Quote:
Originally Posted by 1399
This would be me.
Scripture interprets scripture, correct?
The Book of Romans and the Book of Galatians, the Samaritans, Phillipine jailer and the Ethiopian eunuch all seal the deal for me.
However, the seeds of doubt were sown when I started to question the "salvific value" of the standards my brothers and sisters were following. I questioned their emphasis on them. I questioned why in a town with 6 or 7 Apostolic churches, I was told not to visit any of the other churches because they weren't really saved.
I questioned why a lady who lives in a Malaysian jungle would be so concerned, borderline broken hearted, because she didn't think her American made skirt was long enough. I questioned why the Malaysian men felt compelled to wear long sleeved shirts in the 120 degree heat of the Malaysian jungle.
My answer: BAD RELIGION. Rotten, stinking, true Gospel inhibiting BAD RELIGION that even I had once followed.
|
Standards and the plan of salvation are 2 different things. It's natural that there will be variations of standards among Apostolic groups, since a lot of that stuff originates from personal convictions. But there should not be variations in the plan of salvation.
If a person is solid on the plan of salvation, then differences or disagreements with the standards should not cause them to revise their salvation theology.