The Current PAJC Beliefs

[commonsense]

AS always, there is a wealth of information on this forum. I grew up in a UPC family and UPC church. Although I was taught, accepted, believed the PAJC 3 stepper message for salvation and understood it to be essential, it was with a different attitude.
My dad came into the truth in 1929, along with his family and in the next couple of years they were all Baptized and received the HG. My mother received the HG in 1934 and was Baptized in Jesus name in 1935. I'm giving background in order to support my statements.
My parents had been serving God for a few years before the UPC was on the scene, so when I was born their knowledge of "truth" was imbedded in their lives.
The Acts 2:38 message was solid in our house and never questioned, BUT, by the same token I was not taught some of the intolerance so prevelant today. I don't know if it was the loving spirit of my parents or the teaching they received but I do not recall the mean spiritedness of today. We were indeed taught that we had the "truth"; but all the "others" weren't condemned.

Since my mother had attended ABI (pre 1945) and two of my dad's brothers also went to ABI it is possible that the way Bro Norris approached the subject was influencial but none the less I think the church today has changed from the 1950's . My father and mother are not alive so I'm not able to question them on the PCI or other teachings of the 30's and 40's. I still love the
Acts 2:38 message, but find that we have attached addendums to the original.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Felicity
But you see boys .... this is the thing ....... we all preach and teach Acts 2:38 and we all get the same results!!

Originally Posted by Barb
Before I turn in, let me say that this is a good point that no one seemed to jump on, and it leads me to ask...

Remembering folks that I am of the 'PAJC' view, if we all get the same results, is it that important at what point salvation takes place?! Are we reaching too hard for the differences rather than building on that which we agree?!

Originally Posted by Sam
Wasn't that the idea when two groups merged in 1945 and agreed to disagree around a "fundamental doctrine statement" and allowed both views to be presented in their new magazine called "The Pentecostal Herald"?
___________________________________

Thought I'd bump these posts and see if anyone else cares to chime in with a response...I like Bro. Sam's point...what say ye?!

[Coonskinner]

*Pass the tissues*

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

*Pass the tissues*

Meaning?!

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by commonsense

AS always, there is a wealth of information on this forum. I grew up in a UPC family and UPC church. Although I was taught, accepted, believed the PAJC 3 stepper message for salvation and understood it to be essential, it was with a different attitude.
My dad came into the truth in 1929, along with his family and in the next couple of years they were all Baptized and received the HG. My mother received the HG in 1934 and was Baptized in Jesus name in 1935. I'm giving background in order to support my statements.
My parents had been serving God for a few years before the UPC was on the scene, so when I was born their knowledge of "truth" was imbedded in their lives.
The Acts 2:38 message was solid in our house and never questioned, BUT, by the same token I was not taught some of the intolerance so prevelant today. I don't know if it was the loving spirit of my parents or the teaching they received but I do not recall the mean spiritedness of today. We were indeed taught that we had the "truth"; but all the "others" weren't condemned.

Since my mother had attended ABI (pre 1945) and two of my dad's brothers also went to ABI it is possible that the way Bro Norris approached the subject was influencial but none the less I think the church today has changed from the 1950's . My father and mother are not alive so I'm not able to question them on the PCI or other teachings of the 30's and 40's. I still love the
Acts 2:38 message, but find that we have attached addendums to the original.

Thank you for your input. It continues to give credence to the fact that the current "stinky" attitude displayed in some circles was more of a recent addition than an original intent.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Look, I agree wih Brther Epley on what the bible teaches it takes to be saved.
By that I mean Acts 2:38. I do not agree with freaky-cons that all that extra junk needs to be added for security reasons.

"For security reasons". I like that.


But what do you mean by "freaky-cons"?!! How are they different from regular cons?

And what is the "extra junk"? How extra is extra?

[tv1a]

Some lingering questions.

If one is saved @ repentance, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost is gravy how do you explain the fact many get the Holy Ghost before completing the other two steps?

On the surface it seems like the pci view doesn't reflect a "oneness" theology. Does a pci view differentiate between Jesus and the Holy Spirit? By most writings I've seen on this thread, it doesn't appear to be the case.

How can the pci position reconcile their views with the parable of the ten versions. If the oil represents the Holy Ghost, and five virgins were not able to join the bridegroom in the wedding, how can one say the infilling of the Holy Ghost is not essential to salvation?

The glass half full/half empty analogy doesn't stand up to what Jesus taught about the Holy Ghost. Either you have it or you don't. If one claims the Spirit of Jesus lives in them without receiving the Holy Ghost, than one is espousing something more than a oneness viewpoint.

These are a few lingering questions that doesn't seem to reconcile the validity of salvaion at repentance in my book. I'm no theologian, but I am a thinker, and I play chess. From what I see, the logical implications of the pci view changes does more than than just a salvational formula...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Some lingering questions.

If one is saved @ repentance, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost is gravy how do you explain the fact many get the Holy Ghost before completing the other two steps?

On the surface it seems like the pci view doesn't reflect a "oneness" theology. Does a pci view differentiate between Jesus and the Holy Spirit? By most writings I've seen on this thread, it doesn't appear to be the case.

How can the pci position reconcile their views with the parable of the ten versions. If the oil represents the Holy Ghost, and five virgins were not able to join the bridegroom in the wedding, how can one say the infilling of the Holy Ghost is not essential to salvation?

The glass half full/half empty analogy doesn't stand up to what Jesus taught about the Holy Ghost. Either you have it or you don't. If one claims the Spirit of Jesus lives in them without receiving the Holy Ghost, than one is espousing something more than a oneness viewpoint.

These are a few lingering questions that doesn't seem to reconcile the validity of salvaion at repentance in my book. I'm no theologian, but I am a thinker, and I play chess. From what I see, the logical implications of the pci view changes does more than than just a salvational formula...

Very good.

[Felicity]

There are too many problems with the "not born again/saved until you speak in tongues" doctrine for me to be able to accept it. That's the bottom line.

It's not that I don't want to. I mean why wouldn't I want to accept this as being truth if it was? Makes no sense that I wouldn't.

If we preach Acts 2:38 as it's written it's not problematic at all. And we get the same results .... those of us who believe and preach it.

People are receiving the baptism of the Spirit all over the world who've never heard tell of the "three steps to salvation" doctrine. God is true to His promise and His Word to pour out His Spirit on all mankind. Pentecost is the largest religious movement in the world today.

[SDG]

TV ... Sam answered your same questions in the PCI beliefs thread ....

Here it goes again ...

1. At salvation/regeneration/justification Jesus comes into a person's heart as the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus Christ/Spirit of the Lord/Holy Ghost. He is Christ in you the hope of glory.

2. Baptism in the Spirit is an immersion/overwhelming/saturation/empowerment experience in the Spirit subsequent to salvation

At salvation, the Holy Spirit comes in and takes over and transforms the individual. This is living water within according to John 4 and drinking from the well of salvation according to Isaiah 12. The HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) is rivers of living water flowing out according to John 7:37-39.

At salvation the Holy Spirit comes in and is like a pilot light (for you who are old enough to remember that term). At HGB the pilot light becomes a flame, energizing, anointing, and releasing gifts in us.

John chapter 20 was a maternity ward. Acts chapter 2 was a bapsitmal tank.

It has been described this way.
Imagine an empty water glass and a pitcher full of water on a table.
1. Lift the pitcher and fill the glass. Set the pitcher back on the table. The glass is full of water. This represents salvation/regeneration.
2. Pick up the glass full of water, and gently lower it into the pitcher of water until it is sitting on its bottom in the pitcher. Now the glass is not only filled with water, it is also submerged/immersed/saturated in the water. This represents the Holy Ghost baptism.