KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Apprehended]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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?

Yes, very problematic in as much as we not only judge such men as lost but we judge God unfaithful to His promise. In fact, we place ourselves in greater peril than any of those of less light by our unrighteous judgment.

[Brother Price]

Yes, we judge men like this as lost, then use their work to defend our various other doctrines. Sounds very contradictory to this chubby Santa!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Yes, we judge men like this as lost, then use their work to defend our various other doctrines. Sounds very contradictory to this chubby Santa!

This is just another reason that the study of history is discouraged in many Apostolic camps. We have to face too many realities to be comfortable. Anyone who points out these glaring imconsistencies is said to be a "compromiser" and "weak on the message."

For some reason however, if you lie or invent a bunch of fairy tales you'll be accepted as a "brother" once again. We have a fundamental disconnect with reality. We like to call this disconnect "faith." Really, it's just deception.

You don't need to send everybody else to hell to be a good Oneness Apostolic. In fact, our forebears were quite successful without sending everbody else to hell. They had revival and growth. We have stagnation and constant internecine warfare. Why not go back to the "old paths" and stop judging other Christians? It might be the key to revival.

[Scott Pitta]

I do not recall Pastor Kenneth Haney teaching us the light doctrine.

[Originalist]

I find some versions of the light doctrine troubling because they try to save people without the Holy Ghost. But I find it equally troubling that some of our preachers put people in hell who do have the Holy Ghost. Instead of embracing the light doctrine, I prefer to say that God's view of what constitutes having obeyed Acts 2:38 might be a little broader than ours.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I find some versions of the light doctrine troubling because they try to save people without the Holy Ghost. But I find it equally troubling that some of our preachers put people in hell who do have the Holy Ghost. Instead of embracing the light doctrine, I prefer to say that God's view of what constitutes having obeyed Acts 2:38 might be a little broader than ours.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Sam

I attended the Apostolic Bible Institute in St. Paul, MN for the 1956/1957 year. Bro. S.G. Norris taught what is some times referred to as "the holy, the righteous, and the wicked." He taught us in his class that the "holy" were those who had obeyed Acts 2:38 plus some in the Old Testament who were prophets and had the Holy Spirit active in their lives. He taught that these "holy" people would be in the rapture. He taught that the "righteous" were those who walked in all the light they had. These would be resurrected at the second resurrection or white throne judgment and, if they lived up to all the light they had, they would have eternal life on the new earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness." He also taught that the wicked were sinners who did not attempt to serve God and they would go into the lake of fire at the great white throne judgment.

I heard him teach this.

How many preachers in the UPC have sat under Bro. Norris and received this teaching? It has permeated the UPC.

My father attended ABI under Norris in the mid 50s. I'm going to ask him about this.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I find some versions of the light doctrine troubling because they try to save people without the Holy Ghost. But I find it equally troubling that some of our preachers put people in hell who do have the Holy Ghost. Instead of embracing the light doctrine, I prefer to say that God's view of what constitutes having obeyed Acts 2:38 might be a little broader than ours.

The problem is that too many people do not know how to define the gospel: and
many preach the gospel on the limited understanding that they have. This has caused
a great deal of confusion on the part of those who would obey. "But I fear, lest by any
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted
from the simplicity that is in Christ."

We must understand that it is surely the gospel that saves; but it is the rejection
of the gospel that condemns! "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn
the world...And this is the condemnation, that men loved darkness rather than light
because their deeds were evil."

God places the preachers of righteousness, but gives man the POWER to either obey or
disobey. Some willingly seek the easy way, and will then blame God and his preachers for
their lost condition; others will be deceived; but some, saved.

[FlamingZword]

We all get different levels of the light, some more some less.
No one has perfect light, everyone gets enough light to find their way to Jesus.
There is not one person or organization that has all the light of the knowledge of God.

some churches have more light than others.

if having perfect light is what is required to make it, then no one will make it.

except for Sean for according to him, he has perfect understanding of all doctrines.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

except for Sean for according to him, he has perfect understanding of all doctrines.