KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I was an atheist. Believing in God was a huge change in my view of the world. Repentance completely changed the way I thought. My mind was no longer blinded to the life of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I no longer wanted to do the things I did when I walked in darkness. I thought about God all the time. I read the Bible every chance I got. I talked about God to anyone who would listen. LOL


Yes, when someone repents they are walking in the light. But that does not mean the Spirit of God was in me, He was with me.

This touches my heart. I am so thankful that God has done so much for you. I am deeply touched at this testimony. God bless you brother/sister.

But, there can be no change in one's life simply be one being WITH you. There was a LIGHT IN YOU. That light in you gave you a change in your INWARD parts. It was a CONVERSION. That conversion was that of making aright that which was upside down and perverted. That was an INWARD effect by an INWARD dwelling SPIRIT...no I did not say baptism but an INWARD Spirit of a divine nature. Remember God was with you, even when you were an atheist...otherwise, He could never have led you to your crisis point of faith and repentance.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

This touches my heart. I am so thankful that God has done so much for you. I am deeply touched at this testimony. God bless you brother/sister.

But, there can be no change in one's life simply be one being WITH you. There was a LIGHT IN YOU. That light in you gave you a change in your INWARD parts. It was a CONVERSION. That conversion was that of making aright that which was upside down and perverted. That was an INWARD effect by an INWARD dwelling SPIRIT...no I did not say baptism but an INWARD Spirit of a divine nature. Remember God was with you, even when you were an atheist...otherwise, He could never have led you to your crisis point of faith and repentance.

Good words APP. This is how I see it too.

In any case, a life transformed by the love of God is cause for rejoicing!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I reconcile it with the nation of Israel in the times of the kings as being a type of the church in the OT. It was full blown blessed and living to its potential in the years of King David. It became fat under Solomon and started to drift toward the end of his reign. It went through a huge split under rehoboam and suffered apostasy and mini revivals throughout the years to the point of going into captivity. But there was always a remnant that God had who served Him in truth without bowing the knee to Baal (false doctrine).

We would have been considered heretics during those 1,813 years of Church history by those in power who were considered orthodox. We would have been in hiding and if found out our writings would have been burned and we would have been martyred. But I believe just as God did in the days of Elijah, He has done all throughout history. I can't prove it but you cannot disprove it either. And we both know there has always been heretics. I'm comfortable saying this because God's truth endures to all generations. (and I'm not talking about the word of God in and of itself but the word of God active in the hearts of men)

Are you saying the RCC is the church? Are you comfortable saying that?

What we call call the RCC did not exist until the late Middle Ages (despite their own claims!). Really, the full blown RCC did not exist doctrinally until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and its reforms were implemented (as late as 1595), and the Counter Reformation (17th Century).

Remember the RCC claims Peter and Paul as their founders. Are you comfortable claiming a common ecclesiastical descent with the RCC? (That's just a rhetorical question). The answers are really not very cut and dried. Technically I am a "member" of the RCC, though 500 years ago they would have tortured me and utimately given me the auto de fe in order to "save my heretical soul."

There were many, many "heretical" groups that existed throughout time. Their books were burned, as well as the writers. But we still can pick up a lot of their teachings and even complete works. The primary "heretics" of this period were either Gnostics dualists or "reformers" of the Catholic tradition. We have extensive writings on these people and from these people. Whole libraries exist. There's no reason to suspect that Oneness Pentecostals existed and to suppose that there were is like supposing that there's an ancient civilization on Mars. You can't prove that there isn't an advanced civilization on Mars right now.

In fact, the whole argument that you can't "prove a negative" is really a straw man. For example, I can prove that you do not have a live African elephant in your kitchen drawer, even though I've never seen your kitchen. Some things go beyond the bounds of reality and can be reasonably dismissed.

Acts 2:38 salvation during those "silent years" is one of those things. There's not only the absence of any evidence, there's the evidence of absence. Despite some of our paranoid handling of RCC records, the RCC actually did a very good job recording the "errors" of their adversaries. They had to. Their primary weapon against "heretics" was their academic apparatus known as the Magisterium. In order to be effective the Magisterium needed to have accurate records and open debates.

The latest and closest thing to Acts 2:38 salvation was Tertullian's condemnation of patripassim. However, one other thing that Tertullian condemned about Praxeus & co. was that they didn't practice the Spiritual gifts like Tertullian's group, the Monatanists did. So it seems that even at this point (late 2nd & early 3rd centrury) the "whole package" of Acts 2:38 was lost.

*** Just to add a note (not necessarily for Mizpeh): No one has even attempted to fill in the blanks on my last post. And I find that to be real progress. As Barb pointed out, the Marvin Arnold school of history is full of holes. What does it say about us and our "love for the truth" when we accepted that stuff for a couple of generations?

To perhaps answer my own question: does it say that we are only now getting a real love for the truth?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

With due respect to you Sam- you are one of the boards better members. You are not a Jesus-name Pentecostal. If you were, you would have issues with the FS&HG baptism.

"FS" is "Full Salvation"?

Say, Sam lived in the 1600's with his current set of beliefs. With whom would he find Christian fellowship? Certainly not with other "Jesus-name Pentecostals" because there were none.

Say, Sam lived in 1913. He had just recieved his revelation on Jesus name baptism and the mighty God in Christ. Who would Sam fellowship with? Maybe one or two other "Jesus name Pentecostals," but the church that they all attended would have been a Trinitarian Pentecostal fellowship.

Say, Sam lives today (I don't intend to try and put words into Mr. Ellis's mouth, but from my own experiences). The nearest Jesus name Pentecostal may be cultic assembly where Sam has to get permission to vacation to see his own grandchildren and report in from an "approved" church in that town. So Sam seeks Christian fellowship as the early 20th century pioneers did.

What's wrong with that?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

This is totally unfair BOOM

I have come to expect better of you.

Grouping all non-OP as having a multiple-god baptism, and equating it to Morman baptism for the dead. HUMBUG!

More evidence that being Oneness Pentecostal (for some) is about judging other Christians more than having a divergent theological perception of the nature of God.

I guess I am the one missing something here.

This is not 1913, and I personally don't consider Trinitarians to be saved.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

I guess I am the one missing something here.

This is not 1913, and I personally don't consider Trinitarians to be saved.

Were Trinitarians saved in 1912?

The fervent "Water & Spirit" argument has no application in the real world. IMHO.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

I guess I am the one missing something here.

This is not 1913, and I personally don't consider Trinitarians to be saved.

I have no problem with that.
That is how you believe.
That's just something we don't agree on.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"FS" is "Full Salvation"?
...
Say, Sam lives today (I don't intend to try and put words into Mr. Ellis's mouth, but from my own experiences). The nearest Jesus name Pentecostal may be cultic assembly where Sam has to get permission to vacation to see his own grandchildren and report in from an "approved" church in that town. So Sam seeks Christian fellowship as the early 20th century pioneers did.

What's wrong with that?

The way I use the abbreviation FS&HG I mean "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

And, no, the closest Jesus' Name Church is not cultic. The ALJC church we attended now has a UPC pastor so it is now a UPC church. The pastor is Bro. Hendricks and I really don't know anything about him. It is about 10 miles from here. I would consider them moderate. The closest UPC church is about 2 miles from here. The pastor is Bro. Norman Paslay. I see him every so often when I go to a funeral of some family member of my wife. He was a little boy when I first came to Ohio. I think he is a good man. His parents, Norman and Mary Alice Paslay were assistant pastors to Bro. F.E. Curts at the only UPC in this city for many years. They split off in 1968 to form a new UPC. There is another UPC church which is probably about 12 or 13 miles away. The pastor is a grandson (I think) of Nathan Urshan. The Bishop of that church is Leroy Buller whom I'm familiar with. I see him about once every ten years or so. He came to Cincinnati in 1968 as an assistant to Bro. Curts and as a replacement for Bro. and Sis. Paslay. When they were replaced they took part of the congregation and started a separate UPC church. I don't think any of the three UPC churches here are controlling or cultic. A lot of Ohio UPC is pretty moderate. I just can't in good conscience, be a part of those churches.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What we call call the RCC did not exist until the late Middle Ages (despite their own claims!). Really, the full blown RCC did not exist doctrinally until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and its reforms were implemented (as late as 1595), and the Counter Reformation (17th Century).

Remember the RCC claims Peter and Paul as their founders. Are you comfortable claiming a common ecclesiastical descent with the RCC? (That's just a rhetorical question). The answers are really not very cut and dried. Technically I am a "member" of the RCC, though 500 years ago they would have tortured me and utimately given me the auto de fe in order to "save my heretical soul."

There were many, many "heretical" groups that existed throughout time. Their books were burned, as well as the writers. But we still can pick up a lot of their teachings and even complete works. The primary "heretics" of this period were either Gnostics dualists or "reformers" of the Catholic tradition. We have extensive writings on these people and from these people. Whole libraries exist. There's no reason to suspect that Oneness Pentecostals existed and to suppose that there were is like supposing that there's an ancient civilization on Mars. You can't prove that there isn't an advanced civilization on Mars right now.

In fact, the whole argument that you can't "prove a negative" is really a straw man. For example, I can prove that you do not have a live African elephant in your kitchen drawer, even though I've never seen your kitchen. Some things go beyond the bounds of reality and can be reasonably dismissed.

Acts 2:38 salvation during those "silent years" is one of those things. There's not only the absence of any evidence, there's the evidence of absence. Despite some of our paranoid handling of RCC records, the RCC actually did a very good job recording the "errors" of their adversaries. They had to. Their primary weapon against "heretics" was their academic apparatus known as the Magisterium. In order to be effective the Magisterium needed to have accurate records and open debates.

The latest and closest thing to Acts 2:38 salvation was Tertullian's condemnation of patripassim. However, one other thing that Tertullian condemned about Praxeus & co. was that they didn't practice the Spiritual gifts like Tertullian's group, the Monatanists did. So it seems that even at this point (late 2nd & early 3rd centrury) the "whole package" of Acts 2:38 was lost.

*** Just to add a note (not necessarily for Mizpeh): No one has even attempted to fill in the blanks on my last post. And I find that to be real progress. As Barb pointed out, the Marvin Arnold school of history is full of holes. What does it say about us and our "love for the truth" when we accepted that stuff for a couple of generations?

To perhaps answer my own question: does it say that we are only now getting a real love for the truth?

Pela, you are too smart for me!!

However, let me just say though many have said Bro. A's history outline is "full of holes," I do believe he was right that the Church has existed in some form since it's birth.

I sit here with tears in my eyes, Pela, trying to put this into words that make sense. I simply cannot embrace the notion that Oneness Pentecostalism is a new fangled voice...I just cannot.

There has always been a remnant, perhaps not referred to as OPs or Apostolics, but those who held to belief, repentance, baptism in the Name, and Spirit infilling never ceased to exist.

I will believe this until I kick...

[mizpeh]

Elijah thought he was the last Israelite living for the true God. Unbeknownst to him God had reserved to Himself a remnant who did not bow the knee to Baal. Why didn't Elijah know about this remnant? Perhaps because he had been gone for a few years and these folks may have been in hiding to avoid persecution. If the remnant was not recorded in the Bible, would their existence have ever be known to any one reading Jewish history?

I'm finishing up a class in Western Civilization at my local university tomorrow. We've done a survey from Mesopotamia to the Catholic counter reformation. I was just reading in my textbook how the Catholic church condemned Martin Luther and ordered his writings burned and gave him a space to recant or be excommunicated. Fortunately for Luther the nobles in Germany didn't enforce the church's sentence. But burning of heretical writings and persecution of the heretics by the orthodox church is well know from the times of Constantine. There are reasons for the absence of evidence.

I've read Against Praxeas and it does seem like Praxeas was against the manifestation of the 'Paraclete' as evidenced by the Montanists. That doesn't mean he was against spiritual gifts completely but only the way in which the Montanists used or abused the gifts. I finished reading Eusebius' Church History for this class also and came across some writings in the 180's that spoke of the gifts of the Spirit including tongues in a much more favorable light. The gifts of the Spirit is one way in which God is manifest in our lives without it one would have to wonder if Christ was dwelling in them.

You can read what you want into the silence of history but I'm sticking with what the Bible says about salvation and the ability of God to preserve to Himself a remnant.