The Difference between PCI, PAJC and the New Heritage False Claiming Posers

[FRINGE_NUTTER]

The Church began on the Day of Pentecost and with Acts 2:38 not with UPCI or any pre-UPCI organizations. That is where my heritage began. Men and organizations are from the world. Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Bible - that is where I got my heritage. (imho)

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

...
The org continued to remain somewhat unified throughout the 50's to 70's suffering various schisms ... and then the radical zealots rose up again in the 1970's when questions of which New Birth doctrine was being preached overseas, namely Colombia, and successively add "full" salvation to the Fundamental Doctrine.
...

Dan,
I agree with everything in your post
but

It is my understanding that the word "full" was in the original fundamental doctrine statement. That left room for both one-steppers and three-steppers to determine what "full salvation" was. It is believed that if the word "full" was not in the fundamental doctrine statement there would have been no merger.

On October 23, 1973 the words, "for the remission of sins" were added by resolution. Bro. S.G. Norris made the motion to accept the resolution and Bro. W.M. Greer seconded the motion. Bro. Greer had been asked by Bro. Urshan to second it and assured Bro. Greer that it would not affect what he (Bro. Greer) believed about the meaning of the word "for."

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Sam

Dan,
I agree with everything in your post
but

It is my understanding that the word "full" was in the original fundamental doctrine statement. That left room for both one-steppers and three-steppers to determine what "full salvation" was. It is believed that if the word "full" was not in the fundamental doctrine statement there would have been no merger.

On October 23, 1973 the words, "for the remission of sins" were added by resolution. Bro. S.G. Norris made the motion to accept the resolution and Bro. W.M. Greer seconded the motion. Bro. Greer had been asked by Bro. Urshan to second it and assured Bro. Greer that it would not affect what he (Bro. Greer) believed about the meaning of the word "for."

You are correct as always Sam.

[Encryptus]

The problem with arguing doctrine around the word "for". In spanish we have two words translated as "for" Por and para. It helps with exact meaning.

The "for" in the verse ... for remission of sins has TWO possibilities:

For= in order to (first definition)
For= because of (second definition)

If first then the act of baptism remits sin. If so it would be impossible to receive HG before water baptism.

If second then you are baptism, for reason of your sins being remitted.

Frankly the verse seems to be supported in the latter view.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

The problem with arguing doctrine around the word "for". In spanish we have two words translated as "for" Por and para. It helps with exact meaning.

The "for" in the verse ... for remission of sins has TWO possibilities:

For= in order to (first definition)
For= because of (second definition)

If first then the act of baptism remits sin. If so it would be impossible to receive HG before water baptism.

If second then you are baptism, for reason of your sins being remitted.

Frankly the verse seems to be supported in the latter view.

The best translation is 'With a view towards"

[Sam]

Originally Posted by FRINGE_NUTTER

The Church began on the Day of Pentecost and with Acts 2:38 not with UPCI or any pre-UPCI organizations. That is where my heritage began. Men and organizations are from the world. Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Bible - that is where I got my heritage. (imho)

On the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 about 120 members out of a group of over 500 (ref 1 Cor 15:6) received "the promise of the Father" which Jesus described as a baptism or immersion or saturation in the Holy Spirit. Whether these 380 other "brethren" (ref 1 Cor. 15:6) ever received that experience or did not is not mentioned in the Scriptures.

[Sam]

We've discussed the word "for" or "eis" in Acts 2:38 before.
Experts can be quoted to back up whatever belief we already have.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Sam

We've discussed the word "for" or "eis" in Acts 2:38 before.
Experts can be quoted to back up whatever belief we already have.

It has been said- Every fool in error can find a scripture to back him up.

It is a rare person who keeps things in context.

[tv1a]

Timlan, is there a book about the Bro. Yadon? I'd like to know more about him. Any suggestions?

Originally Posted by timlan2057

I'm not interested in arguing doctrine.

But historically - AND concerning the historical whitewash of the UPC's history ramrodded by Bernard and Hall - Dan is correct here.

The entire panorama of UPC history can be summed up in a conversation between L. H. Hardwick and J. T. Pugh after a coference sermon by a radical hardliner pounding the pulpit over "tongues or hell", "uncut hair on women or hell", etc. etc.

Pugh could not understand Hardwick's less-than-hysterical-enthusiasm over the sermon and said in a rather bewildered tone to him: "But it is our heritage!"

Hardwick replied: "It's YOUR heritage. MY brethren did not believe it."

And like it or not, Hardwick, Gurley, Goss, Yadon, Stairs etc. were there at the beginning and had just as much or more to do with the foundation and establishment of the United Pentecostal Church as did their more radical counterparts - the whitewash job by Bernard and Hall notwithstanding.

I regret that NFCF sank beneath the waves if only because I put forth what I feel is a quite valid theory that the doctrine of "completely uncut hair on women or hell" was initially pushed by Murray E. Burr in the 1950s and was virtually unheard of before then.

And turnabout at times is fair play.

C. H. Yadon was a man's man. His Christianity was in stark contrast to this "southern good ole boy gentleman's club" type that I grew sick of my final years in the pentecostal ministry and manifests itself in this "pack mentality" that gets played out on message boards like this.

He was a founding member of the United Pentecostal Church; spending 48 of his 67 years in the ministry with a UPC fellowship card in his pocket.

He built churches and districts. He was the patriarch of what was arguably the most prominent family in the United Pentecostal Church as far as ministers of achievement, perhaps rivalled only by the the name "Glass."

He lived by the tenets of the merger, that men would not contend for their personal views to the disunity of the body.

And in 1992, around the time of his 85th birthday and around the time his companion of 65 years passed away, he was thrown out of the United Pentecostal Church like a piece of old trash.

Yeah, yeah ... some will say he could have stayed.

Nathaniel Urshan even asked him after the "Affirmation Statement" business meeting: "You're going to stay with us, aren't you Brother Charley?"

C. H. Yadon was a man of principle.

He didn't look for loopholes.

My take on what just happened in Tampa.

Big deal.

So the UPC decides to climb into the 20th century when we're in the 21st. It just heightens the comedy that, as a 50 year old man, this organization is still arguing over what they argued over in Indianapolis when I was a 19 year old senior in Bible college.

But back to Yadon, who was a mentor of mine:

He of course would never have sought revenge.

In fact, here was his reaction to the aftermath of the "Westburg Resolution":



And - again despite the attempted whitewash: what he told Thomas Fudge was this: "What they are telling you what we believed is NOT what we believed."

Anyway, my "spirit" is not as good as Yadon's.

The fact that 15 years after the Westburg resolution, that some of these same radicals who forced men like Yadon out are now being forced out of the United Pentecostal Church:

From that I personally take a bit of satisfaction.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

It has been said- Every fool in error can find a scripture to back him up.

It is a rare person who keeps things in context.

That's why to see Peter's context one should examine his other sermons and thoughts throughout Acts ... like in chapter 3, 4, 10, 11 and 15.