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

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

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.

Because I believe that a person is justified/saved/born again by faith and prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptisms, I am comfortable going to a trinity church, fellowshipping Christians from both trinity and oneness backgrounds, and accepting people who love Jesus from both trinity and oneness backgrounds as brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Sabby]

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.

Your point, "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." is well taken. It's certainly not my position not to baptize in Jesus' name or not enjoin someone to seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Your point that "Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event." is well taken as well. It very nearly proves both of our points.

Another point you made is also well taken, that is, "when I read the Bible". It is a great comment. Not everyone will come to your conclusion, which is ok. Just as your conclusion is ok. The danger (what we have seen happen) is "contending for our different views"...makes us enemies of one another instead of fellow-heirs and pretty much forget what John 17 was all about. Both of our views were in years past, prior to revisionism, considered apostolic.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Sam

Because I believe that a person is justified/saved/born again by faith and prior to and separate from water and Spirit baptisms, I am comfortable going to a trinity church, fellowshipping Christians from both trinity and oneness backgrounds, and accepting people who love Jesus from both trinity and oneness backgrounds as brothers and sisters in Christ.

It does not matter what we believe, it only matters what the Word teaches. Everyone must still repent, be baptized in jesus name, and then go on to receive the promise of the Holy Ghost. If they are doing that in the trinity church, great, if not; I'd be afraid to strive with the brethren who insist on false doctrine.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Shingledecker

Your point, "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." is well taken. It's certainly not my position not to baptize in Jesus' name or not enjoin someone to seek the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Your point that "Salvation is a process just as much or more than it is an event." is well taken as well. It very nearly proves both of our points.

Another point you made is also well taken, that is, "when I read the Bible". It is a great comment. Not everyone will come to your conclusion, which is ok. Just as your conclusion is ok. The danger (what we have seen happen) is "contending for our different views"...makes us enemies of one another instead of fellow-heirs and pretty much forget what John 17 was all about. Both of our views were in years past, prior to revisionism, considered apostolic.

Why thank you.

Actually people don't have to see it like I see it. They just need to follow the same plan of salvation the original church believed and follow in the holiness God leads them to. I'm not really out to make copies of onefaith2, just followers of Christ.

[mizpeh]

bump for balance

[Coonskinner]

This was one of my more successful threads, I would say.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

This was one of my more successful threads, I would say.

Yep, but you didn't keep on throwing hot peppers and stirring the pot!!!

[yuanyelss]

I think the distillation process as I walk the treadmill this morning and asked what God left me, if he is to turn up the heat and cook all of the excess of their own, in me...

[Narrow Is The Way]

Originally Posted by yuanyelss

I think the distillation process as I walk the treadmill this morning and asked what God left me, if he is to turn up the heat and cook all of the excess of their own, in me...

Admin!! This is an official communion overdose alert.

[pkdad]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

The point of this post is doctrinal--the ones who have backed up on the essentiality of the New Birth, and have decided to call themselves PCI.

Standards are a whole other issue.

New Birth gets me in the Body, my walk, in Holiness according to scripture will keep me, or Jesus will spew me out of his mouth.