it to be the case. I don't think it's problematic in itself. It's rather benign I think. Can outer, physical identifying factors be misleading? Sure but that is true in both "standard" preaching churches and non. The cross necklace wearers, or the "Word of Faith" proclaimers might both be misleading to watchers concerning the condition of their hearts.