|
Opinions -
Editorials
|
|
Written by Phil Spadaro
|
|
Friday, 23 September 2005 |
|
Page 2 of 4
A
similar thread exists with core salvation doctrine. Although there are
aberrations within each branch, the rule is agreement. Hear the
message, believe the message, repent, be baptized (for the forgiveness
of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit) and continued
obedience. Repentance, baptism as a point of conversion and continued
obedience are not common to other (Calvinist) protestant denominations.
Our beliefs are also (notably) dissimilar to Catholicism. The only
other (identifiable) group which holds the same core salvation
doctrines (with a cultural twist) is the conservative Anabaptists (i.e.
Old-Rule Mennonites).
It is in our peripheral doctrine where
differences can be seen. The filter through which we read the Bible
greatly influences this and the following categories. Within the RM
there are two traditional defined interpretation camps and one evolving
group. There are those who argue the Bible must explicitly direct
command, etc… for an action, attitude, or behavior to be valid. The
second group recommends silence in the Word indicates permission. A
third (growing) minority takes a middle ground with reason being the
bridge. Traditionally we have viewed these approaches as irreconcilable
and proceeded to split congregations and deem the other party as lost,
heretical or at best misguided. Over the past 15 years a progressive
movement has developed in the mainline. They have rejected the belief
that peripheral doctrine is worth of division. It is with this element
that the ICOC has the best opportunity of bridging divides.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 January 2006 )
|
Opinions 
