Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Baron1710]

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.

Never thought of it like that...not sure I really see a difference.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Never thought of it like that...not sure I really see a difference.

I think there is a subtle difference. The new birth means you are not born again until you complete Acts 2:38.

The plan of salvation means this is the way to be saved....

PCI expected people to complete the plan....but did not say they were not born again without completing it (the light doctrine). 3 steppers say the "plan" must be completed or a person was not born again. I say this after spending a great deal of time around 3 steppers (I was spiritually "raised" in a 3 step church).

Anyway, I think there is a subtle difference.

[houston]

Originally Posted by ILG

I think there is a subtle difference. The new birth means you are not born again until you complete Acts 2:38.

The plan of salvation means this is the way to be saved....

PCI expected people to complete the plan....but did not say they were not born again without completing it (the light doctrine). 3 steppers say the "plan" must be completed or a person was not born again. I say this after spending a great deal of time around 3 steppers (I was spiritually "raised" in a 3 step church).

Anyway, I think there is a subtle difference.

Um, like the statement that tongues are essential but not salvational, baptism essential but not salvational????? Like that makes sense.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by houston

Um, like the statement that tongues are essential but not salvational, baptism essential but not salvational????? Like that makes sense.

Well, there are a number of things like that, I think. Kind of some double speak. But I am saying that when I hear "new birth" vs "plan of salvation" I do hear a subtle difference just from hanging around a long time. I automatically think new birth PCI view and 3 step views are different, but plan of salvation is the same. Maybe someone else can chime in with their opinion too.

[Baron1710]

How many have heard the phrase, "Saved, sanctified and filled with the HG"? Popular saying amongst Pentecostals and the PCI viewpoint held on to that. A clear distinction between salvation and the infilling.

[Max Cosme]

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.

Exactly. You've nailed it ILG. You obviously speak Bernard. He is subtle. He is speaking of affirming Acts 2:38 as the New Birth.

He also suggests that the Fundamental Doctrine speaks of a plan of salvation, when it does not. It may be nuanced, but it speaks of a "standard of full salvation". This phrase was a game changer in the merger even happening.

I've notice another phrase used to placate the differences is the phrase New Birth EXPERIENCE when linked to Acts 2:38.

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

[Max Cosme]

And that's the tip of the iceberg concerning how Bernard uses the phrase "plan of salvation".

Bernie Gillespie suggests he uses it as an "accordion phrase". Often, confusingly and inconsistently, depending on whether he is speaking about restorationist vs. remnant impulse.

In this paper, Bernard is quoted multiple times using the term "plan of salvation" with elasticity:

http://www.inchristalone.org/PDFiles...lAccordion.PDF

[HolyFire]

Originally Posted by houston

How did things hold up under the leadership of Urshan? Was it similar to Price's leadership of the Western District?

I never heard a bad word against Urshan. Haney was a different story.

In the WD I didn't hear a word against Price. After Price was out of office the holy sanctified ministers FILLED with God's Spirit drew blood.

I think Haney did as good of a job as he could have in the circumstances. A lot of inner turmoil he had nothing to do with was already under way, it just manifested in his four years. It was very much like Andrew Johnson's presidency after Lincoln's assassination. Haney was a good man, an honest man, who possibly wasn't acclimated to the political nature of Hazlewood. Bro. Urshan rubbed elbows with the like of Yassar Arafat, the U.N., Russian leaders during the U.S.S.R. years...you get the point. As to those who followed after bro Price...Dunno. Never been familiar with Western Dist.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Max Cosme

Exactly. You've nailed it ILG. You obviously speak Bernard. He is subtle. He is speaking of affirming Acts 2:38 as the New Birth.

He also suggests that the Fundamental Doctrine speaks of a plan of salvation, when it does not. It may be nuanced, but it speaks of a "standard of full salvation". This phrase was a game changer in the merger even happening.

I've notice another phrase used to placate the differences is the phrase New Birth EXPERIENCE when linked to Acts 2:38.

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

Yes, I think these semantics are used all the time and maybe unless someone has hung around solid three steppers, these nuances may get lost in the shuffle. When I read things I just read them a certain way and when Bernard said "New Birth" to me, yes that means something different than "plan of salvation" as subtle as that may seem. Bernard is a master.

[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.