Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Chateau d'If]

To the victor goes the spoils.

Some will call this revision but it's really just good old fashioned lying.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Gurley was the spiritual father of all these guys. The Western Tennesee, North Mississippi, Northeast Ark, Southeast Mo was heavily influenced by him.
Greer-Hansford-McNatt-Reed-Brown all prominent men in that area and none of them believed the new birth message. It is amazing anyone would have the nerve to try to spread this?

Your facts are right on target!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by StillStanding

Your facts are right on target!

It was men outside the UPC that preached the new birth message in that area. Rex Dyson, A. T. Surratt, Don Johnson to name a few.

[Scott Hutchinson]

It's hard to tell about things that happened a long time ago. But alot of ministers in the UPCI years ago did not hold to ACTS 2:38 being the new birth ,I understand the merger allowed for both views to held as long as other tenants were agreed on,it's really none of my business but I would say leave history as it is.

[Max Cosme]

Any doubts that Bernard now seeks to overturn the merger agreement and define the New Birth very soon can now be debunked. Bernard writes in one of the Facebook comments on his wall:

"Isr*** *****, stating the merger policy doesn't necessarily say what we should do today. The people at the merger hoped that God would lead everyone in to unity of faith if they would go ahead and join on the basis of Acts 2:38 as plan of salvation. The details could be sorted out later.

In that sense, there is still room for diversity. For example, a ministe today could affirm that Acts 2:38 is NT salvation but think that others who are in process may have a destiny on the new earth. But fundamentally, the analogy I would give is the Declaration of Independence, which says all men are created equal. At the time, some people were slave owners, so they did not fully apply this principle. To form the US, they agreed on the principle but agreed to disagree on the application. But almost everyone knew this meant the ultimate extinction of slavery, even the slave owners. That's why the Constitution indirectly allowed slavery but stated that the importation of slaves would end by a certain date. Ultimately, Lincoln appealed to the Declaration to oppose slavery. He said don't confuse the compromises of the Constitution (now amended) with the principles of the Declaration, but implement the latter. We did. Although we understand this history of our founding as a country, no one wants to go back to the time of slavery. We have grown into a more consistent understanding and implementation of our founding principles. (Again, this is in my booklet, "Understanding the Articles of Faith.")".

Only problem is that the Fundamental Doctrine agreement never states Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation but rather the FULL BIBLE STANDARD OF SALVATION. Words carefully chosen to placate all sides of the issue.

http://www.facebook.com/davidkbernar...ent_id=5533502

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I have no desire to impugn Elder Bernard but trying to rewrite their history to fit this equation is like the Southern guys saying the Civil War was not about slavery. Nearly half of the first general board did not believe the ew birth message. Goss was very vocal about it and Morgan was a silent as a tombstone on the issue in public. Stair-McNatt-Gurley-Hansford-the Yadon clan-Greer-Reed-Brown-Kidson-were all PCI that did not believe the new birth message. Nearly the entire Atlantic District and the Northwest did not believe the new birth message. North Ms., West Tn, East Ark, Southeast Mo., large pockets of Ill and Ohio did not believe the new birth message. He is relying on most guys who knows are dead or dying. I never joined the UPC for this very reason.

Elder, I understand what you mean by "did not believe the new birth message," as you hold to a PAJC form of doctrine, and so do I.

But I keep going back to this point because I think is is so important...

Bro. Goss and others were certain they DID believe the New Birth message, and for the PAJC brethren to merge there had to be an alignment of thought that went deeper than the Oneness of the Godhead.

The saving message is belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and the Spirit infilling...something they ALL believed.

Their differing opinion was at what point the New Birth took place, however, this did not prevent them from calling each other "brother."

If it were only so today...

[Scott Hutchinson]

History is what it is,leave it alone.

[returnman]

I agree with this. It is easy to think that the PAJC thought like today's camp which can't be based on the well expressed statements below.

Originally Posted by Barb

I know you are joking, but see, here's what I don't understand about the merger and those who strongly hold that the PCIers were in the minority...

If the PAJCers out numbered the PCIers, and knew or felt they believed and taught an incorrect or wrong doctrine, as some truly claim, why align with them at all? It just doesn't make sense.

No, I think the PAJCers believed there was enough in common to form a bond of agreement. Why else would they merge, even going as far as making a PCIer the first GS...

No, I'm sorry, but I don't see why they would do all of that with folks they didn't truly believe to be saved and sanctified.

And then to name this new alignment the UNITED Pentecostal Church, Inc. If I'm going to take your hand and form a bond of working under a banner of unity, I have to trust that we are more alike than we are different.

This just makes sense...

[returnman]

Some poster has a quote from a pentecostal herald back in the late 40's I believe that states that "all articles concerning the new birth will be accepted regardless of ones position on before or after baptism."
That speaks volumes to me.

[Scott Hutchinson]

My question is,if a organization was formed,to allow both views,why did this have to be changed later on ?