Did not some of these whom you identify as forebears actually modify their positions on this matter in their lifetimes? Did not many of them become exclusivistic about baptism in Jesus Name and speaking in tongues? Perhaps they were growing in grace and knowledge as they came to a fuller understanding of God's plan for salvation?
I am asking these questions because I have read that some of these pioneers or forebears did indeed migrate from the position you have described to the one others are castigated for presenting as their heritage.
A.D. Urshan does not seem to have moved from his position on the issue. Nor did Frank Ewart, G.T. Haywood, John Dearing, Howard Goss, and many others. In fact, later in life Urshan, Dearing and Goss would all be criticized for not going along with the changes.
I'm not aware of anyone in that first generation who did change. I may be missing someone, in fact I probably am. But I don't find anywhere that someone in the first generation changed on this.
I also can't really find any time when the change was made. It's just be gradualism. John Dearing's writing weren't removed from the required reading for UPC ministers until the late 1980's, and his writings weren't completely removed from the Pentecostal Publishing House until some time in the 1990's.
The fact that some one like John Dearing who had been so influential to our movement has been "erased" so effectively is almost Stalinist. Even allegations about Parham's morals don't disqualify him from our histories because he's the one who "discovered" the "evidenced by speaking in other tongues" doctrine.
We'll do battle for the reputation of Parham (despite his Trintarianism and other beliefs) because his contribution was crucial. John Dearing? Well, he was just some Apostolic fellow who founded the PCI and we don't really want to talk about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind
Again, I knew a man, a pioneer, who thought those that worship 2 idols are not going to be included in the Bride. I agree with this belief.
I know that by "pioneer" we're using something of a specialized meaning, and I don't intend to short shrift many, many great men and women. But if you know someone from that first generation of the 20th century who changed their position to become "exclusivistic" then that would be helpful in answering Phil's question, and I would be very interested in the details as well.
And BTW, a mere technicality no doubt, but I don't know of any Bible believing Christian who would endorse the worship of "2 idols," or any idols at all for that matter. If you mean Trinitarians and are saying that they aren't going to be "included in the Bride;" S. G. Norris taught that, but even he didn't send them off to hell. He just had two states into which Christians could be saved. If you could puzzle out the Trinity (or thought you could) then you were "saved" but just not a part of the Bride of Christ. The Bride were those who recieved the revelation of the Mighty God in Christ, and experienced the full package of Acts 2:38, according to Norris.
I think all Christians would agree with what you and that dear pioneer have said.
Many of those who believe in the Trinity don't see two or three idols. They see a mystery they can't explain. Of course...it's just an illogical tradition and that's why they can't explain it. But in all honesty...we can't fully "explain" Oneness either. God is beyond definition and those of any brand of theology should be very careful not to assume they have a monopoly on understanding the fulness of God's nature and person. I believe in Oneness because it's the most biblical out of the two. But in all honesty...even Oneness cannot explain the fulness of God's glory and person. It's like trying to use a single very bright light bulb to describe the sun. Sure the Trinitarian hears that the sun is so bright and they think it must be three light bulbs on the same lamp...and we read the Scriptures and argue for the idea that the sun is like one great light bulb. We're right...there is only one sun...but even our single light bulb description cannot adequately explain the size, brilliance, power, heat, and majesty of the sun. So also our Oneness theology cannot adequately capture God and all his person and glory. I've yet to truly see the sun...I've felt his warmth. Yes...he's one. I can't describe him. One will have to see the sun and feel it for themselves.
1 Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
6And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory.
Amen!!!!
The minute we can wrap our minds around an infinite God .... he ceases to be God .... and becomes an idol.
I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to be lost that is walking in the light.
If in a Billy Graham crusade someone is moved to tears to walk that long asile to the front with a repentant heart...that contrite, repentant heart is walking in the light.
If that same person were to hear the truth of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the light truly striking their spiritual understanding, they are obligated to walk further on in the leading light.
If that same person should hear the truth of baptism in the name of Jesus, the light of that truth striking their spiritual understanding, they are under obligation to walk in that light.
Did you notice how many times the word "walk" is used here? Walking with God in His light is truly a WALK. I am solidly convinced that there are many who have taken all three steps that have not continued to walk on in the light who are still shouting "saved," who are not saved for having refused to walk further on in the light.
The light is never static, it is always dynamic leading ever onward. Once we no longer follow Jesus who is the light of the world, darkness, death and destruction will envelop the lost soul.
Yes, I believe the light doctrine. Therefore, as a minister of the gospel, I have no other option than to preach the whole counsel of God which includes, among other things Repentance, Baptism in the name of Jesus and the baptism of the Holy Ghost as God's plan for all.
A.D. Urshan does not seem to have moved from his position on the issue. Nor did Frank Ewart, G.T. Haywood, John Dearing, Howard Goss, and many others. In fact, later in life Urshan, Dearing and Goss would all be criticized for not going along with the changes.
I'm not aware of anyone in that first generation who did change. I may be missing someone, in fact I probably am. But I don't find anywhere that someone in the first generation changed on this.
I also can't really find any time when the change was made. It's just be gradualism. John Dearing's writing weren't removed from the required reading for UPC ministers until the late 1980's, and his writings weren't completely removed from the Pentecostal Publishing House until some time in the 1990's.
The fact that some one like John Dearing who had been so influential to our movement has been "erased" so effectively is almost Stalinist. Even allegations about Parham's morals don't disqualify him from our histories because he's the one who "discovered" the "evidenced by speaking in other tongues" doctrine.
We'll do battle for the reputation of Parham (despite his Trintarianism and other beliefs) because his contribution was crucial. John Dearing? Well, he was just some Apostolic fellow who founded the PCI and we don't really want to talk about that.
I know that by "pioneer" we're using something of a specialized meaning, and I don't intend to short shrift many, many great men and women. But if you know someone from that first generation of the 20th century who changed their position to become "exclusivistic" then that would be helpful in answering Phil's question, and I would be very interested in the details as well.
And BTW, a mere technicality no doubt, but I don't know of any Bible believing Christian who would endorse the worship of "2 idols," or any idols at all for that matter. If you mean Trinitarians and are saying that they aren't going to be "included in the Bride;" S. G. Norris taught that, but even he didn't send them off to hell. He just had two states into which Christians could be saved. If you could puzzle out the Trinity (or thought you could) then you were "saved" but just not a part of the Bride of Christ. The Bride were those who recieved the revelation of the Mighty God in Christ, and experienced the full package of Acts 2:38, according to Norris.
I think all Christians would agree with what you and that dear pioneer have said.
You may be right... I have not studied this in quite some time. My dad, a strong PAJCer, came up under Elder Frank Parkey in the mid 40s. I am not sure if Dad's views were born from the teaching of Elder Parkey or developed on his own or through reading some of Dearings teachings. What I do know is that his teaching on mercy relative to truth was controversial to some. He also had a merciful view of friends of the bride or light doctrines BECAUSE of his position on mercy relative to truth. He began everything he taught from a firm belief in the sovereignty of the almighty God!
Originally Posted by bishoph
The "light" also referred to as the "lessor light" doctrine does not just apply to those pre Azusa, it applies to everyone post day of Pentecost.
It simply states that all who are "believers" are accepted by God in what ever light they have received, (but they must walk in all of the light they have received) an that while they are in the "lessor light" it should lead them to the full light of Acts 2:38.
If this doctrine is correct then we have no reason to evangelize our world with the "full" light. We might as well join hands with our trinitarian "brethren" and win the world to whatever light they will accept, because in essence we will all get the same reward anyhow.
Full Light?
What full light? Among whom? Where?
Can we be anymore deceived as to convice each other that because we arrived at ONE scripture with only a partial understanding of it that we can say that we have ARRIVED?
That idea is silly to the core. For those who are still walking in the light and have not camped to rest on their lees, we are still in the REFORMATION right along with Martin Luther, Wesley, Parham, William Durham and subsequent light bearers.
None of us have passed over into Canaan yet. In fact, we have not even made it to Jordan. We eat a few grapes at Kadesh Barnea and think that we have arrived.
Can we be anymore deceived as to convice each other that because we arrived at ONE scripture with only a partial understanding of it that we can say that we have ARRIVED?
That idea is silly to the core. For those who are still walking in the light and have not camped to rest on their lees, we are still in the REFORMATION right along with Martin Luther, Wesley, Parham, William Durham and subsequent light bearers.
None of us have passed over into Canaan yet. In fact, we have not even made it to Jordan. We eat a few grapes at Kadesh Barnea and think that we have arrived.
Ha!
Most excellent! I have said this in one form or another, but yours is by the far the best.
__________________
Please pray for India
My personal mission is to BRING people into a right relationship with God, GROW them up to maturity and SEND them back into the world to minister.
Can we be anymore deceived as to convice each other that because we arrived at ONE scripture with only a partial understanding of it that we can say that we have ARRIVED?
That idea is silly to the core. For those who are still walking in the light and have not camped to rest on their lees, we are still in the REFORMATION right along with Martin Luther, Wesley, Parham, William Durham and subsequent light bearers.
None of us have passed over into Canaan yet. In fact, we have not even made it to Jordan. We eat a few grapes at Kadesh Barnea and think that we have arrived.
I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to be lost that is walking in the light.
If in a Billy Graham crusade someone is moved to tears to walk that long asile to the front with a repentant heart...that contrite, repentant heart is walking in the light.
If that same person were to hear the truth of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the light truly striking their spiritual understanding, they are obligated to walk further on in the leading light.
If that same person should hear the truth of baptism in the name of Jesus, the light of that truth striking their spiritual understanding, they are under obligation to walk in that light.
Did you notice how many times the word "walk" is used here? Walking with God in His light is truly a WALK. I am solidly convinced that there are many who have taken all three steps that have not continued to walk on in the light who are still shouting "saved," who are not saved for having refused to walk further on in the light.
The light is never static, it is always dynamic leading ever onward. Once we no longer follow Jesus who is the light of the world, darkness, death and destruction will envelop the lost soul.
Yes, I believe the light doctrine. Therefore, as a minister of the gospel, I have no other option than to preach the whole counsel of God which includes, among other things Repentance, Baptism in the name of Jesus and the baptism of the Holy Ghost as God's plan for all.
What of the one that did not walk into the light of water baptism in Jesus name, or the receiving of the Holy Ghost?? Is he ready to stand before God??
What of the one that did not walk into the light of water baptism in Jesus name, or the receiving of the Holy Ghost?? Is he ready to stand before God??
Well not to obey that which is revealed is sin and will cause one to walk in darkness. Or what Jesus says, even that which he has will be taken away!
__________________
Please pray for India
My personal mission is to BRING people into a right relationship with God, GROW them up to maturity and SEND them back into the world to minister.
Many of those who believe in the Trinity don't see two or three idols. They see a mystery they can't explain. Of course...it's just an illogical tradition and that's why they can't explain it. But in all honesty...we can't fully "explain" Oneness either. God is beyond definition and those of any brand of theology should be very careful not to assume they have a monopoly on understanding the fulness of God's nature and person. I believe in Oneness because it's the most biblical out of the two. But in all honesty...even Oneness cannot explain the fulness of God's glory and person. It's like trying to use a single very bright light bulb to describe the sun. Sure the Trinitarian hears that the sun is so bright and they think it must be three light bulbs on the same lamp...and we read the Scriptures and argue for the idea that the sun is like one great light bulb. We're right...there is only one sun...but even our single light bulb description cannot adequately explain the size, brilliance, power, heat, and majesty of the sun. So also our Oneness theology cannot adequately capture God and all his person and glory. I've yet to truly see the sun...I've felt his warmth. Yes...he's one. I can't describe him. One will have to see the sun and feel it for themselves.
1 Timothy 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
6And great and important and weighty, we confess, is the hidden truth (the mystic secret) of godliness. He [God] was made visible in human flesh, justified and vindicated in the [Holy] Spirit, was seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, [and] taken up in glory.
That was well put.
I appreciated it.
The problem I see with the Trinitarians, isn't so much their understanding as it is their not using the Name in baptism.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Linear Mode
