Date Posted:23:20:15 10/13/04 Wed Author: John Subject: Kip's position on salvation In reply to:
Joe
's message, "Re: Baptism vs. ICC Baptism" on 18:04:47 10/13/04 Wed
>Isn't Kip's recent position just a rehash of the old
>position? From my limited understanding, you couldn't
>be baptized unless you were a ICC disciple. So the
>real requirement to be saved was to become a ICC
>disciple, a much harder thing than the act (ritual?)
>of getting baptized. Christian = Disciple = Saved. Not
>a Disciple = Not a Christian = Not saved.
Yes, Kip's position is the same except a few words are changed. The Acts 11 verse was used to say Disciple=Christian=Saved, then disciple was defined as totally committed, super-evangelistic, totally obedient person that would go anywhere, do anything by any means necessary to baptize a lost world.
>That being the case, the ICC's teaching on salvation
>is not much different from UBF's, though UBF doesn't
>require baptism.
That's what I am begininng to understand. It amazes me that the ICC would say that no one was like them. Some still hold to this view!
