Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ?

[mizpeh]

To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and to repent of your sins are not the same thing, Pel.

What must one do to receive the "remission of sins?" Evidently the only requirement is belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Turn from a position of unbelief ("repent") and believe that Jesus is the Christ and that He died for you.

To receive remission of sins one must believe, repent, and be baptized (every one) in the name of Jesus Christ....

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You can view the entire PCI Manual of 1945 here:

http://xcomplex.com/index.php?option...ment&Itemid=30

Be patient. It takes a minute for the images to load.

I clicked on the page and in the upper right hand corner it said, "Meet Apostolic Singles"!

I'll read it. I've always known about the two groups that merged and one of them believed in salvation by grace and the other didn't, and the inclusion of the line "We will not contend for the unity of the faith" that was speaking of that difference, but dang, to read it in writing is amazing!

But the "Trinity" thing!! Wow!! That blew my mind.

Pel, I'm not the scholar you are, not by a mile, but when it all comes down to the bottom line, SO much of this is a lot of hooey about nothing...on their part! It seems like "they" work SO hard at being different, that they end up stretching things endlessly. How someone can stretch the scriptures SO far that they end up claiming that one must speak in tongues to be saved is astonishing.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I clicked on the page and in the upper right hand corner it said, "Meet Apostolic Singles"!

I'll read it. I've always known about the two groups that merged and one of them believed in salvation by grace and the other didn't, and the inclusion of the line "We will not contend for the unity of the faith" that was speaking of that difference, but dang, to read it in writing is amazing!

But the "Trinity" thing!! Wow!! That blew my mind.

Pel, I'm not the scholar you are, not by a mile, but when it all comes down to the bottom line, SO much of this is a lot of hooey about nothing...on their part! It seems like "they" work SO hard at being different, that they end up stretching things endlessly. How someone can stretch the scriptures SO far that they end up claiming that one must speak in tongues to be saved is astonishing.

the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Sam

now you know why some of us harp on "revisionist history" that is being presented today

now you know why some of us say that what began as a gentleman's agreement in 1945 with the affirmation statement became a hostile takeover by mean-spirited and intolerant militants in later years

Wow, yes I can. You've gotta feel like it was stolen from you.

So you think a lot of this has anything to do with a change in culture/climate? For example, take what's allowed and what's taboo on TV. In the 1950's, it was perfectly acceptable for Ralph Kramden to threaten hit his wife "in the kisser". That would never be allowed today. Today, however, we see endless sexual innuendos that would have never been allowed in the 50's.

So do you think the pentecostal culture has just gone through a phase where it focused on different things, like, maybe they needed a new battlefield?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone said, "But we do believe in salvation by grace"!! You didn't disappoint and it was quicker than I thought.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and to repent of your sins are not the same thing, Pel.

Seems Paul preached a different Gospel than yours:

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

To receive remission of sins one must believe, repent, and be baptized (every one) in the name of Jesus Christ....

So then you are in disagreement with the UPC's Articles of Faith?

... and the Apostle Paul?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the other group did/does believe in salvation by grace. They apparently don't believe salvation comes at initial faith before repentance, baptism or the infilling of the Spirit witih tongues.

Romans 11:5-6.

If it comes "by works" at all, then it is not "of grace." Period.

You've got to get the foundation correct otherwise the whole house will tumble down. That is what we are seeing today in the UPC. They abandoned the one attachment that they had to the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

Once they left salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) they lost the foundation entirely (Ephesians 2:7-22).

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Wow, yes I can. You've gotta feel like it was stolen from you.

So you think a lot of this has anything to do with a change in culture/climate? For example, take what's allowed and what's taboo on TV. In the 1950's, it was perfectly acceptable for Ralph Kramden to threaten hit his wife "in the kisser". That would never be allowed today. Today, however, we see endless sexual innuendos that would have never been allowed in the 50's.

So do you think the pentecostal culture has just gone through a phase where it focused on different things, like, maybe they needed a new battlefield?

Well, at the merger there were two prevailing opinions. Here on the forum we call them one-step and three-step. Some believed the merger was a mistake and did not join. Some went back and got the charter name PAJC and renewed it and that group still exists today. Their headquarters building is here in Ohio about an hour from my home. I'm subscribed to their magazine. It's a small organization.

There were always some who considered Bro. Goss and others as "weak on the message" and they tried to minimize them. In time the more conservative brethren got the fundamental doctrine statement revised to include the words "for the remission of sins" in 1973. Then the infamous affirmation statement was adopted in 1992 to further drive out those who were considered weak on the message.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Romans 11:5-6.

If it comes "by works" at all, then it is not "of grace." Period.

You've got to get the foundation correct otherwise the whole house will tumble down. That is what we are seeing today in the UPC. They abandoned the one attachment that they had to the "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone."

Once they left salvation by faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9) they lost the foundation entirely (Ephesians 2:7-22).

Then the one steppers are all lost. They don't believe it comes by grace alone..period. For them salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone...and repentance.

Again they did not leave salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. There isn't a single 3 stepper out there that would say "I don't believe in grace or faith"

And for many obedience to the gospel is not a work. If works is 'anything I can do", then everyone believes they are saved by works...putting faith in Christ..something you can do. Repentance..something you can do. Confession..something you can do.

This is why I mentioned the slippery slope earlier of those that believe salvation comes before faith and repentance and actually just allows us to have faith and repent. I watched some of their progression...salvation comes before repentance at faith....but since faith or believing is something we do the next progression was salvation by Grace alone by predestiny...those that are saved will then have faith and repent.

nobody that believes in repentance or baptism as a necessity claims they are earning their salvation. Rather they claim they are obeying what God told them to don and that God promised to do something when the did.

So I don't buy the "they don't believe in grace or faith" argument. Does that mean they are right in their dogmatic 3 step approach to salvation? No

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, at the merger there were two prevailing opinions. Here on the forum we call them one-step and three-step. Some believed the merger was a mistake and did not join. Some went back and got the charter name PAJC and renewed it and that group still exists today. Their headquarters building is here in Ohio about an hour from my home. I'm subscribed to their magazine. It's a small organization.

There were always some who considered Bro. Goss and others as "weak on the message" and they tried to minimize them. In time the more conservative brethren got the fundamental doctrine statement revised to include the words "for the remission of sins" in 1973. Then the infamous affirmation statement was adopted in 1992 to further drive out those who were considered weak on the message.

I've always known of the PAJC but did not know that was their origin. Interesting. And I guess I'm one of the "weak" ones from '93.

I'll always believe, however, that the "powers that be" (or were) didn't really want to clean people out. I didn't sign my affirmation statement and sent with it and an explanation of why I could not sign it, which would, or course, send me on my way, right? Wrong. I received my renewed license within a week.

But, it burned a hole in my pocket and I mailed it back.

And to this day, one of the funniest things ever is that Richard Gazowsky still has a card in his wallet! Unbelievable....first that he, evidently, signs the statement, and second, that they send him a card. Complete hypocrisy on both counts.