PDA

View Full Version : Does Dan Seagraves Believe in the LIght Doctrine????


Thad
04-04-2007, 12:10 AM
I have high respect for Bro Seagraves and If this Question offends anyone I am hoping and asking that the thread be deleted " If it offends your Brother".......
anyhow, I know that he use to have a site where people could ask him Bible Questions and there was some commotion about the fact that he eluded to what would be considered the Old " light doctrine".

Is it wrong to believe in the light doctrine? can you be considered a 3 stepper and believe in it ?
what exactly is it ? If my memory serves me right tonight, I thought it was where only those Baptized in Jesus Name will make it in the rapture? all others will stay through the wrath of God in the tribulation and then be the servant of those who were bapt. In JN ?
All these people will be those who walked in all they knew and were not given deeper revelation by God.

what scriptures do they use for this Doctrine? I'd be interested in reading up on it - thanks

Thad
04-04-2007, 01:25 AM
Hello Hello Hello ????????????????????????

Praxeas
04-04-2007, 01:29 AM
Hello Hello Hello ????????????????????????
no clue....what is "the light" doctrine? And how many calories does it have?

Thad
04-04-2007, 01:30 AM
no clue....what is "the light" doctrine? And how many calories does it have?



that's a good way of putting it LOL

I tried to explain what I knew of it

Praxeas
04-04-2007, 01:30 AM
that's a good way of putting it LOL

I tried to explain what I knew of it
Too bad he removed those question and answers...they were up for years even though they took the link off

Thad
04-04-2007, 01:34 AM
Too bad he removed those question and answers...they were up for years even though they took the link off



why i wonder

Trouvere
04-04-2007, 01:40 AM
Okay is this the doctrine where if Grandma died and she was walking in all the light she knew in obedience that she died saved?

Thad
04-04-2007, 01:43 AM
Okay is this the doctrine where if Grandma died and she was walking in all the light she knew in obedience that she died saved?


I believe so
also, they teach in Progressive Restoration. The true gospel was destroyed when the early church was killed off and during the dark ages. the church was slowly restored step by step thru the centuries by men such as martin Luther, John wesley , etc

Fonix
04-04-2007, 05:26 AM
Thadious
Since when did you start having a conscience over offending anyone?? Never bothered you b4 :aaa

Steve Epley
04-04-2007, 06:00 AM
If Elder Seagraves believes the 'light doctrine' that would be nothing new to Stockton Elder Clyde Haney taught the 'light doctrine' there for years. Many earlier Pentecostal pioneers taught some form of the 'light doctrine' McClain, Haywood and others. It was a feeble attempt in trying to accomdate everyone's conscience about friends and family who had not obeyed the gospel. Why not just preach the gospel as it is written then leave the rest to God at the judgment instead making up something like this which does not make any sense and is certainly not Biblical.

Michael The Disciple
04-04-2007, 08:02 AM
The light doctrine is an attempt to balance the goodness and severity of God. If one lived up to all the truth they knew where would be their sin?

It could be the application of "to whom much is given much is required" or vice versa.

rrford
04-04-2007, 08:31 AM
The light doctrine is an attempt to balance the goodness and severity of God. If one lived up to all the truth they knew where would be their sin?

It could be the application of "to whom much is given much is required" or vice versa.

Any such attempt by man is futile as God will never be balanced in severity and goodness. His goodness far outweighs His severity.

But what some folks do not understand is that God has incredibly broad parameters of mercy and incredibly narrow parameters of judgment. But as an individual tramples grace underfoot they narrow the paremeters of God's mercy and broaden His parameters of judgment in their own life.

Michael The Disciple
04-04-2007, 08:36 AM
22: Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Rom. 11:22

Anyone who does not continue in his goodness will be cut off.

SDG
04-04-2007, 08:36 AM
Any such attempt by man is futile as God will never be balanced in severity and goodness. His goodness far outweighs His severity.

But what some folks do not understand is that God has incredibly broad parameters of mercy and incredibly narrow parameters of judgment. But as an individual tramples grace underfoot they narrow the paremeters of God's mercy and broaden His parameters of judgment in their own life.

I agree with your statements on His goodness ... are you a proponent of this light doctrine ... RR??

Many recent CLC grads seem to be very open-minded on many issues, undoubtedly influenced by Dr. S.

rrford
04-04-2007, 08:44 AM
I agree with your statements on His goodness ... are you a proponent of this light doctrine ... RR??

Many recent CLC grads seem to be very open-minded on many issues, undoubtedly influenced by Dr. S.

Hmmm, hoe to answer said question?

No, I am not a proponent of the "light doctrine." But on the other hand, IMO, the ultimate judge of one's salvation is God alone. If He decides to save the whole world in whatever condition they are in, then I will be thrilled beyond words. What is required of me is to simply believe, practice, preach and teach what the Word says. "Except a man be born again..."

Trouvere
04-04-2007, 09:49 AM
I believe so
also, they teach in Progressive Restoration. The true gospel was destroyed when the early church was killed off and during the dark ages. the church was slowly restored step by step thru the centuries by men such as martin Luther, John wesley , etc

I read that.Its also taught and supported in the big black and white Pentecostal Home Bible Course that used to be(I don't know if it is currently)
a requirement for license at least it was when I was.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 09:59 AM
I have high respect for Bro Seagraves and If this Question offends anyone I am hoping and asking that the thread be deleted " If it offends your Brother".......
anyhow, I know that he use to have a site where people could ask him Bible Questions and there was some commotion about the fact that he eluded to what would be considered the Old " light doctrine".

Is it wrong to believe in the light doctrine? can you be considered a 3 stepper and believe in it ?
what exactly is it ? If my memory serves me right tonight, I thought it was where only those Baptized in Jesus Name will make it in the rapture? all others will stay through the wrath of God in the tribulation and then be the servant of those who were bapt. In JN ?
All these people will be those who walked in all they knew and were not given deeper revelation by God.

what scriptures do they use for this Doctrine? I'd be interested in reading up on it - thanks


This is what he believes:

We are justified at the point of faith, everyone who is in the bride of Christ has to be baptized in Jesus Name.

That baptism unites us with Christ Romans 6; Col. 2, and that the normative experience of the New Birth in the NT is faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

He does not call what he believes to be the light doctrine, but will discuss freely what C. Haney, GT Haywood and A. Urshan believed and in the least they validated as being legit. the experiences of true faith found outside our understanding.

Thad
04-04-2007, 10:49 AM
Thadious
Since when did you start having a conscience over offending anyone?? Never bothered you b4 :aaa


Gee thanks for the compliment whoever you are

Thad
04-04-2007, 10:49 AM
This is what he believes:

We are justified at the point of faith, everyone who is in the bride of Christ has to be baptized in Jesus Name.

That baptism unites us with Christ Romans 6; Col. 2, and that the normative experience of the New Birth in the NT is faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

He does not call what he believes to be the light doctrine, but will discuss freely what C. Haney, GT Haywood and A. Urshan believed and in the least they validated as being legit. the experiences of true faith found outside our understanding.


that's a little vauge keith but i understand

rrford
04-04-2007, 10:51 AM
This is what he believes:

We are justified at the point of faith, everyone who is in the bride of Christ has to be baptized in Jesus Name.

That baptism unites us with Christ Romans 6; Col. 2, and that the normative experience of the New Birth in the NT is faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

He does not call what he believes to be the light doctrine, but will discuss freely what C. Haney, GT Haywood and A. Urshan believed and in the least they validated as being legit. the experiences of true faith found outside our understanding.


Not sure how you mean that statement. Is one part of the bride prior to taking in His name in baptism? It would seem that the implication is that one becomes part of the bride at justification.

Thad
04-04-2007, 10:53 AM
Not sure how you mean that statement. Is one part of the bride prior to taking in His name in baptism? It would seem that the implication is that one becomes part of the bride at justification.

what i took away from that is, those who have received the HG are in the "Body" but not the Bride ???

Ferd
04-04-2007, 10:58 AM
The light doctrine is an attempt to balance the goodness and severity of God. If one lived up to all the truth they knew where would be their sin?

It could be the application of "to whom much is given much is required" or vice versa.

I disagree. I see the light doctrine as an attempt to reconcile a very real conversion experiance with later revalation.

consider that the men who espoused this doctrine were deeply commited christians BEFORE they found the revalation of the Mighty God in Christ and the Acts 2:38 experiance.

Urshan wrote about his "conversion experiance" where he accepted Christ but then he later found the revalation and Acts 2:38.

There is no question that Haywood/Urshan/Haney and others preached the Apostolic message with all their hearts. But they had very real encounters with God long before they found the Apostolic message.

Ferd
04-04-2007, 10:59 AM
If the Admin here at AFF had some real spunk, they would get Brother Seagraves to come here and at least provide us some articles....

Scott Hutchinson
04-04-2007, 11:07 AM
I disagree. I see the light doctrine as an attempt to reconcile a very real conversion experiance with later revalation.

consider that the men who espoused this doctrine were deeply commited christians BEFORE they found the revalation of the Mighty God in Christ and the Acts 2:38 experiance.

Urshan wrote about his "conversion experiance" where he accepted Christ but then he later found the revalation and Acts 2:38.

There is no question that Haywood/Urshan/Haney and others preached the Apostolic message with all their hearts. But they had very real encounters with God long before they found the Apostolic message.

Paul did have a experience with God ,on the Damacus road , before He came into a more fuller experience.

Felicity
04-04-2007, 11:07 AM
I have high respect for Bro Seagraves and If this Question offends anyone I am hoping and asking that the thread be deleted " If it offends your Brother".......
anyhow, I know that he use to have a site where people could ask him Bible Questions and there was some commotion about the fact that he eluded to what would be considered the Old " light doctrine".

Is it wrong to believe in the light doctrine? can you be considered a 3 stepper and believe in it ?
what exactly is it ? If my memory serves me right tonight, I thought it was where only those Baptized in Jesus Name will make it in the rapture? all others will stay through the wrath of God in the tribulation and then be the servant of those who were bapt. In JN ?
All these people will be those who walked in all they knew and were not given deeper revelation by God.

what scriptures do they use for this Doctrine? I'd be interested in reading up on it - thanksThe "old" light doctrine? It's pretty current based on the number of preachers around today who believe it.

You're either saved or not.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 11:09 AM
Not sure how you mean that statement. Is one part of the bride prior to taking in His name in baptism? It would seem that the implication is that one becomes part of the bride at justification.

It means exactly that, you cant be in the bride of Christ, go in the rapture without being baptized in Jesus Name.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 11:10 AM
If the Admin here at AFF had some real spunk, they would get Brother Seagraves to come here and at least provide us some articles....

I will be happy to share some of his paper from the UGST Symposium, where he outlines the Justification at Faith.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 11:20 AM
The Role of Faith in Justification

Presented by Daniel Segraves

The doctrine of justification found in the New Testament is rooted in Abraham’s experience, who “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3). New Testament believers are said to stand in solidarity with Abraham – the father of all who believe – in justification.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised (Romans 4:11-12).

The event in view in Romans 4:3 is recorded in Genesis 15:5-6:
Then He brought him outside and said, ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Abraham’s only response to God’s promise at this point was that “he believed in the LORD.” The verb “!ma”, translated “believed,” indicates that Abraham trusted God to keep His promise. It is significant for the doctrine of justification that no other response was expected or possible at this point. Although the genuineness of Abraham’s faith was later demonstrated in a tangible way as he offered Isaac, it serves Paul’s purpose to focus on the fact that Abraham was justified apart from and prior to works. Even circumcision, although it was a command of God, was a “sign,” “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11).
Paul’s point is that the only requirement for justification is genuine faith. Although faith results in obedience to God’s commands, justification occurs at the point

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 11:22 AM
Another portion:

The validity of Abraham’s faith was not questioned because there was no active demonstration of that faith. And Abraham’s justification did not await an opportunity for him to show the genuineness of his faith by obedience. Although genuine faith in God will result in obedience to God, the faith is genuine before obedience. This is precisely Paul’s point. Since the faith is genuine, whatever benefit accrues to faith is enjoyed from the moment of faith. In Abraham’s case – and in the case of all who share Abraham’s faith – that benefit is justification.

Ferd
04-04-2007, 11:44 AM
I will be happy to share some of his paper from the UGST Symposium, where he outlines the Justification at Faith.

cool. thanks.

I would still like to see him posting here.

Hoovie
04-04-2007, 12:50 PM
cool. thanks.

I would still like to see him posting here.

Much as I like Dan Seagraves, I would not like to see him posting here. Some would like opportunity to grill him rather than learn. Much rather that he become even more involved with official publications and educational venues that the symposiums and UGST provide.

tv1a
04-04-2007, 12:52 PM
It would be a coup if Seagraves ends up at Great Lakes University.

Hoovie
04-04-2007, 12:53 PM
It would be a coup if Seagraves ends up at Great Lakes University.

Explain please.

tv1a
04-04-2007, 01:35 PM
GLU will be the premier bible college in short amount of time. They could use Seagraves' expertise to expidite the progress. IBC has Talmedge French. The other colleges are on life support because they are more of a club than a college. Seagraves would be a great asset to GLU.

Explain please.

Hoovie
04-04-2007, 01:42 PM
GLU will be the premier bible college in short amount of time. They could use Seagraves' expertise to expidite the progress. IBC has Talmedge French. The other colleges are on life support because they are more of a club than a college. Seagraves would be a great asset to GLU.

I agree with the bolded part, and hope you are right about GLU's success. I did not think they want to be billed primarily as a "Bible College" though.

tv1a
04-04-2007, 01:51 PM
True, but those who realize what a joke bible colleges are will be chomping at the bit to attend a liberal arts college where a degree is worth the paper it's printed on. Seagraves would give instant credibility to GLU. That could sway kids that feel pressure to go to a Bible College when God has other plans for them.

I agree with the bolded part, and hope you are right about GLU's success. I did not think they want to be billed primarily as a "Bible College" though.

Sam
04-04-2007, 02:09 PM
I believe so
also, they teach in Progressive Restoration. The true gospel was destroyed when the early church was killed off and during the dark ages. the church was slowly restored step by step thru the centuries by men such as martin Luther, John wesley , etc

A chart for that can be found at
http://home.att.net/~jrd/Seven_Church_Ages.gif
It is based on a chart Bro. S.G. Norris published.
This teaching is that the "visible" church went into darkness and then God brought light and revelation in stages until 1914. Some believe that there were always a few folks here and there who believed in what the UPC believes today. Some also believe that revelation and light did not stop in 1914.

Another chart is included as a pdf attachment. This came from Bro. McClains book on church history.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 02:10 PM
It would be a coup if Seagraves ends up at Great Lakes University.

Won't happen, he wants to spend more time in enjoying the fall season of life.

Sam
04-04-2007, 02:21 PM
Paul did have a experience with God ,on the Damacus road , before He came into a more fuller experience.

Those of us who are called "one-steppers" believe Saul was saved/regenerated/justified on the Damascus Road and 3 days later was baptized in the Spirit and in water. This is not written for debate or to take this thread off track, just an explanation for how some Oneness Pentecostals believe.

In my opinion (so that's all this is -an opinion) the "light doctrine" is a way a three-stepper can preach salvation/regeneration as requiring all three steps but can have some wiggle room to say that ALL who have not followed the three steps will go to Hell. This allows martyrs who have given their lives for Jesus, great men of Christian history like Martin Luther and Charles Wesley, etc to get into heaven even though they have not been saved/regenerated by the "three-step" formula.

Bro. Norris taught this at the Apostolic Bible Institute for many years and if it was also taught at Stockton, there must be an awful lot of Oneness preachers who believe it.

Sam
04-04-2007, 02:26 PM
This is how Bishop G.T. Haywood taught what is some times referred to as "the light doctrine" and is some times called "holy, righteous, and wicked."

FIRST AND SECOND RESURRECTION
That there is a first and second resurrection of the dead the
scriptures plainly declare. But who shall be partakers thereof,
especially the first resurrection, is a thing that has not been
clearly explained.
We have generally understood the first resurrection to be those
who are saved, and the second resurrection to be composed of the
wicked, or unsaved. Then again there is a teaching that there is but
one literal resurrection of the dead and at that time Jesus will sit
on the throne of His glory and separate the "righteous from the
wicked" as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." This though
is derived from Matt. 25:31, 32.
Revelation 20:4-6, says "Blessed and Holy is he that hath part in
the first resurrection," and "the rest of the dead live not again
until
the thousand years were finished." And these words are true and
faithful. Rev. 19:9;22:6. According to the foregoing passages there is
a thousand years between the first and second resurrections.
This being true, who then are the "righteous that are separated from
the wicked as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats?"
Difference Between the Righteous and Holy.
If we will notice Rev. 20:6 we will see that they who take part
in the first resurrection are "blessed and holy." We only have to look
closely into the Word of God to find that there is difference between
the righteous and the holy. He that is righteous, let him be righteous
still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still - Rev. 22:11.
In Hebrew the word "holy" is "kodesh" which means a sacred place, or
thing, consecrated (thing); dedicated (thing) holiness, a saint, a
sanctuary; while the word righteous is "tsaddeek," which means just,
lawful, righteous (man) or to make right in a moral sense, to clear
one's self, to justify self. From this we can see that righteousness
is moral actions, while holiness is a consecrated state.
Holy people are those whose lives are consecrated to God by the
Holy Spirit's indwelling. The prophets were called "holy" because of
the Holy Ghost that is upon them and in them. - 2 Pet. 1:21; Eph. 3:5.
Holiness can only be claimed by those who are filled with the Holy
spirit. Prophets,: priests, kings and special chosen people before
Christ were called "holy" but the others who walked in obedience to
the law were called righteous men. - Matt. 13:17. It was Moses who
said about 1490 years before Christ, "Would God that all of the Lord's
people were prophets, and that the Lord could put His (holy) Spirit
upon them." Num. 11:29. In Joel 2:28, we find God promising to fulfill
Moses' desires. If they were all to; be prophets (Rev. 19:10) and
filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:16, 17,) that it could be seen
that in the new dispensation (of grace) God's people were not only be
righteous, but holy also. - (Isa. 62:12; Luke 1:74, 75.)
From the above mentioned scriptures it can be clearly seen that
there is a difference between the holy and the righteous. Holiness is
found in the Holy Spirit-filled life. - (See 1 Thess. 4:7,8). There
are many who are called holy who are only righteous, because they have
not been partakers of the Holy Ghost. There is a true holiness. (Eph.
4:24) It is the Holy Spirit-filled people who shall take part in the
first resurrection. The "blessed" are those who "die in the Lord"
during the tribulation period and are "called to the marriage supper
of the lamb." - Rev. 14:13; 19:9; 20:6
Seven Sections of the First Resurrection.
There are few people who have noticed that the first resurrection
is divided into sections, or orders. The following are the seven
orders in, which the Scriptures indicate that it takes place:
1. The first resurrection began with the resurrection of Christ.
2. The saints which arose after his resurrection (Matt. 27:52,
53) was another "order" or section of the first resurrection (1 Cor.
15:23.)
3. During the gospel age the mystical resurrection is "being
buried with him by baptism into his death." Rom. 6:4, 5)
4. The resurrection of the dead and the changing of those that
are "alive and remain is to take place when the Lord appears - Cor.
15:51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:13-17. The last "orders" of the first
resurrection take place during the great tribulation period.
5. There seems to be palm bearers in one section. - Rev. 7:9-17.
6. The Man-child appears in one "order" consisting of the 144,000
who are seen on Mt. Zion after the Man-child is caught up to the
throne of God. - Rev. 12:5; 14:1, 2.
7. The final order consists of all those "who were beheaded for
he witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not
worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
his mark upon their forehead, or in their hands." Rev. 20:4.
From this there appears to be seven sections to the first
resurrection, "but every man in his own order. Christ the first
fruits; afterwards, they that are Christ's at his coming." This is
the first resurrection.
The Second Resurrection.
According to the inspired word of God the resurrection of the
"blessed and Holy" is completed a thousand years before the second
resurrection. It is from this point that we ar obliged to note the
difference between partakers of the two resurrections.
After the thousand years expire "the rest of the dead" (those who
did not come forth in the first resurrection) both righteous and
wicked, live again and are made to stand before God. It is then that
Jesus separates them as a shepherd divideth the sheep from the goat
according to Matt. 25:31-46.
In this resurrection is included all the righteous men of all
ages who walked in all the light that they were given. It is my candid
opinion that all heathen, Israelites, Christian professors who have
never heard the true gospel of Christ and those who die during
the millenium, walking in the light of their times will be given
eternal life at the last resurrection.
Many righteous people have died without the Holy Ghost and
the question has been asked: "Where will they come in?" They shall be
given eternal life in the last day. They shall inherit the New
Earth where life eternal reigns because "there shall be no more death.
If we desire to take part in the first resurrection we must be
filled with the same Holy Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. It
is the church of the First-born that takes part in the first
resurrection. To enter into that Church, which is his body, we must be
baptized into it by both water and the Spirit. (See John 3:5; Rom.
6:3-5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Gal. 3:26-28.
The time for the first resurrection is at hand. Are you
preparing to meet the Bridegroom? You must get oil within your vessels
and have your lamps trimmed and burning. Soon shall we hear the
midnight cry - "BEHOLD, THE BRIDEGROOM COMETH."

Sam
04-04-2007, 02:29 PM
This is what he believes:

We are justified at the point of faith, everyone who is in the bride of Christ has to be baptized in Jesus Name.
...


Justified as in "just as if I'd never sinned"?
Does he teach that sins are forgiven/remitted at justification?
I'm not asking for contention --just curious.

rrford
04-04-2007, 02:42 PM
GLU will be the premier bible college in short amount of time. They could use Seagraves' expertise to expidite the progress. IBC has Talmedge French. The other colleges are on life support because they are more of a club than a college. Seagraves would be a great asset to GLU.

Hmm, can you support that for each of the BC's or is this just your edumikated opinion?

RunningOnFaith
04-04-2007, 02:56 PM
It means exactly that, you cant be in the bride of Christ, go in the rapture without being baptized in Jesus Name.

According to my understanding justifcation is the believer being declared righteous before God and having the righteouness of Christ imputed to them. Now if Justifcation occurs before Baptism at the point of faith, on what basis would God send someone to hell who had not been baptized, but had yet been imputed the perfect righteousness of Christ?

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 03:00 PM
Those of us who are called "one-steppers" believe Saul was saved/regenerated/justified on the Damascus Road and 3 days later was baptized in the Spirit and in water. This is not written for debate or to take this thread off track, just an explanation for how some Oneness Pentecostals believe.

In my opinion (so that's all this is -an opinion) the "light doctrine" is a way a three-stepper can preach salvation/regeneration as requiring all three steps but can have some wiggle room to say that ALL who have not followed the three steps will go to Hell. This allows martyrs who have given their lives for Jesus, great men of Christian history like Martin Luther and Charles Wesley, etc to get into heaven even though they have not been saved/regenerated by the "three-step" formula.

Bro. Norris taught this at the Apostolic Bible Institute for many years and if it was also taught at Stockton, there must be an awful lot of Oneness preachers who believe it.


I see it as a process, a faith walk, salvation has never been about doing a few things but doing all the things necessary through a relationship with the living God. But is neither a everything or nothing idea.

For example: Mark 16:16, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
so the one who has faith will obey and be baptized.
yet
.... he that believeth not shall be damned.

I've always wondered why Mark didn't include baptize with the damnation part, but then I realized that someone not being baptized will not be the damning thing, but fact that one doesn't believe. Of course the subsequent result of faith (justification) will be the New birth experience.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 03:02 PM
According to my understanding justifcation is the believer being declared righteous before God and having the righteouness of Christ imputed to them. Now if Justifcation occurs before Baptism at the point of faith, on what basis would God send someone to hell who had not been baptized, but had yet been imputed the perfect righteousness of Christ?

I am assuming that you believe that righteousness is imputed at baptism?

I don't believe that, righteousness is imputed at faith. Galatians and Romans both teach that. The believer is declared to be in right standing with God at the moment of faith, of course someone with faith will obey God, but we can't negate what God says about someone who hasn't gone through the complete process.

tv1a
04-04-2007, 03:03 PM
I wasn't going to go deep but since you asked...

IBC is smoke and mirrors. ABI hasn't been a major playa for decades. CLC may be the best out of the group, but one gets the feeling something is about to take the college in a different direction. Gateway makes way for the Graduate School... Who knows about Texas. Do they show up on the radar?

There is a place in the Kingdom for these schools. Some suggest the networking itself is worth the tuition.

It would be nice to have a college for people who are called to real life ministries. GLU is the best choice. Ohio Valley University is second best.

Hmm, can you support that for each of the BC's or is this just your edumikated opinion?

rrford
04-04-2007, 03:28 PM
I wasn't going to go deep but since you asked...

IBC is smoke and mirrors. ABI hasn't been a major playa for decades. CLC may be the best out of the group, but one gets the feeling something is about to take the college in a different direction. Gateway makes way for the Graduate School... Who knows about Texas. Do they show up on the radar?

There is a place in the Kingdom for these schools. Some suggest the networking itself is worth the tuition.

It would be nice to have a college for people who are called to real life ministries. GLU is the best choice. Ohio Valley University is second best.

Thanks for the response. Many times folks relpy to these types of things without relaizing the intent of a Bible College and what it is attemoting to do on limited budgets, etc.

I do know that some of your assessment is correct. CLC is the one that seems to have disappeared from the radar to me. I suppose that has alot to do with our own geography in relation to the school under disussion.

Interestingly enough, TBC's enrollment is continuing to make small increases after it's relocation to the District facilities in Lufkin. The 20 year plan for the District includes some progressive development for the BC. Last years move to full-time staffing has helped. They finished in the black last year (basically unheard of for a UPCI Bible College) and are projected to do so this year also.

Fonix
04-04-2007, 03:33 PM
Gee thanks for the compliment whoever you are

Ah Thad..Im sorry. Gotta give you a hard time cause your delight used to be giving everybody a hard time. Just teasing ya..Maybe my tease was in bad taste since you are trying to mend your ways.

Pastor Keith
04-04-2007, 03:44 PM
Thanks for the response. Many times folks relpy to these types of things without relaizing the intent of a Bible College and what it is attemoting to do on limited budgets, etc.

I do know that some of your assessment is correct. CLC is the one that seems to have disappeared from the radar to me. I suppose that has alot to do with our own geography in relation to the school under disussion.

Interestingly enough, TBC's enrollment is continuing to make small increases after it's relocation to the District facilities in Lufkin. The 20 year plan for the District includes some progressive development for the BC. Last years move to full-time staffing has helped. They finished in the black last year (basically unheard of for a UPCI Bible College) and are projected to do so this year also.

For right now CLC is strong, 165 in student body population, they are moving towards accreditation. Not sure what the future now the Dr. Segraves is leaving but they have not fallen off the Radar.

I think in the near future though that the Bible College Model will go by the wayside and the UPCI will be forced to move towards the Liberal Arts or Regent College Model.

Whole Hearted
04-04-2007, 03:47 PM
Thanks for the response. Many times folks relpy to these types of things without relaizing the intent of a Bible College and what it is attemoting to do on limited budgets, etc.

I do know that some of your assessment is correct. CLC is the one that seems to have disappeared from the radar to me. I suppose that has alot to do with our own geography in relation to the school under disussion.

Interestingly enough, TBC's enrollment is continuing to make small increases after it's relocation to the District facilities in Lufkin. The 20 year plan for the District includes some progressive development for the BC. Last years move to full-time staffing has helped. They finished in the black last year (basically unheard of for a UPCI Bible College) and are projected to do so this year also.



I believe that TBC is the up and coming bible college.

Whole Hearted
04-04-2007, 03:48 PM
Whagt does GLU stand for?

SoCaliUPC
04-04-2007, 03:49 PM
Whagt does GLU stand for?

Great Lakes University.

rrford
04-04-2007, 03:56 PM
For right now CLC is strong, 165 in student body population, they are moving towards accreditation. Not sure what the future now the Dr. Segraves is leaving but they have not fallen off the Radar.

I think in the near future though that the Bible College Model will go by the wayside and the UPCI will be forced to move towards the Liberal Arts or Regent College Model.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure what their enrollment was this year. Is that full-time, on Campus students?

I do not think the BC model will ever totally disappear as it fills a certain niche. I do think fewer of them will remain open.

SoCaliUPC
04-04-2007, 03:59 PM
Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure what their enrollment was this year. Is that full-time, on Campus students?

I do not think the BC model will ever totally disappear as it fills a certain niche. I do think fewer of them will remain open.

Rrford...I agree that the BC model will ever totally disappear.....and I think we will se fewer. I think if young men are called to ministry, they can learn all they will ever need under the guidance of their local Shepherd. If young men will submit themselves for four years under a pastor and a pastor has weekly "classes" with these guys...they wil llearn all they ever will need.

rrford
04-04-2007, 04:02 PM
Rrford...I agree that the BC model will ever totally disappear.....and I think we will se fewer. I think if young men are called to ministry, they can learn all they will ever need under the guidance of their local Shepherd. If young men will submit themselves for four years under a pastor and a pastor has weekly "classes" with these guys...they wil llearn all they ever will need.

I would strongly disagree. I think very few of our pastors are really equipped to teach a young man all he will ever need to know. Personally, I think it takes an effective pastor, strong church, Bible College, and mentors/elders to equip a young man for ministry. JMHO.

CC1
04-04-2007, 05:03 PM
It would be a coup if Seagraves ends up at Great Lakes University.

That was my first thought when I saw this thread! Then I thought no because of UGST.

CC1
04-04-2007, 05:05 PM
GLU will be the premier bible college in short amount of time. They could use Seagraves' expertise to expidite the progress. IBC has Talmedge French. The other colleges are on life support because they are more of a club than a college. Seagraves would be a great asset to GLU.

I didn't realize that it was GLU's desire to be the premier Bible College. I thought their emphasis was being the first Oneness Apostolic based Liberal Arts University.

CC1
04-04-2007, 05:06 PM
Thanks for the response. Many times folks relpy to these types of things without relaizing the intent of a Bible College and what it is attemoting to do on limited budgets, etc.

I do know that some of your assessment is correct. CLC is the one that seems to have disappeared from the radar to me. I suppose that has alot to do with our own geography in relation to the school under disussion.

Interestingly enough, TBC's enrollment is continuing to make small increases after it's relocation to the District facilities in Lufkin. The 20 year plan for the District includes some progressive development for the BC. Last years move to full-time staffing has helped. They finished in the black last year (basically unheard of for a UPCI Bible College) and are projected to do so this year also.

rrford,

Do you know what the enrollment figure is this year at TBC since they are in your neck of the woods? I have been wondering.

I was surprised that CLC is 165. I just assumed it was between 200-300.

Hesetmefree238
04-04-2007, 05:23 PM
Those of us who are called "one-steppers" believe Saul was saved/regenerated/justified on the Damascus Road and 3 days later was baptized in the Spirit and in water. This is not written for debate or to take this thread off track, just an explanation for how some Oneness Pentecostals believe.

In my opinion (so that's all this is -an opinion) the "light doctrine" is a way a three-stepper can preach salvation/regeneration as requiring all three steps but can have some wiggle room to say that ALL who have not followed the three steps will go to Hell. This allows martyrs who have given their lives for Jesus, great men of Christian history like Martin Luther and Charles Wesley, etc to get into heaven even though they have not been saved/regenerated by the "three-step" formula.

Bro. Norris taught this at the Apostolic Bible Institute for many years and if it was also taught at Stockton, there must be an awful lot of Oneness preachers who believe it.

There are a lot of Oneness preachers who believe it, but many will not say for fear of being called a compromiser.

SDG
04-04-2007, 05:30 PM
This is what he believes:

We are justified at the point of faith, everyone who is in the bride of Christ has to be baptized in Jesus Name.

That baptism unites us with Christ Romans 6; Col. 2, and that the normative experience of the New Birth in the NT is faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

He does not call what he believes to be the light doctrine, but will discuss freely what C. Haney, GT Haywood and A. Urshan believed and in the least they validated as being legit. the experiences of true faith found outside our understanding.

Keith,

Does S. believe that remission of sins happens after repentance and water baptism?

tv1a
04-04-2007, 09:35 PM
Let me rephrase the statement. GLU gives apostolics the opportunity to get a real education in a christian environment. The concept is like Jerry Falwell's school... It is a considered a Bible college although it has the elements of a liberal arts college...tv

I didn't realize that it was GLU's desire to be the premier Bible College. I thought their emphasis was being the first Oneness Apostolic based Liberal Arts University.

Hoovie
04-04-2007, 10:06 PM
Let me rephrase the statement. GLU gives apostolics the opportunity to get a real education in a christian environment. The concept is like Jerry Falwell's school... It is a considered a Bible college although it has the elements of a liberal arts college...tv

Any idea what GLU enrollment is?

JN Anderson
04-04-2007, 10:16 PM
I have high respect for Bro Seagraves and If this Question offends anyone I am hoping and asking that the thread be deleted " If it offends your Brother".......
anyhow, I know that he use to have a site where people could ask him Bible Questions and there was some commotion about the fact that he eluded to what would be considered the Old " light doctrine".

Is it wrong to believe in the light doctrine? can you be considered a 3 stepper and believe in it ?
what exactly is it ? If my memory serves me right tonight, I thought it was where only those Baptized in Jesus Name will make it in the rapture? all others will stay through the wrath of God in the tribulation and then be the servant of those who were bapt. In JN ?
All these people will be those who walked in all they knew and were not given deeper revelation by God.

what scriptures do they use for this Doctrine? I'd be interested in reading up on it - thanks

Thad, there are several in the UPC who hold to some form of this doctrine. It is also called Inclusivism too. I hold to a modified view of the latter actually and would agree with Norris and Haywood for the most part. I think this issue, alone, is one that can divide or unite the most strange of bedfellows rather quickly though. I will be careful.

crakjak
04-04-2007, 10:33 PM
Let me rephrase the statement. GLU gives apostolics the opportunity to get a real education in a christian environment. The concept is like Jerry Falwell's school... It is a considered a Bible college although it has the elements of a liberal arts college...tv

Liberty University is huge, visited there with my daugther 3-4yrs. ago, she decided it was too far from Texas, now is a senior at Hardin-Simmons in Abilene.

JN Anderson
04-04-2007, 10:37 PM
Let me rephrase the statement. GLU gives apostolics the opportunity to get a real education in a christian environment. The concept is like Jerry Falwell's school... It is a considered a Bible college although it has the elements of a liberal arts college...tv

I have attended Liberty University for about two years now. It is a great school. I hope to see UGST flourish, it can be a great platform of witness for our Oneness scholars.

Felicity
04-04-2007, 10:45 PM
Thad, there are several in the UPC who hold to some form of this doctrine. It is also called Inclusivism too. I hold to a modified view of the latter actually and would agree with Norris and Haywood for the most part. I think this issue, alone, is one that can divide or unite the most strange of bedfellows rather quickly though. I will be careful.So then .... does this mean Sab that you believe it's possible there will be those raptured who have not spoken in tongues or been baptized in Jesus name?

JN Anderson
04-05-2007, 12:10 AM
So then .... does this mean Sab that you believe it's possible there will be those raptured who have not spoken in tongues or been baptized in Jesus name?

Oh do I bite the bait or no? Hmmmm...I'll put up a little fight. My answer lies in this text below.

"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (13) (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; (14) for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, (15) who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them ) (16) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Romans 2:12-16 NKJV)

Brother Price
04-05-2007, 05:12 AM
Sabellius, so you believe that one can be raptured or go to Heaven if they live in the light they have without Acts 2:38 then? If so, then we have a major, major disagreement on this one. All these denominations and churches have a Bible, and the members read said Bible. The plan of salvation is in the Bible, clear as can be. If any soul is not saved the Bible way, they shall die in their sins. Not saved according to the light of truth they have, but one must be saved by grace through faith according to Acts 2:38.

PaPaDon
04-05-2007, 06:16 AM
One of the things which was of greatest concern to me after conversion to the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal faith (after 48 yrs of association with the Church of Christ), was centered upon the fate of my beloved parents who had gone to their graves following a lifetime of embracing the teachings of the CofC. I met, and became a very close friend of an elderly retired UPCI pastor, & after expressing my concerns about this to him, he sought to assure me that my parents would not suffer loss, equating members of the OAP to the priests of old who administered within the confines of the tabernacle, and all other religions likened unto the Israelites who were outside of the outer walls of the tabernacle. I perceived his remarks as saying that as long as people believed in God & were members of some type of "Christian" church, they were saved. For a long while this bothered me, for I viewed it as a direct contradiction of Paul's words to the saints at Galatia: "But though we (referring to himself & the other apostles), or (even) an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which WE (the apostles) have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8) (added emphasis mine own)

I was also troubled with his explanation for I viewed it conflicting with these words spoken by our Lord, when asked the question - Lord, are there few that be saved? His response - "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for MANY, I say unto you WILL SEEK TO ENTER in, and SHALL NOT be able. Would someone please correct me if my understanding is amiss, but was Jesus not explicitly asserting that even though there would be MANY who would SEEK to enter in the eternal kingdom of God, nevertheless there would be ONLY a FEW which would be granted entrance? If this be true, then what would be the ultimate determining factor? In seeking a scripturally sound response to this important question I believe one must look to the statements our Lord made to Nicodemus: "Except a man is BORN AGAIN of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

Only recently (& long after the death of my elder pastor friend), did I discover WHY he believed the way he did about this matter. His beliefs, I learned, was of the "old school," not unlike those embraced by such men as Haywood, A. Urshan, and others, and, if what I have gleaned from the things being posted here, are also embraced, to some degree, by Bro. Segraves of CLC.

There is more that I would like to write on this matter, and hope to do so shortly.

Rhoni
04-05-2007, 06:54 AM
One of the things which was of greatest concern to me after conversion to the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal faith (after 48 yrs of association with the Church of Christ), was centered upon the fate of my beloved parents who had gone to their graves following a lifetime of embracing the teachings of the CofC. I met, and became a very close friend of an elderly retired UPCI pastor, & after expressing my concerns about this to him, he sought to assure me that my parents would not suffer loss, equating members of the OAP to the priests of old who administered within the confines of the tabernacle, and all other religions likened unto the Israelites who were outside of the outer walls of the tabernacle. I perceived his remarks as saying that as long as people believed in God & were members of some type of "Christian" church, they were saved. For a long while this bothered me, for I viewed it as a direct contradiction of Paul's words to the saints at Galatia: "But though we (referring to himself & the other apostles), or (even) an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which WE (the apostles) have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8) (added emphasis mine own)

I was also troubled with his explanation for I viewed it conflicting with these words spoken by our Lord, when asked the question - Lord, are there few that be saved? His response - "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for MANY, I say unto you WILL SEEK TO ENTER in, and SHALL NOT be able. Would someone please correct me if my understanding is amiss, but was Jesus not explicitly asserting that even though there would be MANY who would SEEK to enter in the eternal kingdom of God, nevertheless there would be ONLY a FEW which would be granted entrance? If this be true, then what would be the ultimate determining factor? In seeking a scripturally sound response to this important question I believe one must look to the statements our Lord made to Nicodemus: "Except a man is BORN AGAIN of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

Only recently (& long after the death of my elder pastor friend), did I discover WHY he believed the way he did about this matter. His beliefs, I learned, was of the "old school," not unlike those embraced by such men as Haywood, A. Urshan, and others, and, if what I have gleaned from the things being posted here, are also embraced, to some degree, by Bro. Segraves of CLC.

There is more that I would like to write on this matter, and hope to do so shortly.

PaPaDon,

Thank-you for this post. My father was brought up Catholic and my mother raised us Apostolic. Mom preached to Dad all the time and he knew the plan of salvation. When his father [my grandfather] died, my father began a drinking spree that lasted for several years and caused our family much hardship. The root of the problem was that, according to Apostolic teaching, his father was sitting in hell...and he knew nothing of the Apostolic faith but lived by the Catholic traditions he was brought up in.

My father sought the Holy Ghost [evidence of speaking in other tongues] several times, mainly under the preaching of Bro. Billie Cole. He was baptized in Jesus name. He never spoke in tongues. The Holy Ghost is promised to those who are baptised in Jesus name according to our doctrine: Acts 2:38. I choose to think that had my Dad lived longer, not been so sick, that he would have continued to seek and finally would have spoke in tongues. I choose to believe that Dad did all he knew to do and I believe that I will see him again in heaven. If that is the Light Doctrine...then I believe in it also.

Blessings, Rhoni

Pastor Keith
04-05-2007, 08:29 AM
One of the things which was of greatest concern to me after conversion to the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal faith (after 48 yrs of association with the Church of Christ), was centered upon the fate of my beloved parents who had gone to their graves following a lifetime of embracing the teachings of the CofC. I met, and became a very close friend of an elderly retired UPCI pastor, & after expressing my concerns about this to him, he sought to assure me that my parents would not suffer loss, equating members of the OAP to the priests of old who administered within the confines of the tabernacle, and all other religions likened unto the Israelites who were outside of the outer walls of the tabernacle. I perceived his remarks as saying that as long as people believed in God & were members of some type of "Christian" church, they were saved. For a long while this bothered me, for I viewed it as a direct contradiction of Paul's words to the saints at Galatia: "But though we (referring to himself & the other apostles), or (even) an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which WE (the apostles) have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8) (added emphasis mine own)

I was also troubled with his explanation for I viewed it conflicting with these words spoken by our Lord, when asked the question - Lord, are there few that be saved? His response - "Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for MANY, I say unto you WILL SEEK TO ENTER in, and SHALL NOT be able. Would someone please correct me if my understanding is amiss, but was Jesus not explicitly asserting that even though there would be MANY who would SEEK to enter in the eternal kingdom of God, nevertheless there would be ONLY a FEW which would be granted entrance? If this be true, then what would be the ultimate determining factor? In seeking a scripturally sound response to this important question I believe one must look to the statements our Lord made to Nicodemus: "Except a man is BORN AGAIN of water and of the Spirit, he CANNOT enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

Only recently (& long after the death of my elder pastor friend), did I discover WHY he believed the way he did about this matter. His beliefs, I learned, was of the "old school," not unlike those embraced by such men as Haywood, A. Urshan, and others, and, if what I have gleaned from the things being posted here, are also embraced, to some degree, by Bro. Segraves of CLC.

There is more that I would like to write on this matter, and hope to do so shortly.


No where in this thread has anyone said, Daniel Segraves believes in the light doctrine, but what he does believe in scripture and the teaching that at the moment of faith a person is justified (declared righteous with God) he also believes that genuine faith is transformative and lead to obedience and the normative Christian birth is Acts 2:38.

He did tell us what the early church leaders taught and their emphasis on conversion at repentance and faith, but he does not take a position. If you ask him outright he will point you to the articles of faith and until more recently validated and highlighted that conversion and sins were forgiven at faith and repentance.

ReformedDave
04-05-2007, 08:40 AM
Sabellius, so you believe that one can be raptured or go to Heaven if they live in the light they have without Acts 2:38 then? If so, then we have a major, major disagreement on this one. All these denominations and churches have a Bible, and the members read said Bible. The plan of salvation is in the Bible, clear as can be. If any soul is not saved the Bible way, they shall die in their sins. Not saved according to the light of truth they have, but one must be saved by grace through faith according to Acts 2:38.

There are many reasons you are single.........You are not telling him anything he doesn't know.

seguidordejesus
04-05-2007, 09:26 AM
There are many reasons you are single.........You are not telling him anything he doesn't know.

I like the proclamations with no support, don't you? :D

Sam
04-05-2007, 09:33 AM
... If that is the Light Doctrine...then I believe in it also.

Blessings, Rhoni

Many, many OP's do not REALLY believe that ALL of the people who have ever lived from Adam onward who have not:
--been water baptized in Jesus' name
--spoken with tongues
--understood the "Godhead" completely
--dressed "properly"
are currently in Hell or will go there at death

Sam
04-05-2007, 09:37 AM
...If you ask him outright he will point you to the articles of faith and until more recently validated and highlighted that conversion and sins were forgiven at faith and repentance.

That section of the Articles of Faith is a hangover from the old PCI organization. I'm surprised that it hasn't been removed by now. To some it represents a contradiction in UPC doctrine.

Sam
04-05-2007, 09:55 AM
Sabellius, so you believe that one can be raptured or go to Heaven if they live in the light they have without Acts 2:38 then? If so, then we have a major, major disagreement on this one. All these denominations and churches have a Bible, and the members read said Bible. The plan of salvation is in the Bible, clear as can be. If any soul is not saved the Bible way, they shall die in their sins. Not saved according to the light of truth they have, but one must be saved by grace through faith according to Acts 2:38.

Bro. Price,
You are a young man, and, I would assume, also young in the Lord.
Relax a little. Take a couple of deep breaths, and think what you are saying.
This Oneness Apostolic Jesus' Name Pentecostal movement is made up of many people and has been around for a long time. I'm almost 70 years old and it was going strong before I was ever born and, if the rapture does not take place in the next 20-30 years, it will be going strong after I have gone to my reward. There is a large diversity of people and of beliefs among the members of the Body of Christ. Men and women who are much smarter than you and I and who are much better people than you and I don't agree on lots of stuff. Cut them some slack, show some respect, and let God be the judge.

By the way, I heard Bro. Norris teach about the righteous, holy, and wicked and I have read Bro. Haywood's book on the resurrection. In my understanding, neither of them taught that these folks designated "righteous" would be in the rapture but that they would go to the "new earth" at the second resurrection as a reward for walking in all the light they had. Bro. F.E. Curts, a respected Bible teacher and former Dist. Supt. of Ohio, taught the holy, righteous, and wicked doctrine. He taught that the "righteous" would go to heaven at the second resurrection, but not in the rapture. So some of those who teach what we are referring to here as "the light doctrine" or "the holy, righteous, and wicked" doctrine are just teaching that God will judge people by how well they walked in the light they had and they are not "compromising" the Acts 2:38 (three-step) message as being required for New Testament salvation or regeneratiion.

There are, however, many in Oneness Pentecost (teachers and preachers) who believe that salvation/regeneration happens at faith in Jesus and repentance and that all those who have made that personal commitment to Jesus are part of the Body of Christ and will indeed be in the rapture. Bro. Goss, first Gen. Supt. of the UPC, plus many members of the original UPC gen. board taught that. And there are still some around today who believe that. Let's try to keep the spirit of the original "fundamental doctrine" statement of the UPC and respect one another and not contend for our personal understanding.

SDG
04-05-2007, 12:15 PM
. If you ask him outright he will point you to the articles of faith and until more recently validated and highlighted that conversion and sins were forgiven at faith and repentance.

Are you saying that Dr. S believes remission of sins happens at the point of repentance and conversion ... that would fall more in line with a PCI view, if so.

Pastor Keith
04-05-2007, 12:18 PM
Are you saying that Dr. S believes remission of sins happens at the point of repentance and conversion ... that would fall more in line with a PCI view, if so.

If forgiveness and remission are the same thing then yes.

SDG
04-05-2007, 12:37 PM
If forgiveness and remission are the same thing then yes.

Having spoke to a former CLC alumnus this week ... he felt that Dr. S view was that justification was at the point of faith and that remission/forgiveness took place after repentance + baptism ... I think Sabellius also stated that he thinks this is Dr. S view ....

However, I know that you also are acquainted w/ Dr. S ... and are stating something contrary ....

Can you add to your assertions ...?

Pastor Keith
04-05-2007, 02:47 PM
Having spoke to a former CLC alumnus this week ... he felt that Dr. S view was that justification was at the point of faith and that remission/forgiveness took place after repentance + baptism ... I think Sabellius also stated that he thinks this is Dr. S view ....

However, I know that you also are acquainted w/ Dr. S ... and are stating something contrary ....

Can you add to your assertions ...?

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).”

SDG
04-05-2007, 03:14 PM
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
04-07-2007, 06:18 PM
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
04-07-2007, 06:38 PM
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
04-07-2007, 06:48 PM
With all due respect, what an individual believes is irrelevant. What does scripture say?

PaPaDon
04-07-2007, 06:55 PM
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.:grampa

Steve Epley
04-07-2007, 08:15 PM
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.:grampa

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
04-07-2007, 08:19 PM
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
04-07-2007, 09:22 PM
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
04-08-2007, 10:20 PM
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
04-09-2007, 06:31 AM
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.

Barb
04-09-2007, 07:37 AM
It would be a coup if Seagraves ends up at Great Lakes University.

Interesting statement...are you connected to GLU in some way, great or small, or just making an observation?!:tiphat

mfblume
04-10-2007, 01:46 PM
Hmmm, hoe to answer said question?

No, I am not a proponent of the "light doctrine." But on the other hand, IMO, the ultimate judge of one's salvation is God alone. If He decides to save the whole world in whatever condition they are in, then I will be thrilled beyond words. What is required of me is to simply believe, practice, preach and teach what the Word says. "Except a man be born again..."

Best thing I've read today.

paulholmesjr
02-04-2011, 02:51 PM
Okay here goes. Last night in bible study some of us got together to ask if bible college was for me. And this is one of my fears. The bible says in spirit and in truth. If this light doctrine chages your mind about the gospel that Jesus preached and peter. If this looms in your mind to the point it lessen the grace of God for a person. Then why believe what you preach. This meaning the apostoles died in vain. And so did Jesus
we are in the last data brethren please don't be decieved. Other doctrines are popping up left and right. Even though I never met bro. Seagraves I don't think you should ask this on a forum. Ask him in person. And mr. Thadus I have heard you preach along time ago. Listen very close to me little brother. Don't you stop! Andstop listening to other peoples. Opinion...but be humble and open. And pray. Be easy with the Ramah of Lord. And also the Logos. We do not exist to bring up old things in the past to whom ever made that remark about thadus. Would Jesus say that? What would Jesus say? If you are not a pastor of someones soul...why throw rocks? Jesus spoke about casting the. First stone. If you do throw one stone I know the second one gets easier. And easier. Sorry I am not hear to cast judgement but the bible says to love one another. So let it go. Love you my brothers. Aloha from Pentecostals of Maui. Bro. Paul Holmes

Socialite
02-04-2011, 02:54 PM
Is thread attacking the theological and organization reputation of Dan Seagraves? :)

yuanyelss
03-28-2011, 07:05 PM
Why not just preach the gospel, because it is so written ruling, rather than in some of the things to make up for this, no sense, of course, not the Bible, God's rest...

Narrow Is The Way
03-28-2011, 08:24 PM
Why not just preach the gospel, because it is so written ruling, rather than in some of the things to make up for this, no sense, of course, not the Bible, God's rest...
huh?