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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Bishop Haywood died in 29 and he taught the new birth of water and spirit.
Thus it was a settled doctrine in the PAW the oldest Oneness organization.
Bishop R. C. Lawson taught the new birth of water and spirit he started his group in the 20's.
Bishop S. C. Johnson taught the new birth of water & spirit he started in the early 30's.
Mark Lawson founder of The Church of Jesus Christ taught the new birth of water and spirit they started in the early 20's.
Bishop Hancock founded the Pentecostal Churches of the Apostolic Faith in the 30's he taught water & spirit.
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ taught water & spirit was the new birth. Witherspoon first included this in the fundamental doctrine at the merger which was rejected.
Many of the PCI brethren taught the new birth of water & spirit such as David Gray, A. T. Morgan and others.

Apparently, Haywood might of taught it but didnt believe it the way you do Elder Epley.

[SDG]

Brother Epley ... one of the questions at hand ... was that a post in this forum claimed that old time PCIers and PAJCers were in lock-step when it came to preaching the New Birth ... history tells us different ... what's more amazing is the this poster said that many current day PCIers are counterfeit because they did not believe in the New Birth in the same way as their predecessors ... once again history proves differently ...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Apparently, Haywood might of taught it but didnt believe it the way you do Elder Epley.

Haywood believed the 'light doctrine.' But he did not believe anyone was born again with obeying Acts 2:38. He taught they would come up in the general resurrection of Rev. 20 and be judged by what they knew and if they obeyed what they knew. I do NOT believe that but that is what he taught. But he did not blurr the line on the new birth he should have left the rest in the hands of God rather teach this made up "light doctrine." Several pioneer Pentecostals taught this I am sure you know. I do NOT believe the church fell away into apostasy and was restored as taught by the teachers of the 'light doctrine."

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Brother Epley ... one of the questions at hand ... was that a post in this forum claimed that old time PCIers and PAJCers were in lock-step when it came to preaching the New Birth ... history tells us different ... what's more amazing is the this poster said that many current day PCIers are counterfeit because they did not believe in the New Birth in the same way as their predecessors ... once again history proves differently ...

I never said the PCI men and the PAJC were in lock step on this doctrine some of the PCI taught the new birth. However the PCI men of that time preached Acts 2:38 so fervently to sinners and religious folk the outsiders hearing either would not have known the difference. They emphasized the HGB and baptism in Jesus Name. John Patterson is an example NO one reading his books would ever have known he did not believe the new birth message because he contended so strongly for Acts 2:38. The men who want to claim these men in NO WAY resemble their ferventcy and declaration of Acts 2:38.

[SDG]

I am simply trying to reconcile a broad brush statement that was used to condemn some current PCIers as counterfeit ... when indeed some prolific Apostolic greats had varying interpretations and views on New Birth ... some even similar to today's stance ....

They loved this New Birth, Oneness Message.

This new breed are a totally different kettle of fish.

They are moving away from Truth.

They are embarassed to be associated with strong doctrinal men. They would rather identify with those proclaiming an easy-believism message than with the Apostolic church.

So when you try and get them to discuss the doctrine of salvation, they spout clouds of obfuscatory smoke about how it is Jesus who saves, and it is a journey, and blah blah blah.

Nothing solid.

And they call themselves adherents of the "PCI Doctrine."

Well, the men of the old PCI would probably be ashamed to claim them, because they came out from long and deeply rooted belief systems and sold out to preach this Jesus Name message. It cost them something to be able to say "I'm one of them," as the old song says.

Most of these slack-jawed compromisers could preach all day, and if you ran their message through a centrifuge, you couldn't distill half an ounce of good doctrine, nor figure out how to be saved.

PCI?

Yep.

Pathetic Compromising Ingrates.

Now, if that isn't clear enough, let me know and I will try and dial it down a little better for you.

Clearly you can see an obfuscatory blanket statement was made to make it appear that somehow the old-timers all taught the New Birth in the same manner. Can't you??

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I never said the PCI men and the PAJC were in lock step on this doctrine some of the PCI taught the new birth. However the PCI men of that time preached Acts 2:38 so fervently to sinners and religious folk the outsiders hearing either would not have known the difference. They emphasized the HGB and baptism in Jesus Name. John Patterson is an example NO one reading his books would ever have known he did not believe the new birth message because he contended so strongly for Acts 2:38. The men who want to claim these men in NO WAY resemble their ferventcy and declaration of Acts 2:38.

You give one example of some one who may or may not have "strayed" from the message ... to use PAJC term ... but should we not examine the reasons for why the Acts 2:38 message was preached 'so fervently' by both sides ... or indeed if it really was ...Goss' family says he did not preach it as preached by the PAJCers in his church ....

Could this fervency argument be a way to dismiss the realities of different view on New Birth did exist among some????....

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I am simply trying to reconcile a broad brush statement that was used to condemn some current PCIers as counterfeit ... when indeed some prolific Apostolic greats had varying interpretations and views on New Birth ... some even similar to today's stance ....



Clearly you can see an obfuscatory blanket statement was made to make it appear that somehow the old-timers all taught the New Birth in the same manner. Can't you??

It is true to extent the PCI brethren in NO way could or would relate to those who claim them today. Their understanding on the new birth was incorrect but their ferventcy in preaching Acts 2:38 to all that would hear is a testament they would have NEVER endorsed the apostasy that has been done in their names.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

It is true to extent the PCI brethren in NO way could or would relate to those who claim them today. Their understanding on the new birth was incorrect but their ferventcy in preaching Acts 2:38 to all that would hear is a testament they would have NEVER endorsed the apostasy that has been done in their names.

We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????

apparently..

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We have now graduated from backsliding and compromising to apostasy????

To align yourself with men like Gillespie or Sabin is apostasy. They are apostates.