Original Merger Letter

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I was referring to the letter in post 1, Elder.

What do you think the letter would say that was sent to the membership of the PAJC??? It was a merger was it not??? I wonder if anyone has the letter the PCI sent out?

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I gave him a direct quote from I pastor I have known for years that matters little since it does not validate his point. The pastor involved has never wore a colored shirt to church since that encounter after all Elder Goss was a legend particulary to the NB brethren. He was not criticizing Goss but just relating a story. I can give you his phone number he is a Texan now.

I totally believe you Elder. The problem is that DA is not going to accept anything that would show the movement actually strengthened in holiness and/or doctrinal stance.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I gave him a direct quote from I pastor I have known for years that matters little since it does not validate his point. The pastor involved has never wore a colored shirt to church since that encounter after all Elder Goss was a legend particulary to the NB brethren. He was not criticizing Goss but just relating a story. I can give you his phone number he is a Texan now.

Further, maybe what you need to do is write a a book. Then those "direct quotes" are concrete evidence.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Say, uhm, it seems to me you have lately been referring to EG's writings and not the letter. Silly me, I am wrong again. Somehow you can start with a letter, digress to a book and then when someone else mentions the book you respond by saying you were talking about the letter. Wow.

Sir ... I referred to the primary document as the letter ... of which you refuse to examine in light of the view that somehow the AS in 1992 was justified since they had agreed to come to the unity of faith .... hence your side won.

The book is an eyewitness account ... and also is a primary document. Yet, my question was whether or not bible colleges use primary documents when examining OP history ... or do they take the opinion of their teacher's as gods.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by rrford

Say, uhm, it seems to me you have lately been referring to EG's writings and not the letter. Silly me, I am wrong again. Somehow you can start with a letter, digress to a book and then when someone else mentions the book you respond by saying you were talking about the letter. Wow.

Originally Posted by rrford

Further, maybe what you need to do is write a a book. Then those "direct quotes" are concrete evidence.

Ah no ... it would not be the view of an eyewitness account ... there is a pecking order when it comes to handling and analyzing historical data ... Primary documents and artifacts are most reliable .... second hand accounts are just that.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sir ... I referred to the primary document as the letter ... of which you refuse to examine in light of the view that somehow the AS in 1992 was justified since they had agreed to come to the unity of faith .... hence your side won.

The book is an eyewitness account ... and also is a primary document. Yet, my question was whether or not bible colleges use primary documents when examining OP history ... or do they take the opinion of their teacher's as gods.

I have never belonged to the UPC was not raised in a UPC church never went to a UPC bible college however I have as long as I can remember there was a difference of opinion in the merger. How could any preacher not know?
I will agree the PCI view(so-called) was not the majority and eventually decreased that would not be a conspiracy that would be called conversion to a point of view.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sir ... I referred to the primary document as the letter ... of which you refuse to examine in light of the view that somehow the AS in 1992 was justified since they had agreed to come to the unity of faith .... hence your side won.

The book is an eyewitness account ... and also is a primary document. Yet, my question was whether or not bible colleges use primary documents when examining OP history ... or do they take the opinion of their teacher's as gods.

Exaclty how does the letter take away from two groups coming together, who had differing views, yet agreeing to work towards a cohesive view?

Further, if all accounts are right, the letter portrays either a much happier spirit in the conference than others have said, (which would make the writer incredibly ignorant for disseminating such a letter) or the spirit actually was a good one that would allow the groups to find cohesive belief over time.

The problem DA, is that you tend to stand against majority views. If you would back up from such a stance you too could see why the nerger occured with differing views and why in time those views would meld into a cohesive view. To think otherwise is somewhat tunnel visioned.

As for what BC's teach perhaps you could visit/call each of them and ask.

[rrford]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I have never belonged to the UPC was not raised in a UPC church never went to a UPC bible college however I have as long as I can remember there was a difference of opinion in the merger. How could any preacher not know?
I will agree the PCI view(so-called) was not the majority and eventually decreased that would not be a conspiracy that would be called conversion to a point of view.

Could it even be "unity of the faith." (DA will appreciate the "revisionist" history point. But then again, as you said, there have always been differing views of the merger.)

[Steve Epley]

A point to consider many men in both PCI & PAJC recieved the HGB before they were baptized. Goss and others recieved the HGB (even though he said Parham baptized him in Jesus Name) but many did without knowing about baptism in Jesus Name HOWEVER when they heard they obeyed. My pastor was raised in a church that was anti-water baptism period, he recieved the HGB when he was nine years old he was already married when he heard baptism in Jesus Name and obeyed. I fear many of these good men instead of just accepting what the Bible clearly teaches they attempted to make the Bible fit their experience instead of having their experience fit the Bible. My opinion.

[stmatthew]

Does the words "UNTIL WE ALL COME" mean anything in this discussion?