Official Stance of UPC?

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Yeah, because you were supposed to have figured this out at the beginning of class. Those of you who can't see this probably need to be held back a grade.

There will be a test at the end, by the way.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

It's funny that this is about the official stance of UPCI, when if any one will read the history of UPCI they will find that the official stance has and allways has been faith in Christ followed by water baptism, (in Jesus Name) and the infilling of the holy ghost. As both beliefs came together to form the UPC. It has been only in the last years that three steppers have become more dominant pushing the three step plan of salvation.

The wording in the manual was carefuly worded as to include the onesteppers to keep the unity of the faith. Even our early fathers saw the need to keep things that way as the end result was more important to them than pushing thier three step doctrine on their one step bretheren and vise versa.

The Apostolic doctrine was never based on three steps or one steps, but rather that salvation was faith in the work of Christ on the cross followed by water baptism, (in Jesus Name) and recieving the added Power of the holy ghost (most times with outward evidence of speaking with tongues)

Good reminder Drummer, but remember, those that are adamant three steppers don't feel like the others "have arrived", so they are compelled to evangelize their more worldy brethren. (The "others" don't have enough, and need to know the "whole truth", etc.)
Yep, the reason it is named the "UNITED Pentecostal Church is because two groups that preached Acts 2:38 but DISAGREED as to its application decided to put aside their differences and merge in order to promote the name of JESUS and fulfill the Great Commission.

There is "another spirit" working in the UPC now.

[Pendragon]

Paul did exactly what you accuse 'three steppers' of doing (and make it sound like it's a bad thing). When Paul met the believers in Acts 19, he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and also asked them how they had been baptized. They had not received the Holy Spirit, and they hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, so he 'evangelized' them.

Coincidentally (or perhaps by design), Paul's teaching in Acts 19 lines up precisely with what Peter said in Acts 2:38: repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.

I will certainly agree with you that there is a certain 'nose in the air' attitude in some parts of the UPC. But that doesn't mean the truth is not the truth. The un-Christlike attitude of some believers may make it easier for you to dismiss their words, but it doesn't mean what they say is not true.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Paul did exactly what you accuse 'three steppers' of doing (and make it sound like it's a bad thing). When Paul met the believers in Acts 19, he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and also asked them how they had been baptized. They had not received the Holy Spirit, and they hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, so he 'evangelized' them.

Coincidentally (or perhaps by design), Paul's teaching in Acts 19 lines up precisely with what Peter said in Acts 2:38: repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.

I will certainly agree with you that there is a certain 'nose in the air' attitude in some parts of the UPC. But that doesn't mean the truth is not the truth. The un-Christlike attitude of some believers may make it easier for you to dismiss their words, but it doesn't mean what they say is not true.

so what do you do when some one is baptized in the name of the father son and Holy ghost and then God baptizes them with Spirit with evidence of tounges.

Do you tell them your almost there, but we need to change up that baptism, cause you havent completed Gods plan of salvation?

[Pendragon]

I've also seen people receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized at all.

Are you suggesting we cut out a few pieces from the Bible because obviously it appears people are being 'saved' without having to follow certain directives of the scripture?

I'm sure you can't be suggesting that. Also, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that salvation is not a finished work until we reach heaven.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I've also seen people receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized at all.

Are you suggesting we cut out a few pieces from the Bible because obviously it appears people are being 'saved' without having to follow certain directives of the scripture?

I'm sure you can't be suggesting that. Also, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that salvation is not a finished work until we reach heaven.

scripture is very clear anyone who has the Spirit is the Child of God, so they have recieved the promise. which was why people repented and were baptized. They done this to recieve the promise.

So the Holy Ghost is the promise of the new testament church. so im not seeing any contridiction in the bible. also one might need to study some greek and look at the scriptures again. cause its not about some one else calling on the name or invoking the name over you at baptism. its all about them caling upon the Lord themselves.

That is in the greek its very specific and its 1st person calling on the Lord.
Just as Paul did at His baptism, Just as the ethiopian admited at his baptism

[Sam]

Originally Posted by acerrak

so what do you do when some one is baptized in the name of the father son and Holy ghost and then God baptizes them with Spirit with evidence of tounges.

Do you tell them your almost there, but we need to change up that baptism, cause you havent completed Gods plan of salvation?

What is that name--that one name that is shared by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? We believe that name is Jesus.


What if someone is baptized in the name of Jesus but there are titles like Lord and Christ added, or titles like Father, Son, and Holy Ghost added? God knows what name you mean whether it is actually verbalized or not or whether you add titles to it.

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by Sam

What is that name--that one name that is shared by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost? We believe that name is Jesus.


What if someone is baptized in the name of Jesus but there are titles like Lord and Christ added, or titles like Father, Son, and Holy Ghost added? God knows what name you mean whether it is actually verbalized or not or whether you add titles to it.

The text in the greek if followed properly for translation infers three names.

I.E. it would be formaly translated in the Name of the father, In the name of the Son, and in the Name of the Holy spirit.

also one always needs to understand that name in many cases means authority.

Though Jesus name means Yahweh is slavation. the true name that the early hebrews recieved For God is practically non exsistance.

When jesus stated i will send a comforter in My name. He wasnt sending the comforter named Jesus. No He was stating i will send a comforter in my Authority.

also i have seen trinitarians say in the name of the father, son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

But Again. TO me its not about the words the babptizer says over a person when baptizing anyway. That really has no effect on a persons salvation at all. No ones salvation is ever dependant on another mans vocal chords in baptism for salvation.

My hole point is to point out the baptizee needs to be calling out to the Lord.

Saul why does though terry? arise be baptized washing away your sins (CALLING UPON) the name of the Lord <- When the baptizee Does that. He will have a valid baptism regardless if its according to matthew 28:19 or acts 2:38 That is all i am saying.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Paul did exactly what you accuse 'three steppers' of doing (and make it sound like it's a bad thing). When Paul met the believers in Acts 19, he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and also asked them how they had been baptized. They had not received the Holy Spirit, and they hadn't been baptized in Jesus' name, so he 'evangelized' them.

Coincidentally (or perhaps by design), Paul's teaching in Acts 19 lines up precisely with what Peter said in Acts 2:38: repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus, and you will receive the Holy Spirit.

I will certainly agree with you that there is a certain 'nose in the air' attitude in some parts of the UPC. But that doesn't mean the truth is not the truth. The un-Christlike attitude of some believers may make it easier for you to dismiss their words, but it doesn't mean what they say is not true.

Accusing who of doing what? I never said water baptism wasn't important...I would have done the same thing that Paul did (the very thing a "one stepper" OR a "three stepper" would do). He baptized them in the name of Jesus upon discovering their ignorance about the subject.
Notice, he baptized BELIEVERS. If they didn't believe they would not have been baptized. The scripture does not imply that those believers were not saved or in danger of being lost. It simply tells us that they had not yet been baptized and, as any lover of the name would do, he preached identification with Jesus Christ, BEGINNINGwith water baptism in Jesus' name, whether a-one a, a two-a, or a three-a step.
I'll reiterate, we preach the same verse, but are divided as to its application.

[Pendragon]

Originally Posted by Sabby

...those that are adamant three steppers don't feel like the others "have arrived", so they are compelled to evangelize their more worldy brethren. (The "others" don't have enough, and need to know the "whole truth", etc.)

This is what I meant by 'accusation'.