So you signed the AS ....

[SDG]

One of the common arguments from the right in the Television debate is that any minister who as much utters support for word TELEVISION ... has put their integrity on the line ... while some are called hypocrites.... because they signed the AS [the infernal document] stating an anti-tv stance.

Now if this legalistic argument is to be a tautology ... should it not apply in all cases?

For example some ministers believe that forgiveness of sins happens at repentance while others believe both happen after both repentance and baptism ... but let's examine the document that they have affirmed ... to see if they indeed believe, teach and preach what the AS and AOF states.



The Fundamental Doctrine of the AOF ... which ministers are to affirm states specifically:

The Fundamental Doctrine reads, "The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ..:

Dr. Seagraves writes: The grammatical construction of the Fundamental Doctrine would indicate that the remission of sins is effected by the water baptism alone, rather than by repentance and water baptism coupled together, since repentance and water baptism are not joined by the conjunction "and" but are instead separated by a comma.

Although don't feel to bad ... the same articles contradict each other under the Article of Repentance and Conversion:

"Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins:1

Seagraves also writes: The context concerns conversion, not the obtaining of forgiveness by a born-again believer, says nothing about water baptism, and would lead one to believe that repentance alone is sufficient to produce forgiveness of sins.

A study of the Greek text would indicate that "forgiveness" and "remission" are synonyms, since in the King James Version both words are translated from the same Greek word, aphesis.

----------------------------------

Now the question is.....

How many of those who signed the AS ... affirming that remission of sins happens only because of water baptism are aware that they don't really believe, teach or preach this ....?

If this argument is to remain consistent shouldn't the language of the Articles change to reflect what the majority believe about forgiveness and remission of sins?

[freeatlast]

UPCI = United Pentecostal Church of Inconsistencies

[OGIA]

The real question?

See last comment.

[Steve Epley]

Dan I have never been UPC nor have I desired to be. However I think your post is unfair Elder Seagraves is a scholar so his analysis would NOT be the same as the average preacher reading it to me it is saying the same as Acts 2:38 baptism without repentance would never remit sins.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Dan I have never been UPC nor have I desired to be. However I think your post is unfair Elder Seagraves is a scholar so his analysis would NOT be the same as the average preacher reading it to me it is saying the same as Acts 2:38 baptism without repentance would never remit sins.

I agree the average preacher might read it in a different manner ... however ... this is a legal document ... requiring signature .. and can be used for or against a preacher in question ..... in addition the act of signing is used to mis-characterize the intents and hearts of other ministers ....

if this document were to be brought into a legal court case ... and some one brought up the inconsistencies in the document ... they would have a valid case ... IMHO

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I agree the average preacher might read in a different manner ... however ... this is a legal document ... requiring signature .. and can be used for or against a preacher in question ..... in addition the act of signing is used to mis-characterize the intents and hearts of other ministers ....

if this document were to be brought into a legal court case ... and some one brought up the inconsistencies in the document ... they would have a valid case ... IMHO

I can see your point but I doubt if very many would give the scrutinty given here.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I can see your point but I doubt if very many would give the scrutinty given here.

Yet .. this scrutiny will be on the floor in September ... and the argument of "hypocrisy" will be used ....

[CC1]

One of the interesting things is that one can construe the AS to mean that you will never contend to change it or anything to do with the articles of faith, etc.

With the television issue we have seen the old bogey man used against saints with the position that any questioning is rebellion and rebelion as the same as witchcraft employed again in some cases where those advocating a change in the UPC position are labeled as rebellious, having wrong motives, etc because they dare question a UPC sacred cow.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by CC1

One of the interesting things is that one can construe the AS to mean that you will never contend to change it or anything to do with the articles of faith, etc.

With the television issue we have seen the old bogey man used against saints with the position that any questioning is rebellion and rebelion as the same as witchcraft employed again in some cases where those advocating a change in the UPC position are labeled as rebellious, having wrong motives, etc because they dare question a UPC sacred cow.

The forget that they together are a legislative body ... not curators of a museum.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Yet another PCI thread.