KH believes the Light Doctrine??

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Felicity

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.

With all due respect our view really doesn't matter when it comes to eternity. In our humanity, all of us would love to enjoy the thoughts of heaven for those "good" moral people we all know. This includes granny, papaw, and our trinitarian counterparts who are sincere both in their beliefs and their love for God.

The questions are hard because we are not convinced that the word of God is absolute. Jesus said that all who come any other way are thieves and robbers. The Apostle Paul stated if any come preaching another Gospel let them be cursed.(paraphrased) It really is that cut and dry! No wiggle room there.

So then how do we deal with all of those "good" people? They are in the hands of a righteous God. This is not an evasive argument but rather a true statement. Do I believe that every person who lived for God to the best of their knowledge "light" but did not have all of the truth are going to split hell wide open. No! But I can most definitely state that they will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. For heaven is reserved for those who have washed their garments in the blood of the lamb. Where God places those "good" people is his business alone, however, his word is very clear on where they will not be.

Please know that this post and nearly all of my posts are not directed at individuals, but rather at the issues/topics that are being discussed.

[tv1a]

Were John's disciples going to hell before Paul spoke them or after?

No one is suggesting to soften the message. If the fuller truth is presented then not obeyed, then the God will judge accordingly. How can one obey truth if it is not presented to them?

While I'm not 100% sole on light doctrine, I'm not as sold on all or nothing as well.

I know he who knows to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.. If one knows the plan of salvation and doesn't do it, then God will take care of that.

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.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by bishoph

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.

Cornelius lived on the cusp of change. He lived at a time when "more light" was being given. If he had died, say 5 years before Peter's visit would he have been lost? If there was anyone in the world who lived a life such that they were "accepted by God" but had not been taught Jesus name baptism, etc. would they be lost? Does your John 3:5 understanding always negate John 1:12?

Was God surprised to have His attention "simply attracted" to "a person who was hungry for truth and salvation?" Whoa, check it out... the Gentiles pray? No. Cornelius' actions could only have been a result of the ministration of the Holy Spirit. People everywhere and at all times have felt such a calling from the Spirit of God.

This argument is really kind of surprising to me. Recently there have been those who have tried to get me to accept that literally millions of people were actually closeted Oneness Apostolic Pentecostals. People like the Anabaptists, the Albigensians and the Bogomils; even though documents left behind by these very people show that they were not OP's. Yet our "UC" brethren insist that "maybe" or "might of..." or "could have been..." because, they argue, who knows for sure? Maybe one or two in there somewhere might have been "saved."

And so, when I say something in support of the "light doctrine" like John Dearing's grandmother "maybe" or "might have" been "saved;" our "UC" brethren resist. When we see an example of the "light doctrine" working as John Dearing described (see article on page 3 and it's a short article and was at one time REQUIRED READING for most of y'all) in Acts 10, UC's resist as well.

You can't really have it both ways. Abandon your "Albigensians" and I'll be more willing quibble about Cornelius.

[tv1a]

Annanias called The Apostle Paul "brother" before he was baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. I'd like to see that explained away. I'll begin the sentence.

Yeah but...

Originally Posted by pelathais

To once again quote John Dearing,

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.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Annanias called The Apostle Paul "brother" before he was baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. I'd like to see that explained away. I'll begin the sentence.

Yeah but...

That's already been explained away here TV....

catch up.

It's real simple ... today's UC is nominally Apostolic .... they do not share the attitude or approach of the pioneers of the movement.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Annanias called The Apostle Paul "brother" before he was baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. I'd like to see that explained away. I'll begin the sentence.

Yeah but...

It was always explained to me that they were brethren by reason of birth...they were both Jews.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

That's already been explained away here TV....

catch up.

It's real simple ... today's UC is nominally Apostolic .... they do not share the attitude or approach of the pioneers of the movement.

That sums it up. They have introduced innovation. They have left the old paths of our founders. Just reading the documents of our forefathers in the faith demonstrates that.

Maybe the Apostolic heritage isn't worth preserving. But if that's the case, the UC's need to come out state that. Instead of closing off access to our historical documents they need to open them up. Instead of stifling this discussion within our organizations, we need to open things up.

Let's hear from our forefathers (and sisters).

[pelathais]

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.

That is a good point (and Felicity's response is excellent, too).

If we are seeking "confidence in our salvation" and thus refining our doctrine to assure ourselves; inevitably we will be putting more "people in hell" the more narrow our doctrine becomes.

But if Jesus and Jesus alone is the basis of our confidence then I think we can have greater confidence while "putting fewer people in hell."

My salvation isn't dependant upon whether I chose the correct "winner" in a theological debate I overheard. Nor is my salvation dependant upon my ability to wrangle the minutia from the Greek preposition eis."

I have confidence in my salvation because the Creator of all things has decreed that I should be saved. I can objectively measure my walk against the pattern set forth in the New Testament; for example am I following the examples of Jesus Christ and His Apostles? This will direct my growth as a Christian to become better conformed to His image.

But my confidence is in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. My confidence is NOT based upon whether I slipped into the correct baptistry (the one at the Baptist church or the one at the Apostolic church?). I have confidence that as I continue to walk in this light then those types of issues will become clearer. But the confidence for my salvation is in Jesus Christ and Him alone - and not in my abilities to earn or deserve His grace.

[stmatthew]

Well, I guess I am in the minority here, as I do not believe that anyone will be saved without having completely obeyed Acts 2:38. I believe that since the day of Pentecost until this thing is totally wrapped up that only those that have been born of Water in Jesus Name, and born of the Spirit will here the words well done. Of course in saying that, I understand that there will be some that have obeyed the book of Acts, and will not hear the words "well done".

I guess I could say that I am even more tight on this than Bro Epley, because he has stated before that after the rapture of the church that scripture does not give us an example of how the blood will be applied, and has suggested that it could be some other way than Acts 2:38. So I guess I am the Ultra Con of this.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Well, I guess I am in the minority here, as I do not believe that anyone will be saved without having completely obeyed Acts 2:38. I believe that since the day of Pentecost until this thing is totally wrapped up that only those that have been born of Water in Jesus Name, and born of the Spirit will here the words well done. Of course in saying that, I understand that there will be some that have obeyed the book of Acts, and will not hear the words "well done".

I guess I could say that I am even more tight on this than Bro Epley, because he has stated before that after the rapture of the church that scripture does not give us an example of how the blood will be applied, and has suggested that it could be some other way than Acts 2:38. So I guess I am the Ultra Con of this.

Kudos for being consistent .... even if it's consistently WRONG.