So you signed the AS ....

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

.

For the record NO ONE has ever forced me to sign the AS.

.

No one has ever forced me to sign the AS either.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

.

For the record NO "high" office holders have ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about anything, regardless of any misgivings or differences of opinion.

.

Nor has any "high" office holder ever told me that I should just sign the AS and not worry about it.

[SDG]

I have not been force either .

[Trouvere]

Now if this legalistic argument is to be a tautology ....what the study of aunts from Louisiana.....???? Taunteology.hahahaha.....get a life Daniel.Who cares about what the ministers in the UPC do or don't do.Its not about organization its about One God Jesus Name believers who make up the body of Jesus Christ.The church isn't an organization or a building its people.I don't think it pleases the Lord when we keep hashing out contentions and our differences.
That is satans way of hindering the gospel work.You have to love your neighbor and love your brother.I am sure there are some brethren who are UPC licensed on here as well as other orgs and all over the internet.Jesus may rebuke you for stirring up division.One of the greatest scripture in the bible is this:

Psa 133:1 ¶ [[A Song of degrees of David.]] Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!


Psa 133:2 [It is] like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;


Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.

[LadyRev]

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to.

And doing this takes away the "if you don't abide by everything you sign your name to then you are a liar" accusation as well.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by LadyRev

From the very beginning ministers have been signing the AS and adding their own "amendments", disclaimers so to speak, at the bottom and sending them in.

No one has been disfellowshipped for doing this even though they may not have agreed to fully abide by everything the AS pertains to.

Just don't forget to sign the check and you'll be OK.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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?

You can sign the AS and believe the remission of sins happens at repentance but you cannot believe it is okay for a woman to cut her hair. You can also believe women can wear pants. That's nowhere in the articles.

[ILG]

Yes, disclaimers are accepted. Makes you wonder what's the point.