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

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Would you agree that many modern Apostolic churches have made it so ...?
Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever ...



Click here to read Jason Dulle on the subject

Yes, that's why they spoke in togues at Cornelius household, to convince the Jews who would not believe that the gentiles could be a part of the church.

Same thing with the Samaritans, who the Jews could never believe could be added the church.

God added this sign to their experience to help the UN believing Jew's to accept these other's into the church.

Henceforth Pauls admonition the Corinthian church that tongues were a sign to those who believe not.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Yes, that's why they spoke in togues at Cornelius household, to convince the Jews who would not believe that the gentiles could be a part of the church.

Same thing with the Samaritans, who the Jews could never believe could be added the church.

God added this sign to their experience to help the UN believing Jew's to accept these other's into the church.

Henceforth Pauls admonition the Corinthian church that tongues were a sign to those who believe not.

R U saying one should be considered a church member prior or after this evidence???

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

The early Apostolic church never ever said tongues was the evidence of a persons salvation.

I think many here have a differing opinoin of who the REAL Counterfeit's are.

They may, but Coonskinner has a valid point.

There seems to be a great disdain among some posters for an emphasis on the Holy Spirit baptism. I hadn't realized it was so widespread until I viewed some of the comments on this thread.

From what I have seen there are three basic categories of belief represented here.

1. Traditional mainline UPC stance of John 3:5, John 3:16 and Acts 2:38.
(This is where I stand.)
2. Pre-merger PCI adherents who preach repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling as necessary - but perhaps not necessary for salvation. They feel these things should be fulfilled to ensure obedience, or to enhance the believers life.
3. Backsliders who reject the notions (and scriptural imperatives) espoused by the first two groups. They enjoy some aspects of the culture, but fall back to a more Lutherian view of belief as the only requirement for salvation.
They are nothing more than mainline Protestants.

Now, I know I will be beaten severly about the head and shoulders for using the word "backsliders", but it is the truest application of the word in this discussion. Many posting here have gone back to a pre-Topeka understanding.

[Sherri]

Whew...glad I fit in category two. I'd hate to be labeled a backslider!!! I think Coonskinner was a tad harsh in his initial post, but I understand where he's coming from. Although he would probably put me and my husband in with his backslider list. Although I highly respect him, I'm glad he's not God.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

R U saying one should be considered a church member prior or after this evidence???

I don't really care when you consider a person a church member.

God calls you his when you believe and recieve the word.

When a person comes to a realizatrion that they cannot save themselves , that Christ is all sufficient savior. When they trust him fully for their salvation and forgivness of sins. when they profess this faith to others and thru Godly sorrow for their past , they repent or turn from the direction of their before sinful life.

So yes, I beleive the word is clear that they are His or in "the church" before they ever seek and recieve the gift of tongues.

Now, I know I will be beat severly about the head and shoulders for using the word "backsliders", but it is the truest application of the word in this discussion. Many posting here have gone back to a pre-Topeka understanding

Maybe reprobate might be a better word.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Garfield

Maybe reprobate might be a better word.

way harsh, dude

[SDG]

Disdain for an emphasis on the baptism of the HG ...? Please clarify ... I don't see any of that here ... has some one said it is not necessary????

I do see an honest discussion about some of those who seek to force-feed a a glorious and wonderful gift of empowerment and comfort.

[freeatlast]

Whatever we call each other..just know that we will ALL give an account to God for what we say of others.

tread cautiously.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Whew...glad I fit in category two. I'd hate to be labeled a backslider!!! I think Coonskinner was a tad harsh in his initial post, but I understand where he's coming from. Although he would probably put me and my husband in with his backslider list. Although I highly respect him, I'm glad he's not God.

me too.