Bernard continues his rewrite of UPC history

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Barb

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...

In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

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

As Bernard states the INTENT (in his opinion) was that eventually the 1 step view would be come extinct. This is what I was taught and I was taught that it had, in effect, become extinct as was planned. Of course, I disagree that the 1 steppers ever agreed to become extinct especially since there are still one steppers in the movement.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I'm not trying to stir confusion,but if a view and those that held it,were good enough to be merged with,then things should have stayed that way.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

In truth they did not believe that. I have the 75th Anniversary Book of the First Church at Corinth, Ms. it has a record of their services in their early years and their own records state such a number got saved, others baptised and a number for HGBs. Nearly the whole PCI bunch taught salvation at repentance and mocked the idea Acts 2:38 was Jn. 3:5! Witherspoon had to play word gymnastics to find a meeting ground on the fundamental doctrine.
FULL NT salvation is??????????????????
However PCI men did fervently preach baptism in Jesus Name and the Holy Ghost baptism something their decendants do not do.

Elder, respectfully, if they "fervently preached" baptism in Jesus' Name and Spirit baptism then they believed the whole message...at what point initial salvation takes place is another point, one which did not prevent them from merging.

[Max Cosme]

And yet, now Bernard, wants to compare the godly men who gathered in 1945, with the founding fathers who knew that evils slavery would be extinguished. As if, those held held bible based views ... views, held throughout their lives, one steppers, along with light doctrine believers, entered the merger with the intent of seeing there views extinguished.

Bernard now finds himself, not only as the chief apologist, but now as the chief revisionist.

His agenda of complete uniformity has been the most divisive in the organization's history.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I'm not trying to stir confusion,but if a view and those that held it,were good enough to be merged with,then things should have stayed that way.

Should have been but 3 steppers contended for their own views to the disunity of the body instead.

[Chateau d'If]

I am no longer a part of the movement so I feel no angst.

However, I find the entire situation ironic.

Bernard denies the existence of the very men who created his platform.

That seems very wrong.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by ILG

Should have been but 3 steppers contended for their own views to the disunity of the body instead.

As they still do, for the most part.

[Barb]

I don't think it is wrong to ask the hard questions:

1. Was it truly the intent of the PAJCers to tolerate the PCIers until such time as they either changed their view or left?

2. Did Bro. Witherspoon have to scramble to find the rights words for the FD, and if so, where is the evidence of this? As he was alone in that room, does anyone have documentation in his own words that this was so?

3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes," then why did the PAJCers bother in the first place? Were there not other Oneness Pentecostals they could have aligned with? Were they not strong enough in number to form an organization on their own merit?

OR...

1. Did the fact that they all, PAJC and PCI, baptized folks in the Name and spoke in tongues when the Holy Ghost came make them one in Body? Is this the common bond that allowed them to merge?

2. Is this the reason they voted or appointed Bro. Howard Goss GS, even though he was PCI in doctrine?

3. The words, "until we all come into the unity of the faith" lead some to think that perhaps Bro. Witherspoon was saying he hoped the PCI brethren would grow into a more and perfect way. But is that not a careless act on the part of the PAJCers, for if they believed the brethren were in error, was there not the possibility of the PCI view becoming the accepted view?

4. As there may have been some in both camps who may not have favored a merger, could not the above quote from the FD mean that until we can agree to disagree we will not contend for our differing views?

All of this is conjecture on our part, yours and mine, for we will never truly know what was in the hearts and minds of these men of God. The only thing we do know is that they thought of each other as men of God or they would not have formed this union of fellowship.

And for 70+ years it worked...

[rgcraig]

I believe the PCI brethern were the more tolerant of the brothers and the others were more vocal, so eventually, the louder voice won out.