Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[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"