KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Barb

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...

Hi Barb, I missed this post earlier. I'm sorry. It seems that if I log out and then log back in I "find" a whole lot of "new" posts sometimes - and in sections that I'm certain I've read.

Like you, I also do not believe the Oneness Acts 2:38 message to be "new fangled." It was the practice of the Apostles in the first century. It's just that over the last 100 years we've been accused of inventing it. To answer those accusations we've tried to find historical support for the doctrine and we have presented some unfortunate ideas and examples and people have actually lost faith because of it.

The Bible plan of salvation is quite clear. We are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done, but "by grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). I believe that there is also a grace that is conferred through our obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus name, though I'm not entirely satisfied with the ways in which I have tried to articulate that in the past.

Today there is a continuing movement within our ranks to move our attitudes toward other Christians away from the attitude that was held by our Pentecostal forebears. This movement will often frame their arguments in terms of "our heritage." They wish to get us to abandon our heritage by appealing to a heritage that they just made up. This conundrum has honestly brought me to tears.

I spent years being frustrated by it and even intimidated by it. Holding my tongue has almost cost me my life - literally. Our pioneers did not condemn other Christians. Our pioneers did not make statements like a few posters have made in this thread. Our pioneers did not say things like, "I believe Trinitarians are lost..."

I'm trying to be true to what I sincerely believe to be a remarkable and important heritage.

Oh, and don't sell yourself short. I've read your posts long enough to recognize a smart lady when I see one.

[Aquila]

The Latter and the Former Rain together! Is it true that half the people who have ever lived are alive today? That's one big population explosion.

[Apprehended]

I am aware of many if not most Apostolic people believe that we have finally ARRIVED at all the revealed truth that there are no longer any leading light to walk in that could possibly affect salvation if that revealed light is not walked in.

Contrary to this, I am a firm believer in the "light doctrine" that is still leading ever onward and that the church has NOT been fully restored to what it was in it's infant N.T. state, much less gone on forward into maturity. Further, I am given to believe that because the Apostolic movement as we know it has not progressed any further into revealed light, it is not as vibrant as it was in the early part of the 20th century. In short...it is largely backslid living in the waining of the light that they had.

Events surrounding Topeka, Azusa and Los Angeles in 1913 were only two or three additional steps toward restoration. Those revelations have be codified in our fundamentals as far as truth is concerned but are meaningless when there is no further progress toward perfection.

"The path of the just is as a shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day." In spite of what many believe, we are simply not there yet but traditions and error has hindered that progress...walk in the light.

Just a thought...

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

I am aware of many if not most Apostolic people believe that we have finally ARRIVED at all the revealed truth that there are no longer any leading light to walk in that could possibly affect salvation if that revealed light is not walked in.

Contrary to this, I am a firm believer in the "light doctrine" that is still leading ever onward and that the church has NOT been fully restored to what it was in it's infant N.T. state, much less gone on forward into maturity. Further, I am given to believe that because the Apostolic movement as we know it has not progressed any further into revealed light, it is not as vibrant as it was in the early part of the 20th century. In short...it is largely backslid living in the waining of the light that they had.

Events surrounding Topeka, Azusa and Los Angeles in 1913 were only two or three additional steps toward restoration. Those revelations have be codified in our fundamentals as far as truth is concerned but are meaningless when there is no further progress toward perfection.

"The path of the just is as a shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day." In spite of what many believe, we are simply not there yet but traditions and error has hindered that progress...walk in the light.

Just a thought...

Great post

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I spent years being frustrated by it and even intimidated by it. Holding my tongue has almost cost me my life - literally. Our pioneers did not condemn other Christians. Our pioneers did not make statements like a few posters have made in this thread. Our pioneers did not say things like, "I believe Trinitarians are lost..."

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind in the thread on Mormonism

Is there really a Trinitarian church goer who understands the Trinity? To them denying the Trinity is denying the Father, for they don't understand it. To the scholars however....

My Father in law said they are not worshipping 3 gods. They worship One God and Two Idols.

(that would be a seperate thread subject than Mormonism)

I am the one who said the bolded statement. I have spoken to some "pioneers" who did in fact believe the same thing.

[commonsense]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

I am aware of many if not most Apostolic people believe that we have finally ARRIVED at all the revealed truth that there are no longer any leading light to walk in that could possibly affect salvation if that revealed light is not walked in.

Contrary to this, I am a firm believer in the "light doctrine" that is still leading ever onward and that the church has NOT been fully restored to what it was in it's infant N.T. state, much less gone on forward into maturity. Further, I am given to believe that because the Apostolic movement as we know it has not progressed any further into revealed light, it is not as vibrant as it was in the early part of the 20th century. In short...it is largely backslid living in the waining of the light that they had.

Events surrounding Topeka, Azusa and Los Angeles in 1913 were only two or three additional steps toward restoration. Those revelations have be codified in our fundamentals as far as truth is concerned but are meaningless when there is no further progress toward perfection.

"The path of the just is as a shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day." In spite of what many believe, we are simply not there yet but traditions and error has hindered that progress...walk in the light.

Just a thought...

Thanks for making all of us re-examine what we may have been taught; I'm a firm believer in Acts 2:38 but do feel some of the more recent "facts" were a bit contrived.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Hi Barb, I missed this post earlier. I'm sorry. It seems that if I log out and then log back in I "find" a whole lot of "new" posts sometimes - and in sections that I'm certain I've read.

Like you, I also do not believe the Oneness Acts 2:38 message to be "new fangled." It was the practice of the Apostles in the first century. It's just that over the last 100 years we've been accused of inventing it. To answer those accusations we've tried to find historical support for the doctrine and we have presented some unfortunate ideas and examples and people have actually lost faith because of it.

The Bible plan of salvation is quite clear. We are not saved by works of righteousness that we have done, but "by grace through faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). I believe that there is also a grace that is conferred through our obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus name, though I'm not entirely satisfied with the ways in which I have tried to articulate that in the past.

Today there is a continuing movement within our ranks to move our attitudes toward other Christians away from the attitude that was held by our Pentecostal forebears. This movement will often frame their arguments in terms of "our heritage." They wish to get us to abandon our heritage by appealing to a heritage that they just made up. This conundrum has honestly brought me to tears.

I spent years being frustrated by it and even intimidated by it. Holding my tongue has almost cost me my life - literally. Our pioneers did not condemn other Christians. Our pioneers did not make statements like a few posters have made in this thread. Our pioneers did not say things like, "I believe Trinitarians are lost..."

I'm trying to be true to what I sincerely believe to be a remarkable and important heritage.

Oh, and don't sell yourself short. I've read your posts long enough to recognize a smart lady when I see one.

Thank you for this post, and especially the last line...

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by Sam

For several years I have felt like I cannot in good conscience be part of a local assembly which teaches that folks who have not been baptized in Jesus' name and who have not spoken with tongues are not justified/saved/regenerated.

We stopped going to an ALJC church in the late nineteen seventies when the pastor declared in his Sunday night sermon, "The Bible says that a man is supposed to be clean shaven." I thought to myself, "What am I doing here? How can I sit here and listen to stuff like this? How can I be a part of this? Something is wrong with what we have become." The emphasis on facial hair and on hair length for men and women just turned me off. Also, at that time our pastor was leaning toward the UPC and I was afraid he might join them. At one time he asked me what I thought about the UPC and I guess I shocked him when I compared the organization to the Mafia and to the Teamsters Union. At that time there were two UPC churches in this area plus some from other organizations but I just felt like I could not be part of them either.

So, here I am, a Jesus' Name Pentecostal going to a Trinity Pentecostal church. How do I do that? Well, for one thing I am what we call a "one-stepper" here on the forum so, in my opinion, anyone who has taken that "one step" of faith in Jesus Christ is saved and is my brother or sister. As far as baptism, well, I believe that baptism should be only for a repentant believer, should be by immersion, and the name of Jesus should be mentioned, but I realize not all Christians believe that. I can accept some of my brothers and sisters who have been sprinkled, or who have had water poured on their heads three times, or who have been immersed in the FS&HG formula, or who have been baptized in Jesus' name with or without the titles of Lord and/or Christ added. I attend a local church and a couple prayer meetings in other churches where folks have been baptized in the Spirit (and I believe they have been baptized in the REAL Holy Ghost) so I am around folks who speak with tongues. My personal belief is that hair length, sleeve length, clothing styles, radio, tv, internet and a host of other stuff like that are of secondary importance and are a matter of personal opinion and conviction so I stay out of discussions like that. I doubt if many trinitarians really believe in "three gods." We all commonly believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we leave it at that.

So, that's how I can go to a "trinity" church and accept the folks there.

This post is beautiful... I find myself in agreement with a good part of it. Thanks for sharing.

[Fiyahstarter]

Actually, I agree with it all!!!

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Sam

For several years I have felt like I cannot in good conscience be part of a local assembly which teaches that folks who have not been baptized in Jesus' name and who have not spoken with tongues are not justified/saved/regenerated.

We stopped going to an ALJC church in the late nineteen seventies when the pastor declared in his Sunday night sermon, "The Bible says that a man is supposed to be clean shaven." I thought to myself, "What am I doing here? How can I sit here and listen to stuff like this? How can I be a part of this? Something is wrong with what we have become." The emphasis on facial hair and on hair length for men and women just turned me off. Also, at that time our pastor was leaning toward the UPC and I was afraid he might join them. At one time he asked me what I thought about the UPC and I guess I shocked him when I compared the organization to the Mafia and to the Teamsters Union. At that time there were two UPC churches in this area plus some from other organizations but I just felt like I could not be part of them either.

So, here I am, a Jesus' Name Pentecostal going to a Trinity Pentecostal church. How do I do that? Well, for one thing I am what we call a "one-stepper" here on the forum so, in my opinion, anyone who has taken that "one step" of faith in Jesus Christ is saved and is my brother or sister. As far as baptism, well, I believe that baptism should be only for a repentant believer, should be by immersion, and the name of Jesus should be mentioned, but I realize not all Christians believe that. I can accept some of my brothers and sisters who have been sprinkled, or who have had water poured on their heads three times, or who have been immersed in the FS&HG formula, or who have been baptized in Jesus' name with or without the titles of Lord and/or Christ added. I attend a local church and a couple prayer meetings in other churches where folks have been baptized in the Spirit (and I believe they have been baptized in the REAL Holy Ghost) so I am around folks who speak with tongues. My personal belief is that hair length, sleeve length, clothing styles, radio, tv, internet and a host of other stuff like that are of secondary importance and are a matter of personal opinion and conviction so I stay out of discussions like that. I doubt if many trinitarians really believe in "three gods." We all commonly believe in one God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and we leave it at that.

So, that's how I can go to a "trinity" church and accept the folks there.

It's ok to go where they preach trinitarian doctrine, but God forbid you sit in a church where they teach clean shaven is right!

While I agree that both are false doctrines, one is foundational, and the error will cause great lose, while the other will not. I can go to heaven without a beard. But i cannot go to heaven believing trinitarian doctrine.