The Difference Between the PCI of the Merger and the Current Counterfeits

[Sabby]

It's clear we disagree on when the blood is applied to those that believe.
My position is as Abraham was justified by faith (not by entering the promised land), so are we.
Paul makes it pretty clear that our justification is credited to us on the basis of faith alone; not because we obeyed God in an act of good conscience.

Hebrews makes us to know that faith alone motivated Abraham into action, but it was not the action that saved/justified him. So it is with water baptism. It is an act of good conscience for the believer-it's what they should do-but only faith in what Jesus has done for us gives us justification.

We disagree on the "when" we are forgiven. I submit to you that with your rationale, every time a believer sins (which can happen) that when they repent/re-commit they are obligated to re-baptize. After all, isn't the blood only applied in the water?

I understand where you are coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree with your position.

My position is just as apostolic as yours, and I accept anyone that believes as you do as a brother in Christ!


Sincerely,
DR

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

It's clear we disagree on when the blood is applied to those that believe.
My position is as Abraham was justified by faith (not by entering the promised land), so are we.
Paul makes it pretty clear that our justification is credited to us on the basis of faith alone; not because we obeyed God in an act of good conscience.

Hebrews makes us to know that faith alone motivated Abraham into action, but it was not the action that saved/justified him. So it is with water baptism. It is an act of good conscience for the believer-it's what they should do-but only faith in what Jesus has done for us gives us justification.

We disagree on the "when" we are forgiven. I submit to you that with your rationale, every time a believer sins (which can happen) that when they repent/re-commit they are obligated to re-baptize. After all, isn't the blood only applied in the water?

I understand where you are coming from, but I have to respectfully disagree with your position.

My position is just as apostolic as yours, and I accept anyone that believes as you do as a brother in Christ!


Sincerely,
DR

Once you are buried in Christ's death, why would you need to be rebaptized again? No you do not understand my position.

Abraham believed God and it was counted for righteousness. How did Abraham believe God and what did he do in response to it? To abraham there was no command to be baptized, rather his convenant came with circumcision which he did later.

My point is Jesus is the one who stated regarding baptism.

mark 16:16, Peter preached under the inspiration of the HG acts 2:38

be baptized FOR the remission of sins.

Ananias told Paul
to be baptized and call on the name of the Lord (talking about when he was baptized) to wash away his sins.

Paul said when we are baptized we are buried with Christ
Read Romans 6 very carefully.

you are saying it was not the action that justified Abraham, Paul said it wasn't by works of the law. We are not in the law. We are under the gospel and the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

our response to the gospel is to repent ( an action) to be baptized (an action) and we will receive the HG ( a promise)

By your reasoning we don't have to do anything but believe in the gospel, do not need to repent because its an action

[Sabby]

Again, Abraham believed God and it was accounted (credited) to him for righteousness.
He believed what God promised.
The same is true for those that heard Peter's convicting sermon on the day of Pentecost. They believed Peter's message.
What say you concerning those that God fills with the HG prior to baptism?

[Sabby]

Let's not forget that this thread is about the different views of the PAJC and PCI brethren. This is one of the very issues in which they disagreed. The fact that Witherspoon was wise enough to include a compromise clause (and that the brothers at that time were wise enough to agree to it) showed a lot more tolerance than what we see today.
PCI brethren believed in One God, faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues, and living crucified lives in true holiness. The difference between then and now is there is now less tolerance by those holding the PAJC mindset for a different view concerning the application of this set of basic apostolic doctrine.
Revisionists can try to rewrite history if they want, but I knew some of those founders personally and I know what they believed.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

Again, Abraham believed God and it was accounted (credited) to him for righteousness.
He believed what God promised.
The same is true for those that heard Peter's convicting sermon on the day of Pentecost. They believed Peter's message.
What say you concerning those that God fills with the HG prior to baptism?

Its a promise to all who believe. We still are commanded to go into Christ's death. Many get the HG but still don't continue in their salvation. THe buck doesn't stop at receiving the Spirit, we must also walk in it.

As far as Peter is concerned. They asked him what they should do, Peter told them. Its the same for us. We cannot say you are already saved now, but you still need to be baptized and receive the holy Ghost. Peter didn't say that to them and neither can I.

Jesus said you MUST repent or you will perish. If we are saved by just believing, Jesus would be putting on us MORE than is what is needed.

Mind you I believe we are saved by becoming a believer, its just more than admitting I'm a sinner and Christ died for me. What do I DO with that knowledge?

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

Let's not forget that this thread is about the different views of the PAJC and PCI brethren. This is one of the very issues in which they disagreed. The fact that Witherspoon was wise enough to include a compromise clause (and that the brothers at that time were wise enough to agree to it) showed a lot more tolerance than what we see today.
PCI brethren believed in One God, faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion in Jesus' name, the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence in speaking in other tongues, and living crucified lives in true holiness. The difference between then and now is there is now less tolerance by those holding the PAJC mindset for a different view concerning the application of this set of basic apostolic doctrine.
Revisionists can try to rewrite history if they want, but I knew some of those founders personally and I know what they believed.

I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG. I think it was more of when they in their mind assumed someone was saved. I'm aware of the belief differences. Matter of fact during the merger the officials spent hours working all that out. Suffice to say what the Bible shows is final authority and when I read the Bible, it says both that we are saved by grace through faith, confession, belief, belief and being baptized, and by being born of water and Spirit, and by being led of the spirit.

Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event. I think the correct question is when does a person's sins be remitted. I believe its at repentance and baptism.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I don't think they disagreed to the point of telling someone its ok to not be baptized in Jesus name and seek the HG. I think it was more of when they in their mind assumed someone was saved. I'm aware of the belief differences. Matter of fact during the merger the officials spent hours working all that out. Suffice to say what the Bible shows is final authority and when I read the Bible, it says both that we are saved by grace through faith, confession, belief, belief and being baptized, and by being born of water and Spirit, and by being led of the spirit.

Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event. I think the correct question is when does a person's sins be remitted. I believe its at repentance and baptism.

So the PCI taught sins were remitted at repentance while the PAJC taught sins were not remitted until baptism?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

So the PCI taught sins were remitted at repentance while the PAJC taught sins were not remitted until baptism?

generally speaking, yes

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sam

generally speaking, yes

But yet, they still "united." I guess the reason why there is so much friction today is because the foundation itself was initially shaky. A shaky foundation would definitely crumble after a while (matt 7:27). It probably would have been better if both groups had gone their separate ways. Ofcourse, that is not to say divisions would not still rise among each group.

Random thoughts...
Are we ever gonna see eye to eye?! I think not.
Two people read 1 John 5:7 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Matt 28:19 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Acts 2:38 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read 1 Tim 2:9-10 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
And the list goes on...

Well, as for me...

Mark 9
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Phil 2:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice .

[Sam]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

But yet, they still "united." I guess the reason why there is so much friction today is because the foundation itself was initially shaky. A shaky foundation would definitely crumble after a while (matt 7:27). It probably would have been better if both groups had gone their separate ways. Ofcourse, that is not to say divisions would not still rise among each group.

Random thoughts...
Are we ever gonna see eye to eye?! I think not.
Two people read 1 John 5:7 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Matt 28:19 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read Acts 2:38 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
Two people read 1 Tim 2:9-10 - They arrive at entirely different conclusions
And the list goes on...

Well, as for me...

Mark 9
(38) And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. (39) But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. (40) For he that is not against us is on our part.

Phil 2:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice .

Bro. Goss was very clear when he spoke to the students at the Bible School in Stockton, CA that he was saved prior to his water and Spirit baptisms. He believed that Baptists would be in the Bride of Christ and in the Rapture.

Today we are presented with a "revisionist history" that "all" Apostolics believe water and Spirit baptisms equal the new birth but that is not actually true. For years Apostolics believed and preached that salvation took place in a person's life prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptism. Later, some began to preach the water and Spirit doctrine and now it has become very commonplace in the UPC and we act like it's the only legitimate Apostolic message.