Letter from Bro. Chester Wright to Bro. Haney - Page 39

ManOfWord · #**381** 08-28-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nina

To quote Bro Eply:

"The 1945 merger. The PAJC should have never compromised their message. It would have been better to have had the two groups with their distinctions.
My thoughts."

This Spirit has always been in the UPC from the beginning: an unequal yoke.

It's not what I believe but what THEY believed.

Nina

I understand better what you're saying, Nina. In that context, I think you're right. In those minds it WAS and IS an unequal yoke. I think it will ALWAYS be that way as long as there are 3 steppers. 3 steppers will not/cannot concede that the 1 step position is a possibility.

RevDWW · #**382** 08-28-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW

That wasn't the intent of my question. There are many lines of personal conviction and corporate standard that are good and helpful they just are not the test for holiness nor eternal habitation.

A deep love for the Lord will lead folks to do what legalism can not.

Bump for Amos. Don't want you thinking I'm off the deep end.

Michael Phelps · #**383** 08-28-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Once again, unequal yoke means believers vs. unbelievers - - not just believe differently.

I have to agree with Nina on this one. The 1 stepper vs. 3 stepper belief structures are divergent enough that it qualifies for this scripture, in my mind.

rgcraig · #**384** 08-28-2008, 08:40 PM

I suppose so.

Of course, it's not as bad as using that verse to support not marrying outside your race.

Elizabeth · #**385** 08-28-2008, 09:48 PM

Wouldn't a better verse be can 2 walk in agreement? I can see both Renda and Nina's point but the verse in question is being stretched a bit imo.

Elizabeth · #**386** 08-28-2008, 09:50 PM

Amos 3:3
King James Version (KJV)

3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

ManOfWord · #**387** 08-28-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanie

Amos 3:3
King James Version (KJV)

3Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

This one is even better!

rgcraig · #**388** 08-28-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

This one is even better!

Yep - that scripture fits the situation much better.

Nina · #**389** 08-28-2008, 10:04 PM

The "contending for different views" clause was there because there were different views concerning salvation that could have been contentious, if not for the clause
Were they all in a state of salvation?
That depends on which side of the yoke You asked....

That has not changed.

Elizabeth · #**390** 08-28-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nina

The "contending for different views" clause was there because there were different views concerning salvation that could have been contentious, if not for the clause
Were they all in a state of salvation?
That depends on which side of the yoke You asked....

That has not changed.

Could you explain this a bit more, I am not sure what you mean.