I find some standards to be reminiscent of legalism, but it wasn't what Judaizers were. I mean, read on these folks. It was gruesome and insane. Yes, Paul got angry and told them to mutilate themselves. The fallacy of the argument, however, is that not all who admonish their saints to a particular standard equate those on the basis of salvation -- but the Judaizers did. That's the HUGE difference.
I'm with TV1. But you're right that not all equate standards with salvation but most do! I'm personally acquainted with many of them. They will bob and weave and obfuscate but when forced to answer they clearly attach salvation to standards. It is clearly Galatians 3 and deja vu all over again. There is no "huge" difference!
But you're right that not all equate standards with salvation but most do! I'm personally acquainted with many of them. They will bob and weave and obfuscate but when forced to answer they clearly attach salvation to standards.
Raven
It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.
I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.
It is definitely a tight rope to walk, and most fall over into the legalism pit. You can say - 'Around here, we're going to wear our sleeves at our elbows just because we think that's a good stopping point' - but in practical application, it soon becomes a matter of salvation in people's minds.
I dearly love my ultra-con friends, but almost every single one of them view standards as salvational.
Really? I have many "ultra-con" friends, and none of them would call sleeve length salvational. Their buddies church does it different than them -- they decided something different. Most see it as ecclesiological, not soteriological, and that's the major difference. I'm not promoting sleeve length, I'm just engaging the conversation on this.
One more thing concerning the Articles of Faith. A minister can sign the Affirmation Statement saying he believes and preaches what is set forth in the Articles of Faith and never have to preach against pants on women, jewelry or facial hair on men. These items are not in the AOF under Holiness, the AOF is only from page 29 to 37 in the manual. What most people don't realize is that the Articles of Faith is not the whole UPCI Manual, only a few pages.
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
What two sections of the Articles of Faith? There are 23 sections in the Articles of Faith. This Westberg resolution has been a mess since it was passed; no one set down and thought it out. Westberg and Urshan are now pasted on to glory and the UPC is left with a real mess. It was all political to start with. Again I can sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry.
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
You may be able to sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against pants on women or jewelry, but you can't sign the Affirmation Statement and not be bound to preach against cut hair, make up, and your people having televisions in thier homes. Not if words have meaning and your signature has value.
...and your cover letter doesn't "work".
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
If you sign the Affirmation Statement and then write a cover letter that contradicts what you have signed, Which one is a lie?
What's worse the liar or the system that turns a blind eye to it (see the Urshan letter) or promotes it then turns around and singles out and contends against those not in the majority view having they themselves attested not to do so to the disunity of the body?
From BeforeYouSignIt.com
Quote:
Further mixed messages include the admission by a former General Secretary, Cleveland M. Becton, in a 1999 interview, that a number of ministers have signed the affirmation statement with qualifying statements of their own or with cover letters. He also admitted that many of these protestations have been generally accepted while some returned and ministers dropped from the rolls.
While some have reported that their district elders have told them to sign even if the individual minister does not affirm the statement in it’s entirety.
Integrity seems to be a two-edged sword.
Last edited by Kim Komando; 06-23-2009 at 11:11 AM.
Hybrid Mode
