Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
