Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
No ... elder this has nothing to do with my view or interpretation.
The way that the Fundamental Doctrine article is written in the AOF is poorly written and does not reflect the views of most ... if not all the fellowhip. Yet, ministers affirm to it when signing the AS.
Dan Seagraves has pointed out this misconstruction found in it:
The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:'4
The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but. are instead separated by a comma.
This alone I believe puts the entire fellowship in contradiction w/ the AS...perhaps invalidating it .... and this would probably hold true in a legal proceeding.
|
Excuse me?????????????? Me thinks you know you are caught by the seat of the britches. IF you acknowledge that 'for the remmission' of sins means UNTO in the fundamental doctrine then by that same conclusion it was mean the same in
Acts 3:38. There is NOT ONE Pentecostal preacher that believes sins are remitted for anyone who has NOT repented and YOU know that. This is pure foolishness. That is why Bro. Greer signed it changed nothing for him he like you believed like the Baptist so it changed nothing. BECAUSE the wording is the same. But YOU see the dilema YOU are in. And so does everyone else. God bless your little pea picking heart.
