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

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How about preach it both ways as both are Bible?

Good word

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

. I would also agree that hearing holy Trinity would make you queezy. The problem is if you have a 100 watt light bulb in truth and someone has a 60 watt lightbulb in truth.. the 100 watt will never be quite comfortable in the 6o as it is darker

I agree 100% with the bold statement above. To tell you the truth (I'm sure any former trinitarian who has received the revelation of the Godhead will tell you the same), there's such an inexplicable joy you get when you know that Jesus ALONE is God. One's faith leaps incredibly beyond description.

However, my present situation only affords me to go to this particular church (It's pentecostal btw...)

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by SDG

I will dispel the myths of the "indistinguishable" PAJC and PCI view this afternoon ... Granted both believed in Jesus Name baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Onesss in the same light ... [let's not forget that men like Goss who was AG and was in the center of the "new issue"] .... but to say that their soteriological views were lock step or that their views baptismal regeneration were identical... or preached Acts 2:38 as carbon copies .... is fallacious.

Men like Yadon, Goss, Gurley were very clear on their doctrinal views of salvation ... the attempt by modern PAJCers to blur the lines is perhaps an attempt to revise the history and the tragedy of the Affirmation statement.

I am not ashamed of my heritage ... I am not ashamed of the Oneness message ... I am not ashamed of Jesus name baptism ... or the in-filling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... but there is a distictness in our views as to when salvation is made available ... what baptism signifies and its purpose ... the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and a current movement to unify the movement under the "Acts 2:38" banner to ostracize those who do not hold the PAJC view .... see ya soon fellas.

God bless.

Love your post. Thank ye.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by SDG

I will dispel the myths of the "indistinguishable" PAJC and PCI view this afternoon ... Granted both believed in Jesus Name baptism, the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Onesss in the same light ... [let's not forget that men like Goss who was AG and was in the center of the "new issue"] .... but to say that their soteriological views were lock step or that their views baptismal regeneration were identical... or preached Acts 2:38 as carbon copies .... is fallacious.

Men like Yadon, Goss, Gurley were very clear on their doctrinal views of salvation ... the attempt by modern PAJCers to blur the lines is perhaps an attempt to revise the history and the tragedy of the Affirmation statement.

I am not ashamed of my heritage ... I am not ashamed of the Oneness message ... I am not ashamed of Jesus name baptism ... or the in-filling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... but there is a distictness in our views as to when salvation is made available ... what baptism signifies and its purpose ... the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost .... and a current movement to unify the movement under the "Acts 2:38" banner to ostracize those who do not hold the PAJC view .... see ya soon fellas.

God bless.

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

The belief that water baptism is the place where sins are washed away and connecting it to the new birth of John 3:5 was taught long before the Roman Catholic church.

Sam, you and SDG (Dan A.) have been around this site long enough to know these things. Why are you comparing this doctrine to the RCC or the Cambellites? Why not go directly back to the first nonbiblical writings concerning this?

Check it out and get your facts straight. Here is a place you can start looking...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=195

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=197

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by Sam

Thank you, SDG. Many Apostolics do not even know what those called "Apostolic" in years past taught about salvation. They have been led to believe that Apostolics have always taught that water and Spirit baptism were the birth of water and Spirit and necessary for salvation. That was a later teaching. Some have called it the Campbellite captivity of the church because the Campbellite doctrine of water baptism being necessary for salvation was brought in by some Apostolics. Also, the Roman Catholic doctrine that water baptism washes away sins and that it is the birth of water spoken of in John 3:5 has become part of the theology of some Apostolics. Check out the notes at John chapter 3 in a Roman Catholic Bible and you'll see where that comes from. Some have not moved far enough away from Romish, papist doctrine and practice.

The doctrine of baptism washing away sins in not RC. Its Pauline.

In his own conversion, Ananias told paul in Acts 22:16, Why tarriest thou, Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You put baptism with calling on the name of Jesus and it equals washing away of sins.

Regardless of what PCI and PAJC believed or didn't believe, the bible does not change. By the own words of the Lord, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Baptism is necessary according to the word. That is all that matters. But Baptism is nothing without Faith and faith is the point of justification. Without baptism faith is simply word, not deed.


You can study any of the "Fathers" before the complete formation of the RC, such as Iranaeus, Polycarp, Justin, etc and they all believed the same thing regarding baptism, that it was necessary for God's grace to operate in our lives. It is a free gift, but there is an entrance to that free gift and that entrance is Christ and the way to be put on Christ, is to be baptized in Christ.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The belief that water baptism is the place where sins are washed away and connecting it to the new birth of John 3:5 was taught long before the Roman Catholic church.

Sam, you and SDG (Dan A.) have been around this site long enough to know these things. Why are you comparing this doctrine to the RCC or the Cambellites? Why not go directly back to the first nonbiblical writings concerning this?

Check it out and get your facts straight. Here is a place you can start looking...

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=195

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=197

Apparently we were commenting at the same time, didn't mean to copy the subject matter of your post but well said.

[Sabby]

[QUOTE=Fireside;15424]There is a huge difference between the old PCI men and those laying claim to it today.

They preached the New Birth with fervor and great emphasis.

These retreads today do not, preferring to ooze around it and deal with subjects that don't confront anything controversial.

Those old PCI men were moving toward truth; most of these modern dudes are moving away from it, hence the difference in emphasis and focus.[/QUOTE

I'm just an old retread...probably a Goodyear or Firestone.

[Sabby]

Fireside, my friend,
The application of Acts 2:38 is what defined the difference between the "good and the bad and the ugly". At least at the time of the merger the desire for unity was so strong that there was tolerance for differences of opinion. History is what it is.
Look at how "United" things have become!

[Sabby]

1 Faith, your statement ended with "Without baptism faith is simply word, not deed."
You just proved my point. We are not saved by "deeds", but by belief (faith) that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He is raised from the dead.

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." 1 John 4:2
"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:15
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." 1 John 5:1

One of the principle rules in good hermeneutics is to have enough scripture to support your doctrine. Of course he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved! (Mk 16:16)Because he believes he is baptized. Look at the rest of your reference...notice it does not say that he that "believeth not and is not baptized", because the emphasis in the verse is the primary verb, BELIEVETH.
I am in no way saying that baptism is not necessary, which some are quick to say. It is just not necessary to be saved, otherwise (back to your point) we have to do a "deed" in order to be saved, and brother, noone has that prerogative but Jesus, His finished work on the cross and resurrection.