More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Lets suppose you lived in Thessalonica in the first century. And you got a letter from an Apostle of Jesus Christ. The letter contained these verses.

2 Thess 2:1-5

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

Lets focus on the words in bold. Obviously someone was teaching something DIFFERENT THAN PAUL THE APOSTLE.

How did Paul accept that? Did he say everything is fine with one who was teaching against what he taught?

Or rather did he call the person or persons A DECEIVER?

To Paul the person was a deceiver!

Was an ABSOLUTE TRUTH being taught here by an Apostle of Jesus? Or was the Holy Spirit allowing us to speculate within ourselves and then teach whatever we could best understand?

Note that after Paul addresses the false teaching and presents truth to the Church what he says a bit later.

2 Thess 2:13-15

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In review:

Is not Paul warning the Church not to let any man DECEIVE THEM?

So did the people in the Church believe the man who was teaching the false doctrine was "a fine Apostolic brother"?

Or did they count him as a DECEIVER?

If the deceiver did not repent would Paul have said "Oh yea hes a good brother he just doesnt see the light of my teaching"?

Or would he have feared for his soul?

You did not answer me. Do you believe someone is lost if they do not believe post trib doctrine?

There are some things we do not have to know the truth about, Brother. How do I know?

Read this:

Ephesians 4:3-13 KJV Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (7) But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. (8) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) (11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Notice he says we must KEEP UNITY OF THE SPIRIT and then mentions there is only ONE SPIRIT. And although he says there is also ONE FAITH, we are then told that we have ministries in the Word to perfect us UNTIL WE COME TO THE UNITY OF THE FAITH. So, that means they were not in the unity of the faith although they were in unity of the Spirit.

Unity of faith is reference to THE FAITH that we are supposed to believe.

You are giving no opportunity for people to mature and come to unity of the faith, for you are demanding they have unity of the faith as well as unity of the Spirit, whereas Paul did not. This means there are some facets of faith that are not salvational.

Paul lists the elements in Hebrews 6 that are things we must believe to be saved and calls them PRINCIPLES. And other things are not mandatory for salvation, but they assist in strength and empowerment as believers.

To say we must agree ion post trib prophecy or be lost, which is what I am gaining from your response, is to really be offkey, to say the least.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was contemplating this in my studies regarding Preterism. I tried to take into consideration that the original texts didn't have chapter breaks and I came to an interesting possibility in the Olivet Discourse. Help me if I'm mistaken:

Matthew 24 - Christ's coming in Judgment against Jerusalem.
Matthew 25 - Christ's bodily return to judge the quick and the dead.

I see no valid reason to say Matt 25 is a bodily return of Jesus whatsoever. As I noted before in another chat, likely with you I think, Matt 24 talks about actions accomplished by the sheep and the goats THAT COULD ONLY APPLY TO FIRST CENTURY BELIEVERS during the persecution of the church. His BRETHREN they should have ministered to, in order for them to say the ministered to Christ, are saved people, which cannot apply to people being judged for their actions who were not alive when there were NT saved people, as in pre-NT eras.. More plain than that, nothing in the chapter even states that He returned bodily.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

My point is if the bolded statement you made is true why is it not true for someone who perhaps is a Trinitarian? Someone God gives the Holy Spirit to because they repent and believe?

You believe in the light doctrine for Apostolics. Im not saying thats particularly bad. Only if we say it cannot be true for other lovers of Jesus in the same situation.

??? I do? What exactly is the "light doctrine for apostolics"?

Are you saying that the MOMENT a person repents, they must know - CORRECTLY - every single Bible doctrine on every single subject? Is this what you believe?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

??? I do? What exactly is the "light doctrine for apostolics"?

Are you saying that the MOMENT a person repents, they must know - CORRECTLY - every single Bible doctrine on every single subject? Is this what you believe?

Which, I must say, is most unreasonable. To claim a person must know everything correctly, and believe everything correctly, from the GET-GO, is both unbiblical and irrational. In fact, if this were the case, then nobody should be baptised or received into the church until they've had at least 6 months of heavy catechising. In other words, the old medieval catholic practice is the correct one.

Furthermore, Michael, you must be thinking you personally have all, 100% correct knowledge, otherwise you must confess you are not saved. Not only can a person not be saved unless AND UNTIL they know ALL Bible doctrines WITHOUT ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER, but they must know for a certain fact that they have that correct knowledge. Anyone who thinks there is a possibility they might be mistaken in something, anything, so that they are willing to study and learn and change if needed, must be LOST, and they are lost BECAUSE they are willing to learn and change if needed! To admit you MIGHT be mistaken in some point is to admit you do NOT KNOW all correct doctrine, which is to admit you are not saved. So then, always being humble and willing to be led into the truth of the Word and being willing to correct one's faith and practice to be more tightly conformed to the Word is a sign of being lost.

But that is ABSURD.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

In the early Church it was different. They could have been taught at least the foundation truths within a month or so and expected to embrace it.

Where did you get this "One Month Light Doctrine" of yours? YOU believe in the Light Doctrine, apparently, but it's only good for the first 30 days? Seriously? Says who? Where does THE BIBLE say "new converts get 30 days to get up to speed, after that they are heretics if they aren't in 100% agreement with everyone else"?

So yes I believe God has a timeline, known only to him where he guides men into truth.

Wait, I thought you gave everyone 30 days? Now it's an unknown time, known only to God? So nobody knows how long they have to get ALL THE DOCTRINES DOWN PAT? And which doctrines are those? Can you list them all? Brother Michael, do you think perhaps you may have jumped the gun a bit here, and perhaps got a little too hasty in making certain claims?

In the END I believe our lives must be without sin and what we believe must be true. A lot can happen from the beginning to the end.

Define sin, using ONLY the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

This is yet more proof of what Im saying. "Apostolics" frame something like the light doctrine ONLY in terms of Acts 2:38. Actually its far more wide ranging than that.

Actually, it's NOT. You obviously do not understand what the "Light Doctrine" was among early 20th century believers. The Light Doctrine was this: God was currently restoring Truths to the church. He did this previously during the Reformation, again during the Great Awakening, and again during the Holiness revival in the 19th century, then again with the Pentecostal revival, and now again with Jesus' Name baptism and the Oneness of God and Christ. At each stage, God had a people, and He made "new light" available to them. At each stage, His people were ACCOUNTABLE for the current Revelation of Light. People who DIED prior to a Revelation/Restoration of Truth will be judged on whether or not they were obedient to the LIGHT God made available in their generation. Thus, whenever God brings LIGHT to the forefront, by revealing TRUTH to His church, they MUST receive and embrace it, or be lost. BUT those who died in PREVIOUS ERAS are judged by the Light made available IN THOSE ERAS.

Therefore Great-Great-Great Grannie who lived in the era of Wesley would have to have believed all the Truth that had been revealed UP TO THAT TIME, but since she died back in the 1830s she will not be judged for not having accepted Truths that were divinely revealed AT LATER TIMES, like the Pentecostal baptism, or the Oneness of God.

THAT is the "Light Doctrine".

If people nowadays have accepted ecumenicalism, and are calling it "Light Doctrine", all I can say is "that figures" because this generation has got to be the most uneducated, illiterate, backwards, dumbed-down generation of all times. Just like people who nowadays claim a Oneness version of AoG doctrine is "PCI doctrine".

Have we now decided that ACTS 2:38 is ALL OF THE TEACHING OF JESUS THAT MATTERS?

We can believe ANYTHING else we chose to believe even if the Apostles condemned it? Or did not teach it? My what a humanistic gospel we have embraced if that be true.

I've never met a single Oneness Pentecostal who believes that, and I've met some pretty wacky Oneness Pentecostals.

So what if we are "Apostolic" but we teach OSAS?

You been visiting Pastor Tribble's utube page or something?

Does anything we teach have salvation consequences except Acts 2:38? Who among us gets to chose what things we may discard or reject of Jesus teachings?

Who indeed, who gets to determine what MUST be believed?

[votivesoul]

Here is something that is absolutely correct apostolic doctrine, requiring no special light or revelation:

1.) Those who are invited to participate in the role of teacher needs must rely on the gift of God's grace to do so (Ephesians 4:7-11).

2.) That those who assume to teach God's Word will be held to a greater degree of condemnation for their errors, that is, their offenses in word (James 3:1-2).

3.) That those who desire to be overseers must not be new converts (1 Timothy 3:6).

4.) That only those who have an aptitude for teaching and are of a gentle spirit should be promoted into the role of overseer/servant of the Lord (1 Timothy 3:2 and 2 Timothy 2:24).

5.) Those who oversee an assembly are to be elder shepherds who faithfully hold fast to what they've been taught, who give heed to themselves and have been called to feed the flock of God in their care (Titus 1:5-9, Acts 20:28, and 1 Peter 5:1-3).

6.) That such are required to seek out other faithful men in order to pass on apostolic truth (2 Timothy 2:22).

7.) Such elders, in order to teach well the Word of God, need to have a high view of the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

I submit that the problem lies in that these principles above are all too often violated, for any number of reasons. If there was less violation of the above, there would be at least the potential for less false doctrine, which would mean less denominationalism, less schism, and less discussion about or reliance on "Light Doctrine".

[Esaias]

Bueller? Bueller?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see no valid reason to say Matt 25 is a bodily return of Jesus whatsoever. As I noted before in another chat, likely with you I think, Matt 24 talks about actions accomplished by the sheep and the goats THAT COULD ONLY APPLY TO FIRST CENTURY BELIEVERS during the persecution of the church. His BRETHREN they should have ministered to, in order for them to say the ministered to Christ, are saved people, which cannot apply to people being judged for their actions who were not alive when there were NT saved people, as in pre-NT eras.. More plain than that, nothing in the chapter even states that He returned bodily.

I don't want to derail this conversation, so please feel free to private message me or post in another place.

What passages do you believe speak of the bodily return of Christ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't want to derail this conversation, so please feel free to private message me or post in another place.

What passages do you believe speak of the bodily return of Christ?

Here it is:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...77#post1508277