The UPCI Is Not Alone In Church Splits

[Sister Alvear]

I know some that believe you are not born again until you are perfect...

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I know some that believe you are not born again until you are perfect...

I was at the founding pastor's funeral they preached he was in the hands of a Just God. I do NOT know one person that has ever claimed to be born again? Good folks just totally confused.

[Ferd]

Lets not forget the Baptist have been in a row for the last 5 years or so.

[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.

[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...