Quote:
Originally Posted by rrford
And just to be fair, some have used it as reason to be as lliberal as they like and feel that should be alright.
Both sides are wrong for so doing.
Personally, I firmly believe the statement dealt specifically with the differences between the PCI and PAJC salvation differences. It has metamorphosed to cover everything else.
We know the "faith" is what was in question. They felt they were close enough together to merge and allow a unity of spirit to work in them until they came to a unity, or agreement, of what "the faith" was.
My post bringing in jewelry was for the specific purpose of getting some to question it and then to show that it would be wrong to use the statment as ana dovocation or defense of particular holiness stances. Again, this is all hypotheses in my part. But it is interesting that when we read any account of the merger none seem to mention "holiness" issues. They all reference the doctrinal difference.
|
I agree that this statement was originally written because of the difference in PCI vs PAJC doctrinal views on when salvation is afforded to us.
However, there is no way that these level-headed men would have thought that one day they would come to some type of agreement on when salvation happens ... one would have to make major leaps in compromising doctrine.
They already agreed on major points of doctrine at the time of the merger:
1. The Oneness of God
2. Baptism in Jesus name
3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost w/ evidence of speaking in tongues
This was had to be a major selling point for the merger.
Again, I think the clause was included to promote respect and tolerance while not contending for views.
Furthermore, I think history shows us that the AS resolution was a final crowning moment for those who did not want PCIers in the org.
Hybrid Mode
