KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[Sam]

The chart at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/Where_Are_the_Dead.gif
appears to summarize the teaching of S.G. Norris
from what I remember from half a century ago as a young preacher/student in his classes at ABI

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by pelathais

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

Pray tell, how do you equate Cornelius as a good example of "light" doctrine?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by bishoph

Pray tell, how do you equate Cornelius as a good example of "light" doctrine?

To once again quote John Dearing,

"However, if those same people had lived on to see our day of increased light and had desired to keep their standing, they too would have embraced Acts 2:4 and would soon have been rejoicing in a Spirit-filled life. Thus their standing would have remained the same, but their state would have been greatly changed."

Dearing was speaking of the people (specifically his family members) who had died before 1900 yet had raised him to seek out the truth of the Gospel.

We can insert Cornelius here rather comfortably. Peter said "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Cornelius was accepted by God before he had been baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. Dearing himself may be a better example of a Cornelius than Dearing's departed family members. However we can see the "light doctrine" at work here.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by pelathais

We can insert Cornelius here rather comfortably. Peter said "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Cornelius was accepted by God before he had been baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost.

Based on this scripture alone can we establish that being "accepted with him" equates to salvation?

If salvation was already achieved by Cornelius through his good works, alms, and prayers, of what necessity did God send Peter, for one cannot be partially/less saved anymore than one can be partially/less pregnant. Either Cornelius was saved prior to Peter's arrival (in which case Peter's purpose would have been nothing more than to symbolically open the door to the gentiles so that the Jewish church at Jerusalem would accept them) Or Cornelius' prayers, alms, and good works, simply attracted the attention of God to a person who was hungry for truth and salvation. Thus sending Peter to preach the salvation message to which the hearers gladly responded.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

Let's say you have a terminal illness, but the doctor examining you doesn't have the courage to tell you the truth. So, instead he tells you that having examined you he is pleased to inform you that you have excellent hearing, a strong heart, and healthy lungs and sends you away feeling good about your physical health, although you still have some unexplained internal pain.

You decide to get a second opinion and this doctor confirms that you have excellent hearing, a strong heart, and healthy lungs, but you have pancreatic cancer and only six months to live. Which doctor truly cared about you? The one who told you only the "good news" or the one who told you the truth?

We need to be committed to telling the truth regardless of the awkwardness of doing so.

Great analogy.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by Theophilus

A little Greek would do you well in understanding what Jesus was really preluding to during His recorded conversation with Nicodemus. Oneness Pentecostals didn't redefine anything that hadn't already been well defined from the apostles on throughout history. If you want to blame the doctrine on someone you'll have to go back much further than the 1900's.

If anyone put words in Jesus' mouth it was the interpreters. The Greek is rather plain and simple. Man's pride and lack of precision is not.

So True!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Felicity

But Crakjak.......

I think that KH would place himself firmly in the the PAJC camp, don't you? So it's interesting I think. All these PAJC/3 steppers who believe in some form of the "light" doctrine.

Originally Posted by crakjak

I believe you are correct, with the exeception of SE, of course.

I think that many people, when you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, actually do hold to some form of the light doctrine but they don't realize they do, and they don't really understand what it is that they're unwittingly confessing to believing.

I've been saying for years now that there is a much higher percentage of UPC preachers who say they believe one thing ..... who in reality really don't .... than what most would admit to.

I still believe it. I also still believe that the spirit of the merger still exists in the hearts of many.

It's one thing to say that Acts 2:38 is the only plan of salvation and that's what it takes to be saved, but then start asking the hard questions and you hear a "lighter" view.

What about those trinitarians?

What about grammy and grampy who loved and lived for God and were devoted to the cause of Christ but never spoke in tongues?

What about Bill who is a beautiful Christian, speaks in tongues, is known all over town for his exemplary life and testimony but never baptized in the name of Jesus?

Every single person since the birth of the church who hasn't spoken in tongues will burn in hell for eternity?

Well?

Originally Posted by Felicity

I think that many people, when you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, actually do hold to some form of the light doctrine but they don't realize they do, and they don't really understand what it is that they're unwittingly confessing to believing.

I've been saying for years now that there is a much higher percentage of UPC preachers who say they believe one thing ..... who in reality really don't .... than what most would admit to.

I still believe it. I also still believe that the spirit of the merger still exists in the hearts of many.

It's one thing to say that Acts 2:38 is the only plan of salvation and that's what it takes to be saved, but then start asking the hard questions and you hear a "lighter" view.

What about those trinitarians?

What about grammy and grampy who loved and lived for God and were devoted to the cause of Christ but never spoke in tongues?

What about Bill who is a beautiful Christian, speaks in tongues, is known all over town for his exemplary life and testimony but never baptized in the name of Jesus?

Every single person since the birth of the church who hasn't spoken in tongues will burn in hell for eternity?

Well?

Felicity,

Wouldn't it be just as foolish to put these folks in heaven as it would be to put them in hell? I mean if the premise is that there are no absolutes in doctrine then we could all be wrong or all be right and therefore could none of us be confident in our salvation.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by philjones

Felicity,

Wouldn't it be just as foolish to put these folks in heaven as it would be to put them in hell? I mean if the premise is that there are no absolutes in doctrine then we could all be wrong or all be right and therefore could none of us be confident in our salvation.

I am totally confident in my salvation but the questions exist. They exist in the hearts and minds of all of us.

I'm just making the point that according to what many PAJC position folks say they believe re the Gospel and salvation the destination of most believers - even Spirit filled believers - is hell.

Yet, when you start to ask the hard questions, the position boundaries begin to blur and slip a bit.

I believe we have a responsibility to preach apostolic doctrine. I just believe with all my heart that my view of salvation has more credibility and can pass the test of hard questions with a much higher score than the PAJC view.

And there's much less need to hedge and fudge when asked the hard questions.

I never said there are no absolutes in doctrine. All I know is that God doesn't seem tied or bound or limited to the doctrine that many say is concrete.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Felicity

I am totally confident in my salvation but the questions exist. They exist in the hearts and minds of all of us.

I'm just making the point that according to what many PAJC position folks say they believe re the Gospel and salvation the destination of most believers - even Spirit filled believers - is hell.

Yet, when you start to ask the hard questions, the position boundaries begin to blur and slip a bit.

I believe we have a responsibility to preach apostolic doctrine. I just believe with all my heart that my view of salvation has more credibility and can pass the test of hard questions with a much higher score than the PAJC view.

And there's much less need to hedge and fudge when asked the hard questions.

I never said there are no absolutes in doctrine. All I know is that God doesn't seem tied or bound or limited to the doctrine that many say is concrete.

I can second that emotion...:sshhh