Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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"

No, they don't say this of themselves. This is what the Apostle Paul says of them in Romans 11:5-6.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

The idea that water baptism itself was some kind of "work" seems alien to Paul's preaching. He doesn't really touch on water baptism much at all. He states that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, and not to baptize. Here he seems to have the idea that water baptism was something else - apart from "the Gospel."

So, water baptism is not necessarily a "work" per se, but being water baptism isn't "obedience to the Gospel either." The Gospel is something that precedes baptism.

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 - The Gospel is "the preaching of the cross."

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

The predestination aspect must be important because it is presented over and over in Scripture. Therefore, we must have a way to grasp it effectively. However, if it merely clouds the "easier to understand" issues, then we haven't dealt with it effectively.

You also seem to be parsing too much in the matter of repentance and conversion. "Faith" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that He died for your sins and rose from the dead) is "repentance." This is what Peter was imploring the crowd at Pentecost to do - to "repent" from their unbelief that lead to the death of the Messiah and to believe that Jesus is now both Lord and Christ.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

I was going to point out that this was a "straw man" on your part because no one has argued that "they don't believe in grace or faith." But...

... Romans 11:5-6, does seem to touch a nerve with a lot of people. And I disagree about what is "believed" and preached by the "3 Steppers" in general. After reading your post, I will take this up - even if just "academically."

They have had to invent a completely new history of the Church to maintain their "Acts 2:38 or hell" message. They have had to revise and redact the official documents of the United Pentecostal Church, changing the Articles of Faith, the Fundamental Doctrine, throwing out the Required Reading for Ministers and culling the herd of all those who complained about the wholesale changes.

They believe that only the "correct" form of baptism can save someone. If you disagree about the form and are baptized in any other fashion, then you are lost in your sins. Would you agree with this statement?

(Not, do you believe this about baptism... but do you see this in the preaching and teachings of the "3 Steppers?")

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

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.

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Sam

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.

You might be right, but I specifically said I wouldn't sign it and would be leaving because of certain points. Who knows, maybe they didn't even read it or look at the unsigned statement.

It's ironic, isn't it, that the affirmation baloney was created to make the right-wingers happy, and what do you know...they weren't happy and left anyway. Politics and religion don't mix well, do they?

I've always heard that Richard has threatened legal action, but...what a joke. What in the heck is he trying to prove? Maybe along with God telling him to colonize a planet, He also told him to make a mockery out of the process. You'd think that after 18 years, he's proved his point. But what is the UPC afraid of? Richard's clearly in violation of the system.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Sam

Brother Urshan put out a letter encouraging the ministers to just sign it and told them that how they interpreted the manual was up to them. He did not want to lose ministers.

When you returned your AS with your explanation I guess it counted as a signature.

I wonder if Richard Gazowsky actually signs it, or has someone else sign it, or if he returns it with mark ups and cross outs like some do.

Didn't someone try to oust him at one time and he went to court so the UPC backed off and let him remain in the org? I think I read that some where. Maybe someone here can clarify that for me.

Gazowsky was the reason why the California D.S. joined as a Westberg Resolution co-sponsor. The D.S. stood up and complained at General Conference that he had been "threatened" with a lawsuit if he went after anyone who wasn't preaching "our message."

I don't know what the actual details were, but it seems to me that in order for the "threat of a lawsuit" to have even been implied, some one must have "gone after" Gazowsky in the first place.

It was this "we gotta clean house!" mentality that caused so much trouble in the UPC and still causes trouble today. The fact that so many lies have to be told so that we can "clean house" causes me to question the motives of the cleaning ladies.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by notofworks

You might be right, but I specifically said I wouldn't sign it and would be leaving because of certain points. Who knows, maybe they didn't even read it or look at the unsigned statement.

It's ironic, isn't it, that the affirmation baloney was created to make the right-wingers happy, and what do you know...they weren't happy and left anyway. Politics and religion don't mix well, do they?

I've always heard that Richard has threatened legal action, but...what a joke. What in the heck is he trying to prove? Maybe along with God telling him to colonize a planet, He also told him to make a mockery out of the process. You'd think that after 18 years, he's proved his point. But what is the UPC afraid of? Richard's clearly in violation of the system.

A clear violation of reality is the charge that I would lay against Richard. But then again, "the system" is so corrupt itself that I am happy that RG is still "in the mothership."

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by pelathais

A clear violation of reality is the charge that I would lay against Richard. But then again, "the system" is so corrupt itself that I am happy that RG is still "in the mothership."

...and of course, there's that angle. It is kinda funny, that they've gone to all that trouble to get rid of him, and he's still there. But at some point, isn't the mission more important than the game?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, they don't say this of themselves. This is what the Apostle Paul says of them in Romans 11:5-6.

Again, here Paul is speaking of the works of the law. So this begs the question, what does "works" mean?

The idea that water baptism itself was some kind of "work" seems alien to Paul's preaching. He doesn't really touch on water baptism much at all. He states that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel, and not to baptize. Here he seems to have the idea that water baptism was something else - apart from "the Gospel."

2 things. I said they don't really believe this is a work that saves, but an act of obedience. Again the question is, what is works? That he is sent to preach the gospel does not mean baptims is not part of the gospel message. See his message to the disciples of John. People read too much into what Paul said or did not say. The point he was making in context seems to be those that say "I am of Apollos" etc etc. Why? baptism was seen as an act of disciplship..which is why we baptise in Jesus name, because we are making them disciples to Him not to ourselves. Baptism was a common practice as part of the church. That Paul said he was not sent to baptise doesn't annul baptism as an important practice.

So, water baptism is not necessarily a "work" per se, but being water baptism isn't "obedience to the Gospel either." The Gospel is something that precedes baptism.

That remains to be seen. You didn't prove it was not obedience to the gospel

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 - The Gospel is "the preaching of the cross."

The term "gospel" seems to have many meanings or is not limited to just one. Sure the gospel is preaching the cross...but how do you obey something that is not a command to obey?

The predestination aspect must be important because it is presented over and over in Scripture. Therefore, we must have a way to grasp it effectively. However, if it merely clouds the "easier to understand" issues, then we haven't dealt with it effectively.

That is beside my point. Faith is something we do. Repentance is something we do. Confession is something we do. Yet all three are tied into being saved..so does "grace" annul our need to have faith or repent before we are saved? What is the definition of works?

You also seem to be parsing too much in the matter of repentance and conversion. "Faith" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (that He died for your sins and rose from the dead) is "repentance." This is what Peter was imploring the crowd at Pentecost to do - to "repent" from their unbelief that lead to the death of the Messiah and to believe that Jesus is now both Lord and Christ.

No, faith in the gospel of jesus Christ and what he did is NOT repentance. Surely though you need faith to repent. Repentance is to not only be sorry for what you have done but to turn away. Infact the bible shows they are distinct.

Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
The two are no doubt connected, but they are not the same thing. The point remains that this is something we do. Peter told THEM to repent. They were told to believe the gospel. So again what is the definition of works?

I was going to point out that this was a "straw man" on your part because no one has argued that "they don't believe in grace or faith."

No I was not making a strawman argument. It's been made. Not only that the other arguments go "They don't believe in the cross"..."they don't believe in the blood" etc

But...

... Romans 11:5-6, does seem to touch a nerve with a lot of people. And I disagree about what is "believed" and preached by the "3 Steppers" in general. After reading your post, I will take this up - even if just "academically."

They have had to invent a completely new history of the Church to maintain their "Acts 2:38 or hell" message.

No they don't. That's only because people have a wrong view of what Jesus meant by "the gates of hell shall not prevail" to mean there has to be a visible church teaching this doctrine in an unbroken chain from A-Z..those that make such an argument are forced to invent or twist history or ignore it

They have had to revise and redact the official documents of the United Pentecostal Church, changing the Articles of Faith, the Fundamental Doctrine, throwing out the Required Reading for Ministers and culling the herd of all those who complained about the wholesale changes.

ok...but this is all sort of beside the point. I don't see how it is relevant to my post

They believe that only the "correct" form of baptism can save someone. If you disagree about the form and are baptized in any other fashion, then you are lost in your sins.

Im still confused. What does this have to do with the issue that they do not believe in grace or that baptism is a work or not?

Would you agree with this statement?

I personally know three steppers that are not that dogmatic and admit they believe there will be others saved. But that is the view of most of the 3 steppers...yes. Are we getting off topic?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Gazowsky was the reason why the California D.S. joined as a Westberg Resolution co-sponsor. The D.S. stood up and complained at General Conference that he had been "threatened" with a lawsuit if he went after anyone who wasn't preaching "our message."

I don't know what the actual details were, but it seems to me that in order for the "threat of a lawsuit" to have even been implied, some one must have "gone after" Gazowsky in the first place.

It was this "we gotta clean house!" mentality that caused so much trouble in the UPC and still causes trouble today. The fact that so many lies have to be told so that we can "clean house" causes me to question the motives of the cleaning ladies.

Maybe so, but RG was the odd man out. Most orgs have by laws and stuff that preachers have to agree to. It's not just the UPC. However, as far as the articles of faith go, I don't see how they could have gone after anyone. But isn't there a ministers handbook or something they have to 'observe? Im not sure I'd want a pastor that thinks it's ok to appear butt nekkid in a movie in the UPC or any org I belonged to

[Praxeas]

BTW RG's church website...well actually the site for his movie production company, is now his blog spot. Looks interesting

http://wysiwyghome.com/

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again, here Paul is speaking of the works of the law. So this begs the question, what does "works" mean?

Ah... that's the rub.

If we don't have an agreement as to what constitutes a "work" as described by the New Testament then we're just going to end up talking in circles.

As a solid UPCer who was very sympathetic to the idea of baptism being for the remission of sins, I was quite dogmatic in insisting that every occurrence of the word "work" or "works" in the writings of Paul and the NT in general referred specifically to the "works" that were necessary for obedience to the 613 commandments of the Law of Moses. Thus, baptism couldn't possibly be seen as a "work" (nor the holiness standards, etc.).

But this simplistic approach didn't end up serving me very well; for Paul himself will use examples of activity that have nothing to do with the Law of Moses and label them "works" (Romans 4:1-10).

In Romans 4, the "works" that "did not" justify Abraham involved the covenant of circumcision. Though this was repeated as one of the Laws of Moses, it was in use for centuries before Moses was even born. In any event, Paul's point is that NO KIND OF "WORK" at all justified Abraham. God had already accounted Abraham righteous before He gave Abe any command at all other than "Leave your father's house..."

We as Christians are given the responsibility for carrying out a large number of commands. Our response to these requirements can generally be called "work." When James (and Paul even) exhorted the believers to do "good works" - they were not advocating that they follow the Law of Moses (James 2). Therefore, it is evident that the idea of "works" in the NT goes beyond the simple notion of the Law of Moses. It encompasses much more.

And... back to my point... none of these works can save us. Moreover, it could be said that they don't even mark us in any way as being particularly "good" servants if we obey them (Luke 17:10).

Thus, if we can "earn" or prove that we have "deserved" salvation because of the fact that we figured out a "better" way to be baptized, or because we can demonstrate that we pray in a manner that we believe to be "more supernatural" than the Baptist folks, then we are falling into the trap that Romans 11:5-6, warns us about. The same thing with the holiness standards.

And isn't that the gist of the message of the UPC today and other "3 Stepper" controlled bodies? They repeatedly proclaim themselves to possess a standard of salvation that will save them, but not other Christians. They repeatedly state that it's either "Acts 2:38 or hell." They repeatedly refuse to accept other Christians as brethren in any degree.

All of this clearly indicates that they do not accept the cross as the basis of our salvation nor do they feel that "faith and grace" (as you put it) are sufficient for the believer to be saved.

They demand that we do some sort of "work" in order to be saved. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.