I don't intend to insult you Scotty by "telling you what your heritage is..." However, I have often felt insulted by those who have deliberately edited our heritage and removed material that was once required for all prospective ministers.
When I was first considering joining the UPC ministerial fellowship the one issue that caused me to be hesitant was the idea that I would be called upon to "send all other Christians to hell." However unreasonable that may sound to you, that was a real concern for me almost 30 years ago.
The one thing that really settled my mind was the attached page from the Pentecostal Home Study Course - required reading for all UPC ministers. You didn't have to agree with everything in the book, but you had to be aware of it to be able to discuss the issues intelligently.
All of the writings of John Dearing (J.H.D.) were later removed from the book without comment or notice. The book itself was first removed from the required reading materials. This is just one example of how my own heritage has been treated within the UPCI and the Apostolic fellowship in general. One dear friend calls me "blathering" every time I it up. But it is part of the heritage of all Oneness Pentecostals.
From everything I’ve been able to find, the “Acts 2:38 exclusivism” didn’t really appear on the scene until around the time of the merger. This would lead me to question the statements of many that they are “conservatives” for advocating this position because “conservatives” don’t usually advocate new things. This teaching of exclusivism is really the introduction of something new. It’s not really a “heritage” so much as a novelty. Attempts have been made to create a “heritage” for it (for example Marvin Arnold’s History Outline) but these things all end up being a source of embarrassment. Another example might be a UPC bible college’s booklet several years back that argued “Jesus had no beard.” Why do we feel we have to invent these notions?
I would like to ask you though, Scotty - can you trace your current "3 Stepper" or "Acts 2:38 or hell" persuasion back? How far can you go with this "heritage?" I am genuinely interested and would benefit greatly from anything you might have to share that is older than about 60 years.
Great post.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
I bring your attention to post 220 of this thread. (first quote above)
I want this place to be a place where all of us PCI and PAJC can meet and discuss all issues. As a Water/Spirit proponent I am not intimidated at all by other beliefs and I think the same can be said for you as a PCI guy.
we ought to be able to talk and "sharpen our iron". In the past, I have spoken out when I felt the PCI view was being held down. In fact, Ive taken heat for doing so, and I have applied heat to admin over that very issue.
now however, it seems that in an effort to allow the debate some on your side (and you in the above post) have crossed a line. It needs to be uncrossed.
Thanks. I had forgotten about that and Googling for it didn't bring it up. I was desperately looking for what you referred to, I'm sorry that my apparent foggy headedness prevented me from following along with you more closely.
In the context above, Scotty had offered the idea that "the Spirit" would lead people into truth. I countered with the Mormon teaching of "the burning" (supposedly that is the Holy Spirit telling a prospective Mormon that the Book of Mormon is true) and the RCC's claim for their own infallibility.
I don't see that Scotty refuted my assertion, though I don't have a very good track record for remembering posts at the moment. The reliance upon subjective confirmations for "truth" will often get us into trouble. This perhaps is not even along the lines of what StMatthew was ruminating upon when he started the thread so I don't see a point in hammering it.
I do not see "the line" that you refer to. I hope that this doesn't cause you to be overly disappointed with me, I just don't see it. Scotty made a statement, I said, "That statement sounds a lot like the teachings of..." and I gave a couple of examples. You do see the latent antagonism in Scotty's post too, don't you?
Scotty could have countered with something like, "The Mormon experience of 'the burning' isn't contained in the New Testament experience of the apostles so your analogy fails..." At which point I would been left to stumble about grasping for other examples of "subjective proof" which were dealt with unfavorably in the New Testament. Afterward, one or the other of us may owe the other a dinner, but fellowship continues.
My last statement in the post you cite is perhaps the most unkind- if "unkind" is even the word for it:
Quote:
I'm left with the impression that you and StMatthew are ashamed of your roots. You side step every mention of them and treat great men and women of God as if they were a hair lip cousin that you have to hide in the barn whenever company visits.
I truly feel that way, however. People bring up "our heritage" and make appeals to respect it. But then when we really get into it, the discussion spoils and our beloved elders are pushed back into the stable in downtown Los Angeles as if we are ashamed to even acknowledge them.
I really don't care if anyone here hates me for saying this, take it for what its worth, but "unless a man is born again of the water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" John 3:5. I know, I know its too simple to understand.
I really don't care if anyone here hates me for saying this, take it for what its worth, but "unless a man is born again of the water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" John 3:5. I know, I know its too simple to understand.
Everybody believes this.
It's the interpretation that some give to that scripture that causes some proverbial ripples in the proverbial pond.
__________________ Smiles & Blessings.... ~Felicity Welsh~ (surname courtesy of Jim Yohe)
Thanks. I had forgotten about that and Googling for it didn't bring it up. I was desperately looking for what you referred to, I'm sorry that my apparent foggy headedness prevented me from following along with you more closely.
In the context above, Scotty had offered the idea that "the Spirit" would lead people into truth. I countered with the Mormon teaching of "the burning" (supposedly that is the Holy Spirit telling a prospective Mormon that the Book of Mormon is true) and the RCC's claim for their own infallibility.
I don't see that Scotty refuted my assertion, though I don't have a very good track record for remembering posts at the moment. The reliance upon subjective confirmations for "truth" will often get us into trouble. This perhaps is not even along the lines of what StMatthew was ruminating upon when he started the thread so I don't see a point in hammering it.
I do not see "the line" that you refer to. I hope that this doesn't cause you to be overly disappointed with me, I just don't see it. Scotty made a statement, I said, "That statement sounds a lot like the teachings of..." and I gave a couple of examples. You do see the latent antagonism in Scotty's post too, don't you?
Scotty could have countered with something like, "The Mormon experience of 'the burning' isn't contained in the New Testament experience of the apostles so your analogy fails..." At which point I would been left to stumble about grasping for other examples of "subjective proof" which were dealt with unfavorably in the New Testament. Afterward, one or the other of us may owe the other a dinner, but fellowship continues.
My last statement in the post you cite is perhaps the most unkind- if "unkind" is even the word for it:
I truly feel that way, however. People bring up "our heritage" and make appeals to respect it. But then when we really get into it, the discussion spoils and our beloved elders are pushed back into the stable in downtown Los Angeles as if we are ashamed to even acknowledge them.
Pel, I have said that generally you have been very balanced. your reference here might (without the context of the current atomosphere) have not been seen as crossing that line... .however, you do have to admit that the context is what it is. I believe Scotty's irritiation is with the way some have used the PCI doctrine as a baseball bat. the words "Papist" and "Mormon" and "Baptismal Regenreationilist" (sp) have been tossed about and used in a very unkind and inaccurate manner for the last little while and I think that is the source of Scotty's irritation.
At least he has been here to tell it. others have just checked out.
I personally would like to see them come back. I hope you agree with that.
I do appreciate you and i agree that every side of our history needs to be visible. I have ALWAYS said that the UPCI needs both the PAJC and the PCI view. (And this board does too.)
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I really don't care if anyone here hates me for saying this, take it for what its worth, but "unless a man is born again of the water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" John 3:5. I know, I know its too simple to understand.
"Again" is not in that verse.........but taken in context with verse 3 the "again" seems to be implied in verse 5. And if the water mentioned is the water at the natural birth, then why does Jesus and His disciples baptize folks in water later on in the chapter?
__________________
Psa 119:165 (KJV) 165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
"Do not believe everthing you read on the internet" - Abe Lincoln
I grew up hearing strong preaching teaching that went like this:
You MUST repent of your sin.
You MUST be baptized in the name of Jesus.
You MUST receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost accompanied by the initial sign of tongues.
There were no ifs, ands or buts about it. All 3 steps were necessary. However, there were some differences among the men who pastored me as to WHY the baptism of the Spirit was essential. And these differences exist today in the Oneness Apostolic movement. If you think otherwise I'm here to tell you different.
Hehe.
Not everyone here has this opinion and seemingly Must is replaced with Might or Maybe or Not needed.
Some here apparently are NOT Apostolics!
Others are intent on simply tearing down others and stirring pots.
__________________
I am not a member here -Do not PM me please?
"Again" is not in that verse.........but taken in context with verse 3 the "again" seems to be implied in verse 5.
Ah, but there's the rub isn't it. The "again" or "from above" is explicitly a refrence to "the Spirit." The "water" has no such explicit connection, and so mortal men are left to ponder the implications.
The reliance upon subjective confirmations for "truth" will often get us into trouble. This perhaps is not even along the lines of what StMatthew was ruminating upon when he started the thread so I don't see a point in hammering it. 
Linear Mode
