The Truth About The PCI!

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Sam

This is an account of Andrew Urshan’s conversion. I have a book titled “The Life of Andrew Bar David Urshan” which came from the Pentecostal Publishing House. Inside the cover it says that the first printing was circa 1918 and then reprinted in 1998. I also have several old magazines called “The Witness of God” which were published by Andrew Urshan. The first is dated January, 1946 and the last is dated December, 1946. The story in the magazine is pretty much the same as in the book but the date of the conversion is given as a Wednesday night in1901 in the magazine but as both 1899 and 1900 in the book. Also the location of Urmiah is spelled a couple of different ways in the book. Andrew Urshan was born in1884 and died in 1967.

Below is the account from the book.

On a windy night in March, in the year 1900 in Urumia City, Persia, when sitting with about 200 lads in the American Presbyterian Mission College, singing the blessed hymn, “Oh happy day that fixed my choice,” the Spirit of God seized me with great conviction and caused me to stop and think and to ask myself the question, “Am I really happy because Jesus has washed away my sins?” I was reproved and had to confess myself a hypocrite, and that broke my heart, and I instantly broke into tears as my sins were pictured before my eyes. Then I cried unto God for forgiveness and deliverance in Jesus’ name and the Lord heard me. I put my trust in the promises, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” and “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved;” and, the Spirit witnessed to my spirit that I had been born again and had been made a new creature in Christ Jesus.

With a new and tender heart and broken spirit, and with tears of repentance and joy, I sang the rest of the hymn not a hypocrite this time, but a truly happy, blood bought, blood washed child of the King. Oh, that wonderful night! that beautiful spot! that mourning bench in that school! And oh, that sweet effect of the gracious, crucified Saviour and risen Lord! Never will it be forgotten. It is still burning now as a clear blaze of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

from pages 31 and 32, from chapter VI titled “My Conversion” in the book
and from page 7, of the magazine The Witness of God January, 1946

Those were the ones I was meaning in my earlier post! When we hear men today screaming about the traditions of the fathers, and the ancient landmarks, is this one of them? What would they say about that?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Those were the ones I was meaning in my earlier post! When we hear men today screaming about the traditions of the fathers, and the ancient landmarks, is this one of them? What would they say about that?

Dan used to say he was more Apostolic than the rest of us. I'm not real sure just what he meant by that. But, what some here disdainfully refer to as "greasy grace," or "easy believism" or "weak on the message" or "liberal/Baptist" or "one-step" salvation or "Bapticostal" is what the old timers who called themselves Apostolic believed and preached before the "Campbellite Captivity" of the church when they adopted the belief of the Campbellites and papists that water baptism washed away or forgave/remitted sins.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Dan used to say he was more Apostolic than the rest of us. I'm not real sure just what he meant by that. But, what some here disdainfully refer to as "greasy grace," or "easy believism" or "weak on the message" or "liberal/Baptist" or "one-step" salvation or "Bapticostal" is what the old timers who called themselves Apostolic believed and preached before the "Campbellite Captivity" of the church when they adopted the belief of the Campbellites and papists that water baptism washed away or forgave/remitted sins.

Did you coin that phrase? LOL. I think I shall engrave it upon a plaque in your honor.

"Campbellite Captivity"

[Sam]

Before I get criticized for my "Campbellite Captivity" of the church statement, check out the chart at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/Seven_Church_Ages.gif

This is based on a chart the late S.G. Norris distributed showing how "truth" was restored to the church in steps. Notice where he says we got the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. I realize Bro. Norris was not infallible (some times he presented himself as such) but, he was an esteemed teacher in our ranks and therefore I think I can cite him as an expert.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Sam

Dan used to say he was more Apostolic than the rest of us. I'm not real sure just what he meant by that. But, what some here disdainfully refer to as "greasy grace," or "easy believism" or "weak on the message" or "liberal/Baptist" or "one-step" salvation or "Bapticostal" is what the old timers who called themselves Apostolic believed and preached before the "Campbellite Captivity" of the church when they adopted the belief of the Campbellites and papists that water baptism washed away or forgave/remitted sins.

I think we are seeing evidence of a transforming of a body of believers as they get more canonized in their beliefs. The problems that accompany that change are interesting.

I have a friend in Canada that told me that for decades after the split in America over Jesus name vs trinity, the Canadian brothers, trinitarian and oneness, continued to fellowship each other. This went on for decades until they were pressured from their respective brethren down here in the states to disfellowship the other side. Very interesting.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Those were the ones I was meaning in my earlier post! When we hear men today screaming about the traditions of the fathers, and the ancient landmarks, is this one of them? What would they say about that?

I have posted this before, but will do so again...and for the record, if anyone is taking notes, I am what most would call a PAJCer in doctrine.

From Bro. Bernard's book A History of Christian Doctrine Vol. 3, pp 122, 123:

"At this point it is important to note that the Oneness pioneers we have cited did not proclaim dogmatically that all who had not experienced Acts 2:38 would go to the lake of fire...

Thus Frank Ewart could say, "Pastor Durham passed on to glory at a comparatively early age," even though he died without being baptized in Jesus Name...

G.T. Haywodd made a distinction between being begotten and being born...Christians who had faith, but were not born again according to Acts 2:38 could still be considered as "botten by the Word" even though they had not yet been "born of theSpirit..."

Andrew Urshan likewise made a distinction...he spoke of people being "saved" before they were born again, and wrote of some who died in the faith before baptism in Jesus Name."

My point in posting this again is simply this...the UPCI was founded on diversity. The PAJC and the PCI, two groups of people of like precious faith, yet with differences formed the United Pentecostal Church, International.

United is the key word here. They disagreed, to the point of not being sure if the merger would take place, when finally Bro. Witherspoon went alone into a room, and wrote these words...

"We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

And it worked. For 70 + years it worked.

Would that the spirit of the merger were yet alive and well...

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Sam

Before I get criticized for my "Campbellite Captivity" of the church statement, check out the chart at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/Seven_Church_Ages.gif

This is based on a chart the late S.G. Norris distributed showing how "truth" was restored to the church in steps. Notice where he says we got the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. I realize Bro. Norris was not infallible (some times he presented himself as such) but, he was an esteemed teacher in our ranks and therefore I think I can cite him as an expert.

The problem with the restored doctrine is it is hand in hand with mormonism. They all believe a restored doctrine. The error with that doctrine is that if it is true then Jesus lied. He said...

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the doctrine was hid for centuries then the gates of hell prevailed. Jesus said it would never happen. There have always been oneness/ Jesus name believers through the centuries. Always. There has never been a time when the truth was not preached.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Barb

I have posted this before, but will do so again...and for the record, if anyone is taking notes, I am what most would call a PAJCer in doctrine.

From Bro. Bernard's book A History of Christian Doctrine Vol. 3, pp 122, 123:

"At this point it is important to note that the Oneness pioneers we have cited did not proclaim dogmatically that all who had not experienced Acts 2:38 would go to the lake of fire...

Thus Frank Ewart could say, "Pastor Durham passed on to glory at a comparatively early age," even though he died without being baptized in Jesus Name...

G.T. Haywodd made a distinction between being begotten and being born...Christians who had faith, but were not born again according to Acts 2:38 could still be considered as "botten by the Word" even though they had not yet been "born of theSpirit..."

Andrew Urshan likewise made a distinction...he spoke of people being "saved" before they were born again, and wrote of some who died in the faith before baptism in Jesus Name."

My point in posting this again is simply this...the UPCI was founded on diversity. The PAJC and the PCI, two groups of people of like precious faith, yet with differences formed the United Pentecostal Church, International.

United is the key word here. They disagreed, to the point of not being sure if the merger would take place, when finally Bro. Witherspoon went alone into a room, and wrote these words...

"We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body."

And it worked. For 70 + years it worked.

Would that the spirit of the merger were yet alive and well...

Well said, Barb.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

I think we are seeing evidence of a transforming of a body of believers as they get more canonized in their beliefs. The problems that accompany that change are interesting.

I have a friend in Canada that told me that for decades after the split in America over Jesus name vs trinity, the Canadian brothers, trinitarian and oneness, continued to fellowship each other. This went on for decades until they were pressured from their respective brethren down here in the states to disfellowship the other side. Very interesting.

Wasn't that an organization called the ACOP (Apostolic Church of Pentecost)?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

The problem with the restored doctrine is it is hand in hand with mormonism. They all believe a restored doctrine. The error with that doctrine is that if it is true then Jesus lied. He said...

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

If the doctrine was hid for centuries then the gates of hell prevailed. Jesus said it would never happen. There have always been oneness/ Jesus name believers through the centuries. Always. There has never been a time when the truth was not preached.

Mormons also believe that baptism regenerates as do Catholics. Therefore, all real Apostolics must renounce baptism for the remission of sins lest the angels confuse us with Mormons and Roman Catholics on the Judgment Day.

And no, if the truth was lost to much of recorded history, Hell did not prevail against the Church. I'm hoping that you're living and breathing proof of that today!