How Many "3 Steppers" Do We Have On Aff???

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Even though most want to have a rep of being "strong on the doctrine" there is an existing and growing movement to not judge others (into damnation) who have not experienced what we have.

Though this mindset does raise new questions regarding their views on "full salvation" and "light doctrine" I do see the growing tolerance as a good thing - however justification is made. (pun intended)

If this is true, then would you say a circle is being made by many back to an initial attitude of 'accommodation of others' similar to that of the early promoters of the water/spirit position?

We know the "doctrinal theories of accommodation" were first developed to defend the newly revealed water/spirit position by giving explanation for a perceived change in the plan of salvation "as....now revealed to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation" (Haywood). Wouldn't you agree that an objective return to these issues concerning "full/partial salvation" and/or "progressive light" theories really calls the whole water/spirit position (however accommodating the modern advocates are) into question again?

Revisiting those doctrines developed to defend the existence of the water/spirit position could lead to a realization that those who stood opposed to the new view were the ones truly justified in their concerns.

Is this an indication that some are on the road to abandoning the water/spirit position by returning full circle to the original view of justification held by those initial 20th century promoters of the new water/spirit doctrine before their new revelations came?

I also see the "growing tolerance" as a good thing.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Adino

If this is true, then would you say a circle is being made by many back to an initial attitude of 'accommodation of others' similar to that of the early promoters of the water/spirit position?

Yes I would.

We know the "doctrinal theories of accommodation" were first developed to defend the newly revealed water/spirit position by giving explanation for a perceived change in the plan of salvation "as....now revealed to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation" (Haywood). Wouldn't you agree that an objective return to these issues concerning "full/partial salvation" and/or "progressive light" theories really calls the whole water/spirit position (however accommodating the modern advocates are) into question again? Perhaps it does call the W&S positions into question, but let's not forget there were many who held to a form of the W&S that also allowed for their "Trinitarian brothers" to be spared damnation. There may be a contingent of those today adhering to the "light doctrine" of sorts.

Revisiting those doctrines developed to defend the existence of the water/spirit position could lead to a realization that those who stood opposed to the new view were the ones truly justified in their concerns.

Not sure about that. And I am not sure I have clear understanding about the initial concerns the opposition had.

Is this an indication that some are on the road to abandoning the water/spirit position by returning full circle to the original view of justification held by those initial 20th century promoters of the new water/spirit doctrine before their new revelations came? Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying abandoning the distinctives, or starting to view them as subsequent to conversion?

I also see the "growing tolerance" as a good thing.

.