Jerry Ensey wrote a great article on the Light Doc

[KWSS1976]

I not saying it is right to do these things but if you do god forgives all he hates the sin not the sinner...

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Luke you can sin and ask god to forgive you and he will therfore making you saved as you were before you sined. You make it sound like man is perfect and never sins..If you murder someone and truly ask god to forgive you he will...

uh when did I say that? Not sure how you got that!

[KWSS1976]

And the answer is:::drum roll please................................

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/

[Sam]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

And the answer is:::drum roll please................................

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/

thank you for letting us know it was now available

[timlan2057]

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

I'm surprised you mentioned Kilgore as a believer in the light doctrine. If he is, it must be given privately, because behind the pulpit I don't ever recall him leaning in that direction.

However, I do think that as he has aged there are some things he seems to have lightened up on, possibly due to his son's stance.

As to Jerry Ensey is this the son of J.R. Ensey?

If so, I will go on record to say that J.R. Ensey has some teachings I am totally aganist.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

True many PCI men did believe in salvation at repentance but also believed the light doctrine. Norris from what I understood believed pretty much like Bishop Haywood. I am shocked at Kilgore are you sure about that? However Haney did believe in some form of the light doctrine.

[Ron]

From reading the blog, it seems like he jit it out of the park!
Salvation is in Acts 2:38!

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Ron

From reading the blog, it seems like he jit it out of the park!
Salvation is in Acts 2:38!

Over the wall and out of the park.

Thank God for any good ever done by anyone seeking after God however salvation is NOT by works but faith in the gospel.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Please explain your meaning behind this.