Resolution #1 Clarification of AOF Soteriology
 

Resolution #1

Clarification of AOF Soteriology
There is no doubt this has long been an area needing clarification. How many do you think would sign on for a resolution that "clarfies" the AOF position??

"Whereas there have been questions as to what constitutes "Full Salvation" and whereas there have been questions as to when and where justification occurrs in the new believer, be it resolved that the membership of this organization wholeheartedly believes eternal damnation is the future of all "christians" not experiencing the New Birth as we have defined and interpreted Acts 2:38 in it's entirety."


How will you vote at General Conference????

The link doesn't work.

I would like to offer an ammendment from the floor prior to voting

Seriously, if they are already damned, how can they be "christians" unless the quotation marks are there for emphasis?
Seriously, why is this important to you? Has someone offended you with what they believe in regards to scripture?

I would change this to read:
Whereas there have been questions as to what constitutes "Full Salvation" and whereas there have been questions as to when and where justification occurrs in the new believer, be it resolved that the membership of this organization wholeheartedly believes that Fulll Salvation/Justification takes place ONLY at the completion of Acts 2:38 in its entirety.

If that were to hit the floor, I guarantee that there would be a firestorm like we have never seen and if passed, would cause a split.

You are right. Amendment accepted as stated above.

Yes for emphasis. It depends on your own interpretation of "Christian" really.

Do you view all the churches in your town except "Oneness Pentecostals", as non Christian? Please share.

I know this has to be a joke ... the "Hell Casting" resolution would be the proverbial nuclear icing on the cake .... to a very volatile situation brewing over Tampa.

I don't see how it would cause a big hubub. It's what we believe. What's the big deal?

The big deal ... it would eliminate any PAJCer/Water/Spirit minister that believes in light doctrine or refuses to proclaim "wholeheartedly", without of doubt, who God will save or not ....

It's asking them to:

1: condemn "christians" who don't believe exactly as they do.... UNPRECEDENTED

2: to accept the Bernardian 3 step justification model; which Seagraves does not accept ... he believes justification takes place at repentance and remission at baptism ... while Epleyians believe both justification and remission happen at water baptism.

3. play God ....

This is HERESY ...

From where you stand... Remember Dan, position determines perspective! You are judging!

This has nothing to do with where I stand ...

Most of your CLC alumni ... preachers of the Seagravian tradition... of which I know a few .....do not hold the 3 step justification model and they are for the most part still Water and Spirit.

This would also put any preacher who wanted to invite a preacher w/ a divergent soteriological view... even if it's light doctrine ... on notice ....

the district Supt ... would be able to feasibly take away a minister's license for inviting this person to preach at his church ... because it would be in violation of a signed AS

Dan,

Please forgive me. I wasn't addressing your particular position as right or wrong. I was simply pointing out or reminding you that what ever position one holds does indeed determine perspective and in that light we should be careful not to judge lest we offend based solely on the perspective established because of our position.

Again, I did not intend to throw a stone at you. just attempting to serve as a reminder. My apologies!

Agreed. I'll put this quote in my archive ... for future 'rock throwing'.

This resolution if amended to the FD would complete the hat trick ....

The UC's would effectively purge the fellowship, via the AS,... of anyone that:

1. Does not hold their interpretation of NB
2. Does not hold their views on holiness/TV
3. Associates with a "christian" that does not believe as they do.

P.S. Philly ... yes ... it is heretical to ask ministers to play God and affirm w/o a shadow of a doubt who is saved and who is not ....

Bad resolution. Leave the AoF just as they are.

It's a joke of course - a hypothetical kind of question. I certainly hope so, but IF it wasn't it would certainly clarify things for me and I know that I'd be left left sitting outside the entrance door and that's for sure. And that would be very very sad for me to think about.

What kind of pressure would that put on the hundreds of pastors who aren't 100% sure that if a person doesn't speak in tongues they're doomed to eternal hell?

We already know there is an element within the UPC who don't believe everyone not baptized in the name of Jesus but who've been baptized in the titles and done all they know to do based on what they've been taught will be accepted by God.

This would create total bedlam.

Not to mention the laity who have the same uncertainty...

I don't see how 2 is associated with the resolution.

The AOF are quit clear to me, I see no need for an amendment.

The more I ponder this whole scenario over the AS & the AOF and TV etc. it becomes more clear to me that the UC's are indeed, a dwindling bunch and will have extreme difficulty wresting control of the org away from the moderates or even the libs. If they want a "tighter" org, I think they will have to split off.


It appears to me that there are many moderates and even some libs who are tired of being in an org with negative growth in the US. I received a call from a UPC pastor this morning who stated this very thing. He could not discuss his thoughts with anyone IN the org for fear of being ostracized. This is NOT a fearful man, but one who only knows too well what happens when one questions the status quo.

MOW, I agree, these have been my thoughts for some time.

Does anyone know if this passed?

Behold it came to pass...

A "Resolution 1" did pass at GC 2007. I'm not certain that it was the one mentioned at the start of this thread back in May. "All 'christians' are damned..."? C'mon.

The initial post of this thread was TIC as was the query of it's passage.

BUT 2 posters would vote for it given opportunity.

Here Dan pointed out exactly the reasons I started this thread. I believe most in the UPC DO hold to a PCI view or a "light doctrine" view and could not sign a straight forward clarification of their postion concerning other Christains.

I agree with you, I think most do. And personally, I would be ashamed to be a part of any group that would even consider anything with wording as was stated at the start.

True - I was hoping the absurdity would come through...:nod

Unprecedented? How long have you been part of this forum? :sly

:stop :naughty

H2H & others...

I suggest, before all of you gratefully acknowledge your elevation to God's executive staff, that you do a tad bit of introspection. Perhaps you might want to seek YOUR OWN salvation with FEAR and TREMBLING...yes, FEAR and TREMBLING...and stop being so spiritually arrogant about what YOU BELIEVE to be full salvation.

God takes counsel of HIS OWN WILL...He doesn't, at any time, need your input, ideas or judgment. You can't influence His Truths...you can't change His Mind...and you certain can't predetermine MY FUTURE.

Please Lord, allow us to have a discussion about humility, lowliness and sinners saved by grace...

Re: Resolution #1 Clarification of AOF Soteriology
 

Hi Forum Friends, did anyone ever find out if this passed? :)

Re: Resolution #1 Clarification of AOF Soteriology
 

Yo, "H"!!! Great to see you back. I personally don't know anything about this. I'm not sure it made it to the floor though. :D

Re: Resolution #1 Clarification of AOF Soteriology
 

If this is the same as the one mentioned this year, the UPCI passed Resolution 1.