Unity & Diversity

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Quoting from a previous post, Bro. Kirk Van Ooteghem wrote:

>>...some would argue that one is baptized for ("because of") remission of sins,
>>just as one is imprisoned for ("because of") committing a crime.

And responded:

>This interpretation is spurious at best.  It is a common evangelical argument
>based on Arminian tradition.

I'm curious what specific Arminian influence you see in this interpretation.
The opposing position, Calvinism, would seem to be far more compatible with
this view. No one argues "grace alone by faith alone" more strongly than the
Calvinists.

>It is nearly impossible to determine what exactly the debate between "full
>salvation" and "salvation" may have meant when the UPC articles of faith were
>being written and adopted.

I would have to disagree. The wording of the Fundamental Doctrine was
forumated specifically to address the differing views on what constituted
the new birth, which is well documented. The words "full salvation" were
acceptable to the majority from both camps as a description of the Acts 2:38
experience.

>The bottom line is we cannot assume that the objector(s) to the phrase
>"full salvation" did not believe that baptism was essential.

I'm assuming nothing of the kind. "Full salvation" was the broader
terminology for the initial Christian experience, allowing enough latitude
in interpretation to be acceptable to all. What was defeated was a motion to
remove just the word "full." Removing the word would have created a more
rigid statement pointedly declaring baptism essential to salvation.

In agreeing to the broader wording, obviously the brethren considered unity
among Apostolics, for the cause of Christ and His work, more crucial than
their differing views on the new birth. 


Cary Robison