The UPCI Is Not Alone In Church Splits

[Whole Hearted]

Originally Posted by Barb

Please do not mistake my sadness or questions for disrespect. I highly hold your convictions in respect and honor them, though I do not share them, but do you honestly think that television has not been in UPCI homes or viewed by most?!

And I have to wonder if the heartbeat of the merger was not destroyed, or at least shattered, in '92...again, long before this past GC.

As for "doctrinal purity," you are speaking about men and women who helped make the UNITED Pentecostal Church, International what it was. Many were there at the ground floor and never changed their doctrine...they left with the same view they came in with.

I have pastored three churches, starting the first from scratch. No member had or has TV. Just as on who is an adulterous could not be a memeber, and just as one who is drunk, thief, and so on could not be a member. Those who have TV and take pleasure in those on the TV who do these things cannot be a member.


My family has always been of the PAJC and I didn't know until a few years ago that this other doctrine even existed. I believe that the merge was a BIG mistake. The PAJC should have never joined with those who believed and taught false doctrine.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

I have pastored three churches, starting the first from scratch. No member had or has TV. Just as on who is an adulterous could not be a memeber, and just as one who is drunk, thief, and so on could not be a member. Those who have TV and take pleasure in those on the TV who do these things cannot be a member.


My family has always been of the PAJC and I didn't know until a few years ago that this other doctrine even existed. I believe that the merge was a BIG mistake. The PAJC should have never joined with those who believed and taught false doctrine.

The Gen Chairman of the PAJC referred to both groups as "ministers of like precious faith."

Evidently Bishop Witherspoon thought they were in agreement enough to say this. Had he thought Bishop Goss was in false doctrine, I am CERTAIN they would have not merged.

I am also sure that those who are of the PCI view and were an intregal part of the the UPCI do not regret the merger.

[stmatthew]

I think we need to balance this with the fact that most realize that in the beginning the men of the merger preached basically the same thing. Both preached Acts 2:38 vehemently as necessary. This changed as men grew in understanding and doctrine was gradually more clearly defined.

Barb, I am sorry, but we can never go back to the days of "unity" in the sense that they had it then, because the doctrine of salvation has been defined more clearly, and there are found to be 2 differing views in the camp. It is doctrine that divides us, not our desire to be divided. And a man cannot in good conscience hold salvational doctrine, and join with those that believe a "lesser" salvational stance.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Barb

The Gen Chairman of the PAJC referred to both groups as "ministers of like precious faith."

Evidently Bishop Witherspoon thought they were in agreement enough to say this. Had he thought Bishop Goss was in false doctrine, I am CERTAIN they would have not merged.

I am also sure that those who are of the PCI view and were an intregal part of the the UPCI do not regret the merger.

Both Goss and Witherspoon fervently preached Acts 2:38. In time the distinctions became more and more.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I think we need to balance this with the fact that most realize that in the beginning the men of the merger preached basically the same thing. Both preached Acts 2:38 vehemently as necessary. This changed as men grew in understanding and doctrine was gradually more clearly defined.

Barb, I am sorry, but we can never go back to the days of "unity" in the sense that they had it then, because the doctrine of salvation has been defined more clearly, and there are found to be 2 differing views in the camp. It is doctrine that divides us, not our desire to be divided. And a man cannot in good conscience hold salvational doctrine, and join with those that believe a "lesser" salvational stance.

Matt, please know my heart and that I am not trying to be argumentative, but how can the doctrine of salvation be more clearly defined than what was already established in Scriptures?!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Barb

Matt, please know my heart and that I am not trying to be argumentative, but how can the doctrine of salvation be more clearly defined than what was already established in Scriptures?!

It is defined in scripture as good as it will be. But our understanding of those scriptures have become clearer, or at least I hope it has.

I think my intent was that at the beginning, there was not much difference in the presentation from what we all have been told. While one believed that salvation occurred at repentance, they preached the full message of Acts 2:38 as one message. As time has gone by, many now stress the repentance for salvation doctrine as one message, and then teach to go on and be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost.

I could be wrong on what I have gathered from reading here and other places on this. But I see this as a lesser message vs a greater message. And I am not meaning that in a quality, but quantity way. This is the same as with the cons vs the libs. Those that believe in the full Acts 2:38 message cannot in good conscience receive someone that is preaching less as right, while those that believe one step can accept the 3 steppers because they just feel they add to what it takes to be saved. One feels the other is not enough, while the other feels the one is too much. So it will always seem that it is the 3 steppers, or the cons, that are the divisive ones, because they cannot accept less, while they are accepted with more.

Hope I was clear enough in this.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

It is defined in scripture as good as it will be. But our understanding of those scriptures have become clearer, or at least I hope it has.

I think my intent was that at the beginning, there was not much difference in the presentation from what we all have been told. While one believed that salvation occurred at repentance, they preached the full message of Acts 2:38 as one message. As time has gone by, many now stress the repentance for salvation doctrine as one message, and then teach to go on and be baptized in Jesus name and receive the Holy Ghost.

I could be wrong on what I have gathered from reading here and other places on this. But I see this as a lesser message vs a greater message. And I am not meaning that in a quality, but quantity way. This is the same as with the cons vs the libs. Those that believe in the full Acts 2:38 message cannot in good conscience receive someone that is preaching less as right, while those that believe one step can accept the 3 steppers because they just feel they add to what it takes to be saved. One feels the other is not enough, while the other feels the one is too much. So it will always seem that it is the 3 steppers, or the cons, that are the divisive ones, because they cannot accept less, while they are accepted with more.

Hope I was clear enough in this.

Thank you, Matt, for your response...

I am not so sure I agree with the lesser message vs. the greater, and am not sure those of the PCI view would either.

I need to give your post more thought...

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

This thread is somewhat strange to myself with the others on the same topic. Those who left in 92 or because of the AS have been lauded as heros and men of principle. But these folks are seen as jerks. I respect though disagree with men like TB that could not violate his conscience in supporting something they did not agree with. Do not these men deserve some respect. The sole difference is these men leaving have enough thought into what they are doing to meet and organize thus to have a plan B. Those in 92 had no plan thus isolated or merged with non-Apostolics.

There were folks who left in 1992 because they did not agree with the AS and did not like the way it appeared to them that the UPC was going.
There are folks leaving in 2007 because they did not agree with Res. 4 and do not like the way it appears to them that the UPC is going.
In my opinion, both groups (those who left in 1992 and those leaving now) did or are doing so for the same principle.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by keith4him

By the way, I have heard over the years some of the various moral problems in the PAW with ministery of music people, didn't put a lot of stock in it, until a intern in my ministry spent the summer ministering in a PAW church somewhere west of the Mississippi, the current organ player has fathered various children with different mothers, still unwed, the other musicians show up, collect a check and leave during the preaching and ministry time. SAD!

I don't know about the PAW and stuff like that. We have at least 2 PAW churches in our area and the pastor of one of them was Presiding Bishop of the PAW for a while.

I do know, however, of a belief among some of the African Americans in the Cincinnati area about a man having several women that he may visit, live with, have children with, and receive financial support from. Some believe this is OK because:
1 it was practiced by men of God in the past (Abraham, David, etc.),
2 it is seen in nature where one male may have a "harem" of several females,
3 A bishop is to be a one woman man but that requirement does not apply to all men in the church
4 It is part of African culture and should not be judged by white Americans


it is