Does Dan Seagraves Believe in the LIght Doctrine????

[SDG]

Originally Posted by keith4him

Bro. Segraves believes and will state that even the article of faith in UPCI that pardon/forgiveness of sins happens at faith and repentance, previous to the baptism in water and in the Holy Spirit.

Here is an exact quote from his position paper from the UPCI symposium:

The Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) locate justification under the heading “Repentance,” which until 1995 (the first fifty years of existence for the UPCI) was titled “Repentance and Conversion.” The first two sentences of this article read, “Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance, a confessing and forsaking of sins. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1).”

What is the date of this symposium and how can I get a copy of it?

[Steve Epley]

The ONLY saving message from Pentecost until the Rapture is Acts 2:38 there is NO promise of salvation outside of that. So why amke up something to appease feelings. God is the jdge IF he decides at the White Throne to show mercy on someone who has not obeyed that wpuld be his choice he is the lawgiver HOWEVER I am not commissioned to preach a maybe or make something up. Just preach the plan and the "light doctrine" is NOT in the plan.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The ONLY saving message from Pentecost until the Rapture is Acts 2:38 there is NO promise of salvation outside of that. So why amke up something to appease feelings. God is the jdge IF he decides at the White Throne to show mercy on someone who has not obeyed that wpuld be his choice he is the lawgiver HOWEVER I am not commissioned to preach a maybe or make something up. Just preach the plan and the "light doctrine" is NOT in the plan.

good post

[ChTatum]

With all due respect, what an individual believes is irrelevant. What does scripture say?

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

The ONLY saving message from Pentecost until the Rapture is Acts 2:38 there is NO promise of salvation outside of that. So why amke up something to appease feelings. God is the jdge IF he decides at the White Throne to show mercy on someone who has not obeyed that wpuld be his choice he is the lawgiver HOWEVER I am not commissioned to preach a maybe or make something up. Just preach the plan and the "light doctrine" is NOT in the plan.

How is it possible to say, on the one hand, that "the ONLY saving message from Pentecost until the Rapture is Acts 2:38," and then immediately suggest/assert that it might be possible that God would "show mercy on someone who has not obeyed" the message of Acts 2:38?

Yep! I read the manner in which you PREFACED the latter assertion/suggestion with the small word "IF," however, this causes me to tender this question:

Would not the "righteousness of God" DEMAND that He "show mercy" ONLY to those who have obeyed Acts 2:38, and deny the promise of eternal life with Him in the kingdom of heaven unto EVERYONE who does not?

The answer, I believe, can be found in the words of our Lord, uttered in response to the question: "Lord, are there few that be saved?" Please note that He responded by saying: "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for MANY, I say unto you, WILL SEEK TO ENTER IN, AND SHALL NOT BE ABLE." (see Luke 13:23-24)

Indeed, I find the qualifications for entrance into the eternal kingdom of God to be so RESTRICTIVE, that at the coming "marriage supper of the Lamb," our Lord will dispel ALL who are not clothed with a "wedding garment," which is "the righteousness of the saints," that have been permitted entrance into the great hall where this event is to transpire, for they will be FORCEFULLY REMOVED! (see Matthew 22:11-13 & Revelation 19:8) This hardly sounds as "IF God decides to show mercy" (your words, not mine) to someone who has not heeded and obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38.

I pray that your statements were rendered in haste, and therefore you failed to pause and consider the manner in which someone might construe them. We simply cannot have it BOTH ways, you know! Either obedience to Acts 2:38 is ESSENTIAL, or it is not. As for me, I choose the latter!

Oh! Lest I forget - I also DO NOT believe in the "light doctrine."

Rendered in brotherly love.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by PaPaDon

How is it possible to say, on the one hand, that "the ONLY saving message from Pentecost until the Rapture is Acts 2:38," and then immediately suggest/assert that it might be possible that God would "show mercy on someone who has not obeyed" the message of Acts 2:38?

Yep! I read the manner in which you PREFACED the latter assertion/suggestion with the small word "IF," however, this causes me to tender this question:

Would not the "righteousness of God" DEMAND that He "show mercy" ONLY to those who have obeyed Acts 2:38, and deny the promise of eternal life with Him in the kingdom of heaven unto EVERYONE who does not?

The answer, I believe, can be found in the words of our Lord, uttered in response to the question: "Lord, are there few that be saved?" Please note that He responded by saying: "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for MANY, I say unto you, WILL SEEK TO ENTER IN, AND SHALL NOT BE ABLE." (see Luke 13:23-24)

Indeed, I find the qualifications for entrance into the eternal kingdom of God to be so RESTRICTIVE, that at the coming "marriage supper of the Lamb," our Lord will dispel ALL who are not clothed with a "wedding garment," which is "the righteousness of the saints," that have been permitted entrance into the great hall where this event is to transpire, for they will be FORCEFULLY REMOVED! (see Matthew 22:11-13 & Revelation 19:8) This hardly sounds as "IF God decides to show mercy" (your words, not mine) to someone who has not heeded and obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38.

I pray that your statements were rendered in haste, and therefore you failed to pause and consider the manner in which someone might construe them. We simply cannot have it BOTH ways, you know! Either obedience to Acts 2:38 is ESSENTIAL, or it is not. As for me, I choose the latter!

Oh! Lest I forget - I also DO NOT believe in the "light doctrine."

Rendered in brotherly love.

I do NOT disagree with ONE word you posted the 'light doctrine' is hypothetical so is my statement I was only saying IF God wants to show mercy to someone at the judgment He could he is God so why make up a teaching like 'light doctrine?' Now do I think He will? I can't find it in scriputure so IF He does it would be outside scripture and I am NOT permitted to preached anything outside scripture.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Speaking Of Elder Seagraves ,has anybody read his article on the Right Name ,that was in the Pentecostal Herald ,maybe someone can post it here ?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Speaking Of Elder Seagraves ,has anybody read his article on the Right Name ,that was in the Pentecostal Herald ,maybe someone can post it here ?

February 2007 issue, pages 12-15.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Speaking Of Elder Seagraves ,has anybody read his article on the Right Name ,that was in the Pentecostal Herald ,maybe someone can post it here ?

Here it is:
The following is from pages 12-15 of the February 2007 Pentecostal Herald.

Loving the Right Name
by Daniel Segraves

Because Oneness Pentecostals love the name of our Lord intensely, we may be intrigued when we hear of teachings that supposedly present the Messiah’s name even more accurately. We should be careful of such claims, however, for they can lead the unwary away from the Lord rather than closer to Him.

One example is the notion that the Messiah’s true name is not Jesus, but Yahshua. This claim may be presented with a show of knowledge of the Hebrew language, with the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and with the assertion that the name “Jesus” is a corruption connected with the ancient Greek god Zeus. These claims are not true, and those who make them do not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the Hebrew language.

The name “Jesus” is the English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which is used throughout the inspired Greek New Testament as the Messiah’s name, beginning in Matthew 1:1. Iesous is the Greek rendering from the Hebrew Yeshua’, which is an abbreviated form of the Hebrew Yehoshua’. Both names, abbreviated or not, mean “Yahweh is Savior.” “Yahweh-Savior,” or “Yahweh will save.” This is why the angel told Joseph, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).

If a person is not familiar with the Hebrew language, it may seem that Yahshua and Yeshua’ are the same. They are not. Yahshua is an invented non-word., without meaning. It never appears in the inspired Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yeshua’ and Yehoshua’ both appear in the Old Testament. The name of Moses’ successor was originally Hoshea’, the Hiphil infinitive form of yasha’ which means “salvation.” But Moses changed his name to Yehoshua’. (See Numbers 13:16.) During the exile, Yehoshua’ was shortened to Yeshua’. (See Ezra 3:2). The translation of Yeshua’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted most frequently in the New Testament, is identical to the spelling in the New Testament. (See Revelation 22:16).

The reason the name of our Lord is so significant is due to something identified by scholars as the Hebrew “theology of name.” In many cases, the names found in Scripture were much more significant than names are in today’s Western culture. Often, in the Bible, a person’s name was virtually equivalent to the person. Bible names have meaning; many of them are complete sentences, including subjects, verbs, and even direct objects.

Biblical names could represent a person’s identity, character, reputation, works, and worth. The name Adam, for instance, means “earthling.” Eve means “life.” One well-known example is Nabal, whose name means “fool.” Satan means “adversary.”

There were occasions in the Old Testament when God changed the names of people to indicate a change of destiny. For example, God renamed Abram as “Abraham.” The name Abram means “high father.” But since Abram had no children, some scholars think this name “was only a sour joke.” *1 If so, the joke was turned around when God named him “Abraham” to identify him as the “father of many.”

On another occasion, God renamed Jacob as “Israel.” Jacob means “heel grabber,” “supplanter,” or “deceiver.” His new name was intended to indicate that he had power with God.

Even in the New Testament we can see the significance of names. Jesus changed Simon’s name, which means “to hear,” to Peter, which means “a rock.” To this day, devout Jews may change a person’s name when death draws near, on the theory that a name change may prolong life.

In today’s Western world, when parents are choosing names for their children, they often give no thought to the meaning of the name. Their attitude is perhaps like that expressed in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne Shirley disagreed: “I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I’ve never been able to believe it. I don’t believe a rose would be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.” *2 I agree with Anne. Names are important, and, ideally, they should describe as closely as possible the thing named.

It is not uncommon for parents to name their children after ancestors, political figures, sports heroes, famous singers, or even actors or actresses. Some parents even make up names that never before existed, naming their children because of the pleasant sound made by certain syllables when strung together. We saw an example of the modern approach to naming some years ago at Christian Life college when the student body included, at the same time, Nathaniel Urshan, Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis. This made for some interesting responses when we were calling the class roll!

The fact that the Messiah was named “Jesus” is significant for His identity. Although this was not a new name never held by anyone before, the Messiah was the first person ever to receive this name by divine appointment. When God names someone, it is intentional and informative. There is a reason God directed the angel of the Lord to tell Joseph to name Mary’s baby “Jesus.” It is because “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV). The first two letters of the Messiah’s name (Je) represent the Hebrew Yah, the abbreviation for Yahweh. (See Psalm 68:4)

When Moses asked God what he should say when the Israelites asked the name of the God who sent him, God said, “I AM WHO I AM...Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14, NKJV). “I AM” is translated from the first person singular form of the Hebrew “to be” verb, hayah.

Later, God said to Moses, “I am the LORD, I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, NKJV). It is interesting and revelatory that the Hebrew word translated “LORD” is Yahweh, the third person singular form of the same verb translated “I AM.” this, when God described Himself to Moses, He used the first person singular form of the verb; when we describe Him, we use the third person singular form of the same verb.

When Moses renamed Hoshea’, it was a prophetic choice, for Joshua was in a very real sense a type of the coming Messiah. Then, Zechariah tells us of another Joshua, a high priest, who, in a symbolic act of great significance, is crowned. Under the Law of Moses, the priesthood and royalty were kept strictly separated. But his priest would be a king. The old categories would be overcome in the one Joshua prefigured. “Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, saying, ‘Behold, the Man who is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, and He shall build the temple of the LORD; Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; so He shall be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both’” (Zechariah 6:11-13, NKJV).

Theologically, it is significant that both men named Joshua are found at the “seams” of the Hebrew Bible. The idea of “seams” refers to the locations where the sections of the Hebrew Scriptures meet. There are three sections, as Jesus indicated in Luke 24:44: Law, Prophets, and Psalms. In the Hebrew text, the books are arranged differently than they are in English translations, which follow the order of books in the Septuagint. The arrangement in the Hebrew Bible seems intentional and interpretive. In other words, the very order of the books helps with the interpretation of the books. In this case, the first Joshua is found with the first book in the prophets section bearing his name. The second Joshua is found in what we call the Minor Prophets, but to the Hebrews the Minor Prophets was a single volume, the Book of the Twelve. This is the final book in the prophets, just preceding the psalms section. So at the end of the law and the beginning of the prophets, we find Joshua. And at the end of the prophets and the beginning of the psalms, we find Joshua. In this final case, Joshua definitely prefigures the Messiah, who would be both High Priest and King.

When our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came on the scene He came in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. And He came bearing the name which identified Him as Yahweh Himself, who would save His people from their sins. We must hold the name of Jesus dear, for it is the only saving name, the name upon which we call for salvation. (See Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, 38; 4:12; 22:16; Romans 10:13).

*1. J.A. Motyer in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (eds. 1. Howard Marshal, et al.; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 800

*2. Available online at http://arthurwendover.com/arthurs/mont/anne10.html. Accessed September 20, 2006

Daniel L. Segraves is the dean of theology and president of Christian Life College. He also serves as an adjunct professor at the Urshan Graduate School of Theology. Daniel earned the MA in Exegetical Theology and the ThM from Western Seminary. He is currently completing the PhD in Renewal Studies with a Concentration in Biblical Theology at Regent University.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sam

Here it is:
The following is from pages 12-15 of the February 2007 Pentecostal Herald.

Loving the Right Name
by Daniel Segraves

Because Oneness Pentecostals love the name of our Lord intensely, we may be intrigued when we hear of teachings that supposedly present the Messiah’s name even more accurately. We should be careful of such claims, however, for they can lead the unwary away from the Lord rather than closer to Him.

One example is the notion that the Messiah’s true name is not Jesus, but Yahshua. This claim may be presented with a show of knowledge of the Hebrew language, with the claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and with the assertion that the name “Jesus” is a corruption connected with the ancient Greek god Zeus. These claims are not true, and those who make them do not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the Hebrew language.

The name “Jesus” is the English rendering of the Greek Iesous, which is used throughout the inspired Greek New Testament as the Messiah’s name, beginning in Matthew 1:1. Iesous is the Greek rendering from the Hebrew Yeshua’, which is an abbreviated form of the Hebrew Yehoshua’. Both names, abbreviated or not, mean “Yahweh is Savior.” “Yahweh-Savior,” or “Yahweh will save.” This is why the angel told Joseph, “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21, NKJV).

If a person is not familiar with the Hebrew language, it may seem that Yahshua and Yeshua’ are the same. They are not. Yahshua is an invented non-word., without meaning. It never appears in the inspired Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yeshua’ and Yehoshua’ both appear in the Old Testament. The name of Moses’ successor was originally Hoshea’, the Hiphil infinitive form of yasha’ which means “salvation.” But Moses changed his name to Yehoshua’. (See Numbers 13:16.) During the exile, Yehoshua’ was shortened to Yeshua’. (See Ezra 3:2). The translation of Yeshua’ in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures quoted most frequently in the New Testament, is identical to the spelling in the New Testament. (See Revelation 22:16).

The reason the name of our Lord is so significant is due to something identified by scholars as the Hebrew “theology of name.” In many cases, the names found in Scripture were much more significant than names are in today’s Western culture. Often, in the Bible, a person’s name was virtually equivalent to the person. Bible names have meaning; many of them are complete sentences, including subjects, verbs, and even direct objects.

Biblical names could represent a person’s identity, character, reputation, works, and worth. The name Adam, for instance, means “earthling.” Eve means “life.” One well-known example is Nabal, whose name means “fool.” Satan means “adversary.”

There were occasions in the Old Testament when God changed the names of people to indicate a change of destiny. For example, God renamed Abram as “Abraham.” The name Abram means “high father.” But since Abram had no children, some scholars think this name “was only a sour joke.” *1 If so, the joke was turned around when God named him “Abraham” to identify him as the “father of many.”

On another occasion, God renamed Jacob as “Israel.” Jacob means “heel grabber,” “supplanter,” or “deceiver.” His new name was intended to indicate that he had power with God.

Even in the New Testament we can see the significance of names. Jesus changed Simon’s name, which means “to hear,” to Peter, which means “a rock.” To this day, devout Jews may change a person’s name when death draws near, on the theory that a name change may prolong life.

In today’s Western world, when parents are choosing names for their children, they often give no thought to the meaning of the name. Their attitude is perhaps like that expressed in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne Shirley disagreed: “I read in a book once that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but I’ve never been able to believe it. I don’t believe a rose would be as nice if it was called a thistle or a skunk cabbage.” *2 I agree with Anne. Names are important, and, ideally, they should describe as closely as possible the thing named.

It is not uncommon for parents to name their children after ancestors, political figures, sports heroes, famous singers, or even actors or actresses. Some parents even make up names that never before existed, naming their children because of the pleasant sound made by certain syllables when strung together. We saw an example of the modern approach to naming some years ago at Christian Life college when the student body included, at the same time, Nathaniel Urshan, Elvis Presley and Tony Curtis. This made for some interesting responses when we were calling the class roll!

The fact that the Messiah was named “Jesus” is significant for His identity. Although this was not a new name never held by anyone before, the Messiah was the first person ever to receive this name by divine appointment. When God names someone, it is intentional and informative. There is a reason God directed the angel of the Lord to tell Joseph to name Mary’s baby “Jesus.” It is because “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21 NKJV). The first two letters of the Messiah’s name (Je) represent the Hebrew Yah, the abbreviation for Yahweh. (See Psalm 68:4)

When Moses asked God what he should say when the Israelites asked the name of the God who sent him, God said, “I AM WHO I AM...Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14, NKJV). “I AM” is translated from the first person singular form of the Hebrew “to be” verb, hayah.

Later, God said to Moses, “I am the LORD, I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, NKJV). It is interesting and revelatory that the Hebrew word translated “LORD” is Yahweh, the third person singular form of the same verb translated “I AM.” this, when God described Himself to Moses, He used the first person singular form of the verb; when we describe Him, we use the third person singular form of the same verb.

When Moses renamed Hoshea’, it was a prophetic choice, for Joshua was in a very real sense a type of the coming Messiah. Then, Zechariah tells us of another Joshua, a high priest, who, in a symbolic act of great significance, is crowned. Under the Law of Moses, the priesthood and royalty were kept strictly separated. But his priest would be a king. The old categories would be overcome in the one Joshua prefigured. “Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, saying, ‘Behold, the Man who is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, and He shall build the temple of the LORD; Yes, He shall build the temple of the LORD. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; so He shall be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both’” (Zechariah 6:11-13, NKJV).

Theologically, it is significant that both men named Joshua are found at the “seams” of the Hebrew Bible. The idea of “seams” refers to the locations where the sections of the Hebrew Scriptures meet. There are three sections, as Jesus indicated in Luke 24:44: Law, Prophets, and Psalms. In the Hebrew text, the books are arranged differently than they are in English translations, which follow the order of books in the Septuagint. The arrangement in the Hebrew Bible seems intentional and interpretive. In other words, the very order of the books helps with the interpretation of the books. In this case, the first Joshua is found with the first book in the prophets section bearing his name. The second Joshua is found in what we call the Minor Prophets, but to the Hebrews the Minor Prophets was a single volume, the Book of the Twelve. This is the final book in the prophets, just preceding the psalms section. So at the end of the law and the beginning of the prophets, we find Joshua. And at the end of the prophets and the beginning of the psalms, we find Joshua. In this final case, Joshua definitely prefigures the Messiah, who would be both High Priest and King.

When our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came on the scene He came in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. And He came bearing the name which identified Him as Yahweh Himself, who would save His people from their sins. We must hold the name of Jesus dear, for it is the only saving name, the name upon which we call for salvation. (See Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21, 38; 4:12; 22:16; Romans 10:13).

*1. J.A. Motyer in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (eds. 1. Howard Marshal, et al.; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 800

*2. Available online at http://arthurwendover.com/arthurs/mont/anne10.html. Accessed September 20, 2006

Daniel L. Segraves is the dean of theology and president of Christian Life College. He also serves as an adjunct professor at the Urshan Graduate School of Theology. Daniel earned the MA in Exegetical Theology and the ThM from Western Seminary. He is currently completing the PhD in Renewal Studies with a Concentration in Biblical Theology at Regent University.

Very good.