KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Pastor Keith]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I almost stated "(ain't you proud of me Daniel)" in my original post.

HAHA!!!

You have to understand the nature of politics and how KH does things, he keeps debatable issues and things that might cause division to himself for the sake of unity, you know that is in the fundamental doctrine, "not contending for differing of views to the disunity of the body"

[SDG]

Originally Posted by keith4him

You have to understand the nature of politics and how KH does things, he keeps debatable issues and things that might cause division to himself for the sake of unity, you know that is in the fundamental doctrine, "not contending for differing of views to the disunity of the body"

Where was KH in '92????

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Papabear

I think this type of supposition is foolish.

I don't believe he does.

I wonder if....

Like these voices that act like they know, know anything.

I think we are passing what someone thinks they think someone else thinks... and that is just silly.

Can someone say DENIAL.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Joel Osteen would be proud ... Newman .... Jesus is indeed our plan of salvation ... we all agree that Acts 2:38 is the proper response to the Gospel.

Huh? When did Joel Olsteen ever speak to his congregation about Acts 2:38? What is your point here?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Newman

Huh? When did Joel Olsteen ever speak to his congregation about Acts 2:38? What is your point here?

Yanking your chain, Newman ... on your view of multiple ways to salvation

Osteen a while back on Larry King Live :

On Larry King Live, the following very disturbing conversation occurred with Larry King and Joel Osteen:

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?
OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

At this point, even Larry King appears surprised by Osteen’s answer. Then Larry tosses Osteen a "soft-ball" to explain his previous answer. And again Osteen openly denies that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?
OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

Again Osteen denies the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice, he praises the pagan, false-religion of India as "I know they love God." Unbelievable. . .
I’m sure some reading this are thinking, "Well, maybe Larry caught Joel Osteen flat footed. Maybe Osteen wasn’t prepared." If Osteen only had been given another chance to testify of the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ, he’d get it straightened out.
Osteen did get another chance. . .
After Larry King opened the phone lines, a concerned Christian asks Joel to clarify his previous statement (which we just viewed). Again Osteen could easily clear this up.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The Bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.
OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that. . .
KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?
OSTEEN: No. Here's my thing, Larry, is I can't judge somebody's heart. You know? Only God can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know. To me, it's not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn't. I just say, here's what the Bible teaches and I'm going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way. I'm just...
KING: But you believe your way.
OSTEEN: I believe my way. I believe my way with all my heart.
KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?
OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don't know if I look at it like that. I would present my way, but I'm just going to let God be the judge of that. I don't know. I don't know.
KING: So you make no judgment on anyone?
OSTEEN: No. But I...

And here Larry really tosses Joel a soft-ball. How about a God-defying atheist? And again, Osteen will not confess that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.

KING: What about atheists?
OSTEEN: You know what, I'm going to let someone -- I'm going to let God be the judge of who goes to heaven and hell. I just -- again, I present the truth, and I say it every week. You know, I believe it's a relationship with Jesus. But you know what? I'm not going to go around telling everybody else if they don't want to believe that that's going to be their choice. God's got to look at your own heart. God's got to look at your heart, and only God knows that.



http://www.av1611.org/osteen.html

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Yanking your chain, Newman ... on your view of multiple ways to salvation

[B]And again, Osteen will not confess that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.

1. My point was about the possibility of more than one to get into heaven; and

2. I will confess that I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm testing the waters with an upload of a pdf document... and there it is!

John Dearing seems to take a different tack at this issue than the "light" and "lesser light" teachings. The attached PDF document is a scan from the Pentecostal Home Study Course, copyright PPH and etc. This was required reading for all UPC ministers up until the late 1980's. For background, Dearing (1880-1940) was one of the founders of the PCI.

The most important part is:



This is also remarkable for the insight that it gives to us in showing how the first generation of Pentecostals looked at themselves. They really felt that something remarkable had taken place in 1900 - something so dramatic that it affected the way in which God would judge man. They were drawing a line through history here. This is an important consideration for those who hold to the "continuous remnant" theory. The first generation of Pentecostals didn't know of any such "remnant" in their time.

Also, note how he states that those who were not Spirit-filled still had a "perfect standing" with God. That first generation was not just troubled about whether their Trinitarian "brethren" would be saved. They were troubled about their own family members, friends and fellow ministers. The severe judgment that is inherent in the "Three-Stepper" way was even more problematic for our spiritual pioneers.

I think that is why the "Three-Stepper" program had to wait a couple of generations before it could become dominant. This may also be the reason so many "Three-Steppers" are such historical revisionists. They desperately want the Anabaptists and Albigensians to be "Oneness Pentecostals" so that they don't have to send everyone to hell.

Were all Anabaptists other than oneness?

Plenty of history written well before any terrible "three-steppers" came stepping around to "revise."

Plenty of Bible running well contrary to those that do not receive the new birth as outlined in Acts 2:38.

Consider Cornelius for a few moments. The "light" doctrine takes a backseat shadow real quick when sound doctrine and accurate history take the stage.

I'm not a three stepper BTW, but I wouldn't leave out those steps and have any hope of salvation. It takes more than the new birth to make it, plenty of "three steppers" will find themselves a few steps short if they don't keep walking.

[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.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

Were all Anabaptists other than oneness?

Plenty of history written well before any terrible "three-steppers" came stepping around to "revise."

I respect you, but the "terrible three-steppers" seems like you're putting words into my mouth. I never said "terrible." As to the statement bolded above, yes. The vast majority of Anabaptists were not Oneness.

The term was used rather broadly to describe a lot of different groups- basically any group that did not accept infant baptism. However the attempts by some Oneness historians to label the movement as "Oneness" is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Theophilus

Plenty of Bible running well contrary to those that do not receive the new birth as outlined in Acts 2:38.

Consider Cornelius for a few moments. The "light" doctrine takes a backseat shadow real quick when sound doctrine and accurate history take the stage.

I disagree. Cornelius (Acts 10) is actually a good example of the "light doctrine."

Originally Posted by Theophilus

I'm not a three stepper BTW, but I wouldn't leave out those steps and have any hope of salvation. It takes more than the new birth to make it, plenty of "three steppers" will find themselves a few steps short if they don't keep walking.

It seems that you are troubled by the "three stepper" way, yourself. I don't blame you. But then you contradict yourself and appear to put your faith in "the three steps."

Your final words of admonition are well taken. I think that is what John Dearing was saying in that article I posted earlier; and I think that's what Cornelius' example leads us to conclude as well. We are on a journey and haven't hit the end of the road yet. And "the end" is one of the few things we can all be absolutely certain about.

[pelathais]

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.

I never had the chance to meet the man and I really appreciate your post, Sam. S.G. Norris is often cited as the "Three-Stepper" par excellence (or Water and Spirit). I had never heard that he taught the "light" doctrine.