Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
From reading on the previous forums it seems that many said that, originally, the "differing" views on the salvational message sounded so alike that you couldn't distinguish the two. Now it's been said that the differences are very apparent and couldn't possibly abide together.
So, wouldn't the two have drifted apart even without an Affirmation Statement? It seems like they would have. Perhaps the AF helped it along but, today it seems it would have ended in a divide anyway, JMO.
How can God, who is so precise on plans and timing, have two plans of salvation?
|
IMHO - The most practical aspect of the changes concerned the ways in the UPC has a group viewed other groups of Christian believers.
The "old way" admitted that other Christians could be saved. The "new way" denys even the possibility that other Christians can possibly be saved unless they join the Oneness Apostolic Faith movement.
This whole pattern of change must also be upheld by a false view of Church History. In order to substantiate their claims in light of
Matthew 16:18 (the "gates of hell prevailing" against the church), the revisionists have also adopted a fraudulant view of history that is maintained only with the grossest fabrications, otherwise they'd have to admit that for some reason no one was saved for about 1,700 years of the church's almost 2,000 year history.
Bible truth never needs to be upheld by outright lies and fabrications. The UPC needs to reprent of promoting these lies. The whole "Three Stepper" movement needs to repent for inventing and passing one these lies.
Then, maybe, we can see the Oneness Apostolic revival that we all desire.
Threaded Mode
