Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

Have you read my posts? Thats what I am explaining. For instance. Do you believe any given Apostolic is saved who after many admonitions to understand the doctrine of the resurrection still holds to immortal soul?

If you DO think they are saved you believe in the "light" doctrine. You believe altho they cant SEE the reality of what scripture teaches God will accept them on the basis they are walking in the light AS THEY SEE IT.

And no I NEVER said a person must know all doctrine the moment they repent? Do you have a quote of me saying that?

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

That is not "the Light Doctrine™".

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

I believe every disciple "is saved" until they reject Truth. Truth being God's Word on any subject. But I also believe - and this is important - that I do not have the capability to determine at what point that irrevocably occurs.

For instance: Many have struggled with some Truth presented to them, years even, as they wrestle with it, until they are firmly and finally convinced. It takes different people different amounts of time to understand things. Thus, one who teaches must be "patient".

On the other hand, there are situations where two or three admonitions are all that is required, after which they either shape up or ship out. We have to be careful though not to mistake our inability to teach clearly with another person's inability or unwillingness to submit to the Word.

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

I understand to "Apostolics" this is not the light doctrine. But the light doctrine is among pretty much all the Churches. Each one fitting it to their particular doctrinal streams.

Thats what I'm trying to explain. Apostolics practice their own version of the light doctrine among themselves on the other foundation doctrines besides Oneness and Acts 2:38.

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

Then you and I agree. If one rejects foundation truth they have no assurance they will inherit final salvation. And my point at the beginning of the thread was that to me the light doctrine simply means that God will be the judge of each ones secrets and motives.

Rom. 2:16

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Jesus will be a perfect judge for everyone. To some that will be good news. To others very bad news.

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

MBlume

Yes and no. Its true they believed you had to accept the foundation truths of Jesus to be saved. Im not so sure that we can refuse to obey or believe in other things Jesus taught and make it in.

Holiness might be a good example. It is not among the foundation doctrines in Hebrews but is taught as salvational everywhere one looks in the New Testament.

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

I answered your question in saying these words.
Please comment on what YOU THINK Pauls calling persons who taught different than he did about the resurrection and rapture of the Church "deceivers"?

As in "Let no man deceive you by any means.....".

Was he giving us room to believe something he did not teach? Was he giving a severe warning to the Church to refuse such teaching and accept his teaching? Was his warning to the saints about the issue understood to be something that could affect their salvation?

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

Esaias
You obviously misunderstood my words or distorted them. Here is what I actually said.

Is this statement true?

Please follow. Acts 17:1-10

1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

5But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. 6And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; 7Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. 8And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. 9And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.

10And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Ok. How long was Paul with the Thessalonian saints? 3 Sabbath days.

We can take that to mean 3 weeks. It seems from the context shortly afterwards he was driven out. Agreed?

Now fast forward to 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Note verse 5. Paul says he had taught them this WHEN HE WAS WITH THEM. Amen?

So in the time frame of about a month Paul had already taught the doctrine of the resurrection and rapture to these people. He makes it clear in verse 5 he thought they should have understood this before he had left them.

So thats what I meant when I said in the early Church one could be taught the foundation doctrines of Christ and embraced them within a months time.

If he had taught them up to the point of the coming of Jesus and the day of judgment I think we can say he had taught them the foundation doctrines.

Was he willing to go over it again with them? Yes. But does the context indicate he thought they should have understood by the time he left? Yes.

So nowhere did I say they would be lost after 30 days only that one could learn the foundation within 30 days.

However when Paul wrote back to them he make his feelings (of truth) well known when he warned them to let no man deceive them by any means about the topic.

My end point would be that we have people today who have been doing that very thing for decades! Teaching false things in opposition to what the Holy Spirit taught the early Church.

Should they not be concerned about being rejected by Jesus at the coming of his kingdom? So if one would argue that they wont be lost because they did not SEE the doctrine Paul was teaching as in the case of THOUSANDS of Apostolic preachers today are they not believing in their own version of the "light doctrine"?

They did not INTEND to teach falsely and deceive saints. They merely misunderstood Paul and John and Jesus teachings. If that be true then why could it not be true of thousands of Evangelical Preachers who did not INTEND to lead souls astray but merely misunderstood the teachings of Jesus?

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

Could all these questions be why the early church settled on a creed shortly after the passing of the Apostles?

Here's an interesting "creed" I found while surfing the web:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...ddd5e1f9bb.jpg

Re: More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"
 

I find it interesting that for a bunch of Jesus-only Holy Rollers, they forgot about Jesus and the Holy Spirit :heeheehee