Heretics and Politics by Thomas A. Fudge

[AR Pastor]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

I see a gahtering. In my opinion there is more unity among holiness minded Apostolics in the last couple years. Brethren who were divided by organizationl boundaries are enjoying fellowship.

Of course there are those who are going liberal and falling away too!

I agree>

I am UPC but fellowship UPC, GIB, WPF and any man or church who preaches the fullness of the gospel. Good holiness people.

Don't fellowship libs. Don't mistreat them but don't go to their meetings or have them preach here.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by AR Pastor

I agree>

I am UPC but fellowship UPC, GIB, WPF and any man or church who preaches the fullness of the gospel. Good holiness people.

Don't fellowship libs. Don't mistreat them but don't go to their meetings or have them preach here.

My pastor is currently licensed UPC but we have very little fellowship with them. We fellowship WPF, AMF, and GIBs. Our church is independent.

One thing I have seen is there have been several churches in the last 5 years or so that have strengthened their stands. I really didnt realize how liberal my convictions and lifestyle standards were while we were still fellowshipping the UPC. Since the Tampa resolution when several pulled out, I think a lot of churches have raised their standard. I know there was not really any fellowship with the AMF brethren and your more conservative UPC, but now since those who have pulled out of the UPC have gotten stronger there is more unity and fellowship between conservative Apostolics as a whole IMO.

My pastor went to the AMC conference even when he was still active in the UPCI, so we have had some strong holiness influence for quite a while now. I really appreciate a man of God that is not afraid to go even beyond what he was taught to find the heartbeat of God and good holiness fellowship.

[Disciple4life]

As far as the merger goes, somebody on this forum once said

that before the merger you couldn't tell whether a church was PCI or PAJC because ACTS 2:38 was preached just as strong in both groups. Some members of churches didn't even know their pastor believed somebody was saved at belief because they preached ACTS 2:28 so strongly.

I can't remember who said it. BUT I know I read it here somewhere.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Disciple4life

As far as the merger goes, somebody on this forum once said

that before the merger you couldn't tell whether a church was PCI or PAJC because ACTS 2:38 was preached just as strong in both groups. Some members of churches didn't even know their pastor believed somebody was saved at belief because they preached ACTS 2:28 so strongly.

I can't remember who said it. BUT I know I read it here somewhere.

If that is 100% true it gives alot of credence to the view that the congregations of saved at faith pastors likely believed the other way and so the pastor intentionally didn't ever mention when salvation occurred?

It's not something I can prove but its about the only sensible reason that doctrine wouldn't have been preached on even once.

[AR Pastor]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

My pastor is currently licensed UPC but we have very little fellowship with them. We fellowship WPF, AMF, and GIBs. Our church is independent.

One thing I have seen is there have been several churches in the last 5 years or so that have strengthened their stands. I really didnt realize how liberal my convictions and lifestyle standards were while we were still fellowshipping the UPC. Since the Tampa resolution when several pulled out, I think a lot of churches have raised their standard. I know there was not really any fellowship with the AMF brethren and your more conservative UPC, but now since those who have pulled out of the UPC have gotten stronger there is more unity and fellowship between conservative Apostolics as a whole IMO.

My pastor went to the AMC conference even when he was still active in the UPCI, so we have had some strong holiness influence for quite a while now. I really appreciate a man of God that is not afraid to go even beyond what he was taught to find the heartbeat of God and good holiness fellowship.

We have been to AMC too. IT was very good. We go to camp meeting in North little Rock too. Won't make it this year though. I have many friend in the WPF.

My fellowship in the UPC are with conservative churches.

A card in a man's pocket means nothing to me, it's the message he preaches.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by AR Pastor

We have been to AMC too. IT was very good. We go to camp meeting in North little Rock too. Won't make it this year though. I have many friend in the WPF.

My fellowship in the UPC are with conservative churches.

A card in a man's pocket means nothing to me, it's the message he preaches.

Agreed

[Disciple4life]

OK I found the thread that I was talking about. It's been a while since I read it but what I remember it was a lively thread.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...t+Counterfeits

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The PCI men baptized 1,000's in Jesus Name, they preached Acts 2:38 as fervently as PAJC men did. They were NOT ashamed to be identified with the Jesus Name Pentecostal Movement. These johnie-come-lately folks want to be identified with anything but the Jesus Name Pentecostal movement. They have more in common with the Charismatic and Trinitarian movement. They did not teach Oneness in PRIVATE classes or baptism on the sly. They were unashamably Oneness and stressed baptism in Jesus Name. Were they correct on the necessity of baptism(FOR remission of sins) no. But they fervently preached and baptized in Jesus Name they were not ashamed.

[RunningOnFaith]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

I believe that one of the reasons for the merger was because the PCI had the exemption necessary for the draft which the larger orgs wanted. Remember, the draft was in force then.

Definently not doctrinal that is for sure.

I have read that many joined the PAW around the time of WWI because the organization had the draft exemption. I have never read this concerning the PAJC. Although there were peacetime drafts, it would not make sense for me for this to be a determining factor for the PAJC to merge--WWII had ended months prior to the merger,

[RunningOnFaith]

Originally Posted by Reader

It is interesting how the focus is often on the PCI at this juncture. What about the PAJC? Why would they ever consider joining with people they knew allowed for the salvation of those that they themselves would consider lost? They were the ones lowering their standards in joining with the PCI. Was it because they gained something from it? Could they have possibly gotten what they wanted/needed (funds, status, buildings, etc.) & then started pushing the PCI out?

The emphasis should be upon the PAJC since they were allowing ones who believed differently to join with them, as the PAJC stand on salvation was narrower.

It seems to me that people probably wonder more about the PCI because in hindsight we can see that their ideas ultimate lost out. I don't think Witherspoon was thinking strategically about how the PACJ could gain control. The motive were undoubtedly good on both sides, but the PAJC had to be aware that that at least from doctrinal standpoint, they would be the majority.

[RunningOnFaith]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

If my memory serves me correctly on what I have read and heard the merger attempt has occurred twice and failed. I do know Witherspoon had to drag the PAJC into it. Their paper existed for season after the merger and every article nearly was putting out fires the body of the PAJC was not happy. But since the PCI was more locale many PAJCers had no idea what they believed at the time of the merger, then it must be remembered the majority of the PCI believed the new birth message it was the main leaders who did not and they were not very vocal nationally about it. Many think because Gurley and others did not believe the new birth it was common among them but in truth it was not.

Do you think it is safe to say that at that point in time even many of the PAJC folks believed in ideas like the light doctrine, friends of the bride, etc? This idea would be considered compromise now, but at one time could not one hold to this belief and yet still be considered to be firmly in the Water/Spirit camp? There would not be as big of a gap between a light water/spirit believer and a saved at repentance person as there would be with someone who believed ardently in Holy Ghost or Hell.

Also, did not some of the PAJC brethren refuse to join at the merger?