KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by staysharp

Of course, whaddu think? By the way, you do not read trinitarians books? You're the sole supporter of the PPH? You're gonna be in trouble when the close...Please, more double talk. If I were to look through your library I would only see oneness authors?

Are you aware that most proponents of oneness cannot even agree...like you an me!

By the way, Merry Christmas Mr. Coon.

You are putting words in my keyboard, SS.

I don't read a lot of theological books, mostly the Bible. I do like J.T. Pugh's "The Wisdom and Power of the Cross."

I highly recommend it.

It is a powerful book describing, among other things, wisdom from above.

I have read one or two of them there literary books too, now that I think of it.

And you have a Merry Christmas too. (And I do mean that)

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

You are not talking about a PCI approach, or Light Doctrine here , you are talking Easy-Beliefism. For the third time today is this quote.

Oh my! The labels that we invent! Why must it be so?

Since the Bible teaches us that we MUST believe...would you say that we have a choice between "Easy-Beliefism" and "Hard-Beliefish?" Easy-Beliefism condemns instantly to hell while Hard-Beliefism consigns instantly to heaven?

Which of the two does the bible speak about?

Concerning the quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila
I believe that if one refuses to be water baptized in Jesus name there's an obedience issue that might need to be addressed through bible study or admonition. I think that it's possible that those who ultimately refuse to be water baptized in Jesus name may be classified as being backsliden or in disobedience. While water baptism in Jesus name may not be an absolute requirement for salvation according to some Greek interpretations of Acts 2:38 it is a command that calls for obedience. Therefore one can conceivably repent, be forgiven, be filled with the Holy Ghost, BUT refuse to be baptized in Jesus name and be lost on the basis of disobedience. Baptism is at the very least the first step of obedience (Mark 16:16).

First off Aquila starts of with, "I believe..." It is a mere opinion which ultimately I agree with as he states it. However, is it disobedience to refuse to be baptized in Jesus' name when there is no LIGHT (speaking of the light doctrine) to lead him in that direction?

I do not accept the thought that batpism is the first step of obedience. "The Holy Ghost is given to them that OBEY..." That's bible....Acts 5:32. The first step toward obedience is to BELIEVE...after which a person is led to REPENT. Millions have been filled with the Holy Ghost without ever having been baptized in the name of Jesus. Since the Holy Ghost is given to them that OBEY, the idea of the first step of obedience is to be baptized in Jesus' name does not hold water.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Apprehended

Oh my! The labels that we invent! Why must it be so?

Since the Bible teaches us that we MUST believe...would you say that we have a choice between "Easy-Beliefism" and "Hard-Beliefish?" Easy-Beliefism condemns instantly to hell while Hard-Beliefism consigns instantly to heaven?

Which of the two does the bible speak about?

Concerning the quote:



First off Aquila starts of with, "I believe..." It is a mere opinion which ultimately I agree with as he states it. However, is it disobedience to refuse to be baptized in Jesus' name when there is no LIGHT (speaking of the light doctrine) to lead him in that direction?

I do not accept the thought that batpism is the first step of obedience. "The Holy Ghost is given to them that OBEY..." That's bible....Acts 5:32. The first step toward obedience is to BELIEVE...after which a person is led to REPENT. Millions have been filled with the Holy Ghost without ever having been baptized in the name of Jesus. Since the Holy Ghost is given to them that OBEY, the idea of the first step of obedience is to be baptized in Jesus' name does not hold water.

Are you now saying you think someone simply has to believe to be saved?

Repentance is gone, if they believe?

Since they believe, they do not have to be baptized?

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Are you now saying you think someone simply has to believe to be saved?

Repentance is gone, if they believe?

Since they believe, they do not have to be baptized?

The more I read here, the more I am inclined to think that many here have little concept of what is FAITH toward God.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

1. Yes. They must SIMPLY believe the SIMPLICITY of the Gospel.

2. No. Repentance is a LIFESTYLE. It is not something that so many here believes it to be...a one time trip to the altar. It is a daily process that begins with BELIEVING...which is rather EASY to be done once someone hears the Gospel. I can't understand why so many try to make it so HARD as in "HARD-BELIEFISM."

3. Of Course. The light forever leads onward. At any point in the Christian walk when one REFUSES to walk in the REVEALED light, there can be no salvation. The blood ceases to cleanse from all unrighteousness. But there is no walking in UNREVALED light. To become a robot to the command of someone who just SAYS that they must be baptized in the name of Jesus' specifically, apart from the revealing LIGHT, is not believing AT ALL...neither "easy" or the "hard" variety...for those of you who love labels.

So what must one DO that they may WORK the works of God? Believe! Make it hard or easy as you wish, but believing is absolutely imperative.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

Funnee- I did attempt to call you and you did not take my call today.

You also did not answer my questions.

I answered the pertinent charge of "blathering." I treated your insulting questions with humor because I'm a fun guy.

And sorry I missed your call. I hit up against an "expiry" time and expired. I would never "not take" a call from you!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Unity and simplicity of life. We're a long ways away from that today, aren't we?!

Having worked in a large Christian bookstore over the past few years, I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with many pastors and ministry leaders in the "Christian" community who are just perplexed at how to deal with church and pastoring anymore. So many are discouraged and feel that everything has become so complicated. So many are leaving the ministry. So many churches are closing up and splitting! It's like an epidemic taking place!!

Maybe it's partly because we've allowed it to become complicated because we've bought into what people think we need in order to do church anymore and to stay "current" and relate to the Xers and subsequent generations. Maybe it actually IS necessary in order to relate to a younger generation. Is it?

But it doesn't seem to have been effective for the most part when you consider the lack of growth in most churches and the fact that so many people IN the church are dissatisfied and unhappy and comparing things to the way it "used to be" and nothing can measure up.

So many pastors and ministry leaders are discouraged, disillusioned and packing it in and dropping out of ministry. They feel it's just not worth the trouble or the hassle and a sacrificial lifestyle (which really should be part and parcel of living a Christian life -- "take up thy "cross" and folow Me" were the words of Jesus after all) is not what most are willing to live.

I guess that for me whatever sacrifices have to be made, whatever adjustments have to be made to keep up can be justified as long as we're not compromising truth, and as long as we're reaching people with the Gospel and seeing lives transformed. Because that ........ is the bottom line and is our mandate.

Except that we also have a responsibility to care in the best way/s possible for the saints and the "aints" too sitting in churches needing the guidance and care of a shepherd.

If any minister opens up to you about this and voices that he may possibly be thinking of leaving the ministry ask him if he's considered pastoring a House Church. A house church is essentially a semi-organized, non-formal gathering of believers in an elder's home or the home of a saint blessed with a spirit of hospitality. Typically they hold regular prayer meetings and at least two Bible study sessions. They begin with worship, if one is blessed with musical talent there may be piano or guitar accompanyment. There is then a testimony time and a time for prayer requests.

The Bible study sessions are very open. The elder will read a passage of Scripture and then share the message and thoughts that God has laid upon his heart. Once the pastor is finished with the message God has placed upon his heart the entire session is opened for those attending to share with the entire group what elements of the passage spoke to them and what it may mean for them personally. In most house churches up to at most three elders may share the messages placed upon their hearts. It's interesting because these men will prepare their messages separately...but the Holy Ghost will lead them essentially into three dimensions of the very same message. Then there is a time of open prayer, confession, repentance, and recommitment. Their may be another song sung by the group and then they break out of the session for fellowship. Often they bring food and have an entire meal and it is at this point that they may break bread and partake in the wine by observing the Lord's Supper.

The blessings of this pattern are many. First, the Bible is very clear that during the times of the Apostles Christians primarily met in homes for Christian worship, prayer, and fellowship. Historically speaking Christians didn't begin gathering in church buildings until around the time of Constaintine and the purpose of using church buildings was to establish and teach orthodoxy (the Trinity) in officially recognized bodies. Those who met in homes and observed the Lord's Supper outside of the Catholic communion was declared heretical. Most of these were Arians and Oneness Christians.

Second, there's more openness between members. The gatherings are typically smaller than your traditional church assembly, but they begin to function more like a family and with more unity. More open hearted confessions, discussions, and conversations take place and everyone ministers one to another. No one is merely an observer who watches the religious authorities perform on the platform and then goes home. Everyone brings a contribution to share; a revelation, a doctrine, a song, a testimony, or maybe just some food.

Thirdly, since only a few families can meet in a single home house churches who are dedicated to meeting only in homes grow by forming new house churches, not by adding members. Once the established house church becomes too large for the home they are in they either decide to meet in a larger home or they decide to establish another house church by allowing another elder to begin hosting a house church in his home. They grow by multiplying home based assemblies not by trying to get more and more people to go to the same church. This also allows simple and average everyday men who have a call to pastor on their hearts to fulfill their call. We're the ones who have made pastoring so complicated. In today's world a pastor almost has to have the abilities of a CEO to fulfill their call...and most of their duties are unrelated to their actual call. This liberates pastors, saints, and churches to grow outside the "sanctuaries" and "temples" we've become enslaved to.

Fourth, house churches cost virtually nothing to start. All an elder needs is a home and a bible. They simply begin opening their home up for prayer and worship. They begin by leading their own families in prayer and worship during these times and soon God will draw others who are in need of closer and more intimate Christian fellowship. A traditional church uses the vast majority of their revenue paying for their buildings, salaries, and up keep. A house church of five to seven families can provide enough tithes and offerings to sustain a pastor full time, also allowing all additional funds to go to help members, charities, missions, or other house churches. If a house church pastor also works a job or has a career far more revenue can be used for benevolence and evangelism.

Fifth, as that elder's house church splits into new house churches and each new house church splits into even newer house churches that elder can bishop and minister to multiple bodies while allowing the newer elders or deacons to directly oversee each body.

It's a far more primitive and simplistic Christianity but it's becoming increasingly more and more popular especially in dense urban areas where building ever expanding churches is becoming more and more problematic.

But these pastors you're talking to are right...we're making pastoring and ministry far too complicated.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

To some you would do away with the experience of those in Act 8 and 10 who were filled prior to baptism.



Amazing this is so simple, clearly defined and yet some here scoff at this.

"Either you believe it or reject it"
-Josh McDowell

(fitting here as well as Evidence That Demands A Verdict)

I'm not sure if you're understanding my point. My point is that many people are filled with the Holy Ghost BEFORE baptism. If sins are only remitted at Baptism how did we receive the Holy Ghost before we were baptized?

[Aquila]

If yall think one MUST be water baptized in Jesus name to be saved...please don't use the King James Version of the Bible while quoting to me...it's a translation by damned men who had no revelation. Please quote a strictly Apostolic translation. Also, don't sing Amazing Grace in your churches...according to you the writer, John Newton, never experienced said grace.

Since history testifies that the gospel the three steppers preach was largely unknown down through the ages...their gospel has been a tragic failure.

I personally believe that God may have chosen to save men like William Tyndale and others in spite of the fact that they walked in less light than we have today. I'd like to make mention however...these men were most likely "baptized" though not in Jesus name. God may have chosen to count their act of obedience though it wasn't done exactly right. In addition they may have even had the Holy Ghost, since they didn't use the popular Pentecostal terminologies today terms relating to "ecstasy", "trance", and "spiritual state" in connection to prayer may point to what was an early Holy Ghost experience.

My point is that we can't put God in a box. They tried to put him in a golden box in the Old Testament and God would break out. They tried to put him behind a curtain in the Temple and he rent the curtain. Finally they tried to seal him in a tomb and he shook the earth and had the stone rolled away. We can't put God in a box or contain him, define him, or explain him. We must admit that even our time honored doctrines fall terribly short of explaining the unexplainable God. The more we judge others who's theology is also off the mark the more strictly God will judge us.

I caution against thinking we have it all figured out and that we have a monopoly on the truth.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not sure if you're understanding my point. My point is that many people are filled with the Holy Ghost BEFORE baptism. If sins are only remitted at Baptism how did we receive the Holy Ghost before we were baptized?

I was still dripping wet when I first talked in tongues.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If yall think one MUST be water baptized in Jesus name to be saved...please don't use the King James Version of the Bible while quoting to me...it's a translation by damned men who had no revelation. Please quote a strictly Apostolic translation. Also, don't sing Amazing Grace in your churches...according to you the writer, John Newton, never experienced said grace.

Ok, in another thread you have an excellent piece that water baptism is not what will condemn a person. You stated the lack of obedience would ........ that person. Now you are making me wonder if you are too close to the eggnog....

Do you now say that water baptism is totally not provable since inerrant men translated the Bible? I guess spelling and definations are going to have to be thrown out the window since Noah Webster was never noted for being "in the bride."

Oh, and we still sing the VERSES to page 369 at our church.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

I was still dripping wet when I first talked in tongues.



Ok, in another thread you have an excellent piece that water baptism is not what will condemn a person. You stated the lack of obedience would ........ that person. Now you are making me wonder if you are too close to the eggnog....

Do you now say that water baptism is totally not provable since inerrant men translated the Bible? I guess spelling and definations are going to have to be thrown out the window since Noah Webster was never noted for being "in the bride."

Oh, and we still sing the VERSES to page 369 at our church.

My point is that we are standing on the shoulders of non-Apostolic giants, men like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Huss, Wesely, etc....and then we judge them as condemned because they didn't have the understanding we have.

I find that problematic. How can we condemn men who if not for them...we wouldn't even have our Bibles?