Read the Seagraves Document....

[Jermyn Davidson]

Maybe I know why he decided to end his thorough 16-page paper on Justification with questions instead of statements.


I could be wrong, but if justification occurs at faith, then our sins are forgiven at faith. If our sins are forgiven at faith, then we are saved at faith.

If we are saved at faith, then our insistence that baptism in the Name of Jesus is the only salvational way of baptism is not correct, especially in light of the fact that baptism is no longer connected with justification/salvation.

I already thought the idea of my sins being washed away in baptism to be incorrect.

But if that is indeed incorrect, and if we are saved at faith, then the lack of a specific, consistent baptismal formula is no longer an issue.

In fact, it reduces the debate of baptism in the Titles vs baptism in the Name to the category of baptismal disputes addressed by Paul when he stated, "I am glad I baptized none of you...."


If we are saved at faith, then it becomes much more difficult to convince the masses that the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation.



Honestly, the fact that I am thinking like this disturbs me a great deal.


Maybe justification and salvation are two different deals.

That does not make sense to me either.



I am disturbed.

[mfblume]

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

It is very complex to try to make it work and keep the Apostolic identity.

Faith without works is indeed false faith but somewhere down the line works became necessary for new birth.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The famous issue you raise here is solved by the fact that faith that justifies is faith that works. Without the works, the faith is not present nor real living faith that saves. That very issue is all over the forum lately. And some have claimed it is not complex, but you just proved it is.

It is very complex.


I complained about Seagraves ending his paper with questions instead of statements.

But after reading his paper, the only conclusion one can come to, that is if you agree with him, that salvation is established, a person is saved, at initial faith-- saving faith that he identifies with repentance only.


In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with water baptism.

In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with Spirit Baptism evidenced by speaking in tongues.


His paper makes sense to me.

In a way I have thought this way and was moving in that direction theologically BEFORE reading his paper.


Now, not only does he make sense, I don't see how anyone else can see this issue any other way, without adding to or twisting the Bible.



So yes, I am disturbed.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It is very complex.


I complained about Seagraves ending his paper with questions instead of statements.

But after reading his paper, the only conclusion one can come to, that is if you agree with him, that salvation is established, a person is saved, at initial faith-- saving faith that he identifies with repentance only.


In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with water baptism.

In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with Spirit Baptism evidenced by speaking in tongues.


His paper makes sense to me.

In a way I have thought this way and was moving in that direction theologically BEFORE reading his paper.


Now, not only does he make sense, I don't see how anyone else can see this issue any other way, without adding to or twisting the Bible.



So yes, I am disturbed.

Look at the original fundamental doctrine statement of the UPC. It did not say water baptism was for the remission of sins. It did not say salvation was by repentance, water baptism and by Spirit baptism but said that FULL salvation i.e. our life time experience in the Lord has three steps:
1- repentance/justification/regeneration/forgiveness
2- water baptism
3- Spirit baptism

Maybe Bro. Segraves is trying to point people back to the PCI doctrine of salvation from sin at justification/repentance/faith and then our ultimate or full salvation at death and some time between repentance/salvation/justification and death we should be baptized in water and in the Spirit.

Ya think?

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Sam

Look at the original fundamental doctrine statement of the UPC. It did not say water baptism was for the remission of sins. It did not say salvation was by repentance, water baptism and by Spirit baptism but said that FULL salvation i.e. our life time experience in the Lord has three steps:
1- repentance/justification/regeneration/forgiveness
2- water baptism
3- Spirit baptism

Maybe Bro. Segraves is trying to point people back to the PCI doctrine of salvation from sin at justification/repentance/faith and then our ultimate or full salvation at death and some time between repentance/salvation/justification and death we should be baptized in water and in the Spirit.

Ya think?

Which would be false doctrine IMO. Doesn't matter what the UPC used to teach. That's all nice history but the simple fact is one is right the other wrong. You go with what is right! If that is his goal he is going to have problems in the ranks. As he should!

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Sam

Look at the original fundamental doctrine statement of the UPC. It did not say water baptism was for the remission of sins. It did not say salvation was by repentance, water baptism and by Spirit baptism but said that FULL salvation i.e. our life time experience in the Lord has three steps:
1- repentance/justification/regeneration/forgiveness
2- water baptism
3- Spirit baptism

Maybe Bro. Segraves is trying to point people back to the PCI doctrine of salvation from sin at justification/repentance/faith and then our ultimate or full salvation at death and some time between repentance/salvation/justification and death we should be baptized in water and in the Spirit.

Ya think?

I see that someone said that there is a link somewhere for this paper. If it found can it be reposted in here?

NO debating we are saved by faith alone, but is he saying that he has more of a one-stepper mindset? Sam have you read the paper?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I see that someone said that there is a link somewhere for this paper. If it found can it be reposted in here?

NO debating we are saved by faith alone, but is he saying that he has more of a one-stepper mindset? Sam have you read the paper?

No, he is not saying that a person is saved by faith alone.
He says that a person is justified by faith alone.
He does not come off as a one-stepper. He differentiates justification from salvation.
Yes, I've read it.
I'm attaching a copy in pdf format

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

It is very complex.


I complained about Seagraves ending his paper with questions instead of statements.

But after reading his paper, the only conclusion one can come to, that is if you agree with him, that salvation is established, a person is saved, at initial faith-- saving faith that he identifies with repentance only.


In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with water baptism.

In his paper, he rejects the idea of associating justification with Spirit Baptism evidenced by speaking in tongues.


His paper makes sense to me.

In a way I have thought this way and was moving in that direction theologically BEFORE reading his paper.


Now, not only does he make sense, I don't see how anyone else can see this issue any other way, without adding to or twisting the Bible.



So yes, I am disturbed.

When you receive understanding you walk in it, yes it is disturbing to be moved from what we have believed was absolute. But such is he that is honest, to embrace truth as it is revealed no matter what tradition or religion says to the contrary!!

[deltaguitar]

At least you aren't ignoring these problems.

I think many people within the UPC/Apostolic movement see exactly what you see but are fearful of where it leads. There is a cost to following what we believe to be true.