John 3: The Difference between PCI and PAJC on New Birth

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

About baptism and Holy Ghost evidenced with tongues.

he apologized for preaching that!

:::: CENSORED ::::

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Yes I am a chosen crusader for truth and these men are apostates I say that without being hesitant one bit. When Sabin placed that ad in the paper apologizing for preaching truth that was it for me. I personally contacted his office and asked clear questions and got clear answers. These folk no longer are part of the Apostolic Church they are modern apostates who have drawn disciples after themselves.

Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.

Ah .... you gotta love truth ... man I've learned so much in the last couple of weeks here at AFF ....

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

What happened Sam to the old-time spirit of toleration??? Are the new PAJCers counterfeits?

When the merger happened in 1945 there were some who did not go along with it. There is still an organization called the PAJC. I am subscribed to their magazine. It is not a large organization. I first heard of it in 1956/1957 when I was going to school in St. Paul, MN. A young lady from Cleveland, OH went to a church which was part of that group. The church met in the basement of her home.

That was the idea of the word "full" in the fundamental doctrine statement. Some viewed the three steps of Acts 2:38 as all being necessary to being saved or born again. Anything less than all three steps was not real or full salvation. Others believed that "full" salvation applies to the whole lifetime of Christian experience --that we are not completely or fully saved until our death or the rapture. These folks believed that one was saved/justified/regenerated at faith and repentance and that after that conversion experience, they should be water baptized and Spirit baptized as part of their walk with God and growth in their Christian experience.

In 1973, the fundamental doctrine was modified to add the words, "for the remission of sins." This had been previously proposed in 1972 and Gene Zinni, superintendent of the Central New England District is quoted as having said, "Next we'll be teaching people need the Holy Ghost baptism to be saved." John Paterson is said to have been instrumental in thwarting the resolution. Paterson mailed a letter to every member of the General Board in August 1973 attempting to point out the theological problems associated with the proposed amendment. He warned that the issue would return and it did. Those words were added in 1973. Bro. W.M. Greer stated that "had those words been insisted upon (in 1945) there would have been no merger.

[SDG]

Sam I bow to you historic prowess ...

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Sam

When the merger happened in 1945 there were some who did not go along with it. There is still an organization called the PAJC. I am subscribed to their magazine. It is not a large organization. I first heard of it in 1956/1957 when I was going to school in St. Paul, MN. A young lady from Cleveland, OH went to a church which was part of that group. The church met in the basement of her home.

That was the idea of the word "full" in the fundamental doctrine statement. Some viewed the three steps of Acts 2:38 as all being necessary to being saved or born again. Anything less than all three steps was not real or full salvation. Others believed that "full" salvation applies to the whole lifetime of Christian experience --that we are not completely or fully saved until our death or the rapture. These folks believed that one was saved/justified/regenerated at faith and repentance and that after that conversion experience, they should be water baptized and Spirit baptized as part of their walk with God and growth in their Christian experience.

In 1973, the fundamental doctrine was modified to add the words, "for the remission of sins." This had been previously proposed in 1972 and Gene Zinni, superintendent of the Central New England District is quoted as having said, "Next we'll be teaching people need the Holy Ghost baptism to be saved." John Paterson is said to have been instrumental in thwarting the resolution. Paterson mailed a letter to every member of the General Board in August 1973 attempting to point out the theological problems associated with the proposed amendment. He warned that the issue would return and it did. Those words were added in 1973. Bro. W.M. Greer stated that "had those words been insisted upon (in 1945) there would have been no merger.

Sam, you've got a very good handle on this and your input is greatly appreciated. It is quite obvious that there was far more tolerance than some are making out to be. If controversial articles weren't even accepted, what does that say about the spirit that was expected from each "side" and the "sickening, putrid, self-righteous" spirit that exists today? (yes, that gets me emotional)

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Sam, you've got a very good handle on this and your input is greatly appreciated. It is quite obvious that there was far more tolerance than some are making out to be. If controversial articles weren't even accepted, what does that say about the spirit that was expected from each "side" and the "sickening" spirit that exists today?

Far more tolerance back then ...Sam ... indeed ... this a preponderance of evidence that they viewed the New Birth differently ... CS ... take note.

[SDG]

bump for Ferd ...

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Daniel
1. What is your interpretation of John 3?
2. What does being born again really mean?
3. What was the New Birth view of early PCIers and PAJCers?
4. How did early Oneness pioneers interpret John 3 pre the merger?
5. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God ... is he speaking of the present, future, both? Must a distinction be made between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?
6. If we interpret it differently are we part of the same Apostolic movement?

As I am wiped out, and my brain is fried after the events of the day, I will only attempt to explain John 3:5. I will specifically address numbers one and two on your list.

1. John 3 is what it is. A Pre-resurrection outline of cross-dispensational Truth. Even Matthew Henry recognized the import of Christ's words to Nicodemus.

2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, "You must be born again of the Spirit," which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The Jews cannot partake of the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom, they have so long looked for, unless they quit all expectations of being justified by the works of the law, and submit to the baptism of repentance, the great gospel duty, for the remission of sins, the great gospel privilege. Secondly, It is compared to wind: The wind bloweth where it listeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit, v. 8. The same word (pneuma) signifies both the wind and the Spirit. The Spirit came upon the apostles in a rushing mighty wind (Acts 2:2), his strong influences on the hearts of sinners are compared to the breathing of the wind (Ezek 37:9), and his sweet influences on the souls of saints to the north and south wind, Song 4:16.

I believe the current mainline Apostolic understanding of the New Birth is correct, in that it teaches a singular regeneration resulting from the dual action of the ordinance of baptism, and the work of the Spirit, in a newly repentant believer's life.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Neither Sabin or Gillespie had a problem with Ac. 2:38. It was the exclusivity and placing everyone else in hell that they were aplogetic for. Both men will only baptize in Jesus' name, Sir Knight.

Neither believe baptism has anything to do with salvation and Sabin does not believe tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost.