Jerry Ensey wrote a great article on the Light Doc

[Steve Epley]

I don't know how to post it but it is excellent.

[berkeley]

copy and paste

[Dedicated Mind]

is he for light or against light? post the link, spell it out if you don't know how to use add link button. I am interested in reading it.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Is it online? If so, go to that page, go up to the address bar, right click and hit 'copy'. Come back here, in the reply box, right click again and hit 'paste'. Done.

[Steve Epley]

It will come out on his blog this week I think?

[Sam]

The blog is at
http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/

but I didn't see anything about the Light Doctrine

[Steve Epley]

The blog is at
http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/

but I didn't see anything about the Light Doctrine

Next week.

[mizpeh]

Is Ensey for or against the light doctrine?

[Sam]

Is Ensey for or against the light doctrine?

tune in next week and find out

[crakjak]

Is Ensey for or against the light doctrine?

Duh, if Bro. Steve is recommending the article you can guess the genre, at least most would.:smack:gotcha

[Sam]

Duh, if Bro. Steve is recommending the article you can guess the genre, at least most would.:smack:gotcha

Well, maybe Eld. Epley is "looking our way."

[crakjak]

Well, maybe Eld. Epley is "looking our way."

Welcome, Bro. Epley to the "light" side my friend!!:nah:nah

[RandyWayne]

Welcome, Bro. Epley to the "light" side my friend!!:nah:nah

I would phrase it as "Welcome to the doctrine of Grace!". :)

[crakjak]

I would phrase it as "Welcome to the doctrine of Grace!". :)

Now you're getting serious, I was just joshing my friend Bro. Steve.:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

I would phrase it as "Welcome to the doctrine of Grace!". :)

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

[Narrow Is The Way]

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.
AMEN!!

[n david]

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

:thumbsup

[LUKE2447]

I would phrase it as "Welcome to the doctrine of Grace!". :)

yeah cheap grace and false doctrine just like the baptists!

[LUKE2447]

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

:thumbsup ohhh yeah!

[KWSS1976]

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

My answer Thief on the cross..

People salvation did not start at Pentecost sorry to bust your bubble.....

[LUKE2447]

Bro Epley quote There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism..

My answer Thief on the cross..

People salvation did not start at Pentecost sorry to bust your bubble.....

Again and it has been pointed to you multiple times that it was before D,B,R.

[KWSS1976]

Luke did the thief die before or after Jesus or do you know?

[KWSS1976]

So lets change that to before the burial,resurection because no one knows if the thief dies before or after jesus...

[deltaguitar]

What about all those folks who died after the death, burial, and resurrection but before the day of Pentecost?

[MissBrattified]

What about all those folks who died after the death, burial, and resurrection but before the day of Pentecost?

Was the New Covenant in place before the resurrection? I wouldn't think it would have been, until death was defeated.

[KWSS1976]

I am sorry mabey I am hard headed but I really don't think jesus death,burieal (sp)resurrection has anything to do with salvation cause people were save before he died also

[MissBrattified]

I am sorry mabey I am hard headed but I really don't think jesus death,burieal (sp)resurrection has anything to do with salvation cause people were save before he died also

Huh? You don't think His sacrifice affects our salvation? Of course people were saved prior to the cross--but the entire methodology was changed at the cross!!!!!

[KWSS1976]

It did not before his death why would it afterwards...If he was still walking on this eath today people would still be saved....

[Sam]

Luke did the thief die before or after Jesus or do you know?

The thief died after Jesus did (John 9:30-33)
but the promise to the thief was given (of course) while Jesus was still alive.

So there are differences of opinion as to whether the thief was saved under the Old Testament or under the New Testament after the death of the Testator (Hebrews 9:15-18)

[MissBrattified]

It did not before his death why would it afterwards...If he was still walking on this earth today people would still be saved....

Saved by what? If not by the cross, then by what? By following the Law? Being a (converted) Jew?

The cross did not introduce salvation--but it did change the experience, and the accessibility.

[mizpeh]

Saved by what? If not by the cross, then by what? By following the Law? Being a (converted) Jew?

The cross did not introduce salvation--but it did change the experience, and the accessibility.What he said is shocking, isn't it? In effect he is saying Jesus died for no reason. His death means nothing. And we didn't need a new covenant. All contrary to what is taught by the apostles and Jesus Himself.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I am sorry mabey I am hard headed but I really don't think jesus death,burieal (sp)resurrection has anything to do with salvation cause people were save before he died also
Then why do you think he went to the cross?

[deltaguitar]

Huh? You don't think His sacrifice affects our salvation? Of course people were saved prior to the cross--but the entire methodology was changed at the cross!!!!!

What he said is shocking, isn't it? In effect he is saying Jesus died for no reason. His death means nothing. And we didn't need a new covenant. All contrary to what is taught by the apostles and Jesus Himself.

People were saved prior to the cross because of the promise of the sacrifice. If Jesus had not died then everyone would be lost.

Salvation has always been about faith in the coming Messiah. However, it took time for that to be revealed. All the types and shadows of the old testament pointed to Jesus Christ.

[n david]

Yikes ... so Jesus' death on the cross was all for show? People already saved without the sacrifice.

Need to study the Bible a little more ...

[Sam]

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8. Salvation has always been through the death of Jesus on the cross and then His subsequent burial and resurrection. Prior to the cross they looked ahead to the cross and that sacrifice was pictured every time an animal was sacrificed all the way from the animal sacrifice in Genesis three until the lambs who died at the Temple the day before Jesus died. We now look back to that sacrifice on the cross and it is pictured every time we have communion.

[Sept5SavedTeen]

There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

This 3-stepper can AMEN that with 99.9% certainty!

-Bro. Alex

[RandyWayne]

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8. Salvation has always been through the death of Jesus on the cross and then His subsequent burial and resurrection. Prior to the cross they looked ahead to the cross and that sacrifice was pictured every time an animal was sacrificed all the way from the animal sacrifice in Genesis three until the lambs who died at the Temple the day before Jesus died. We now look back to that sacrifice on the cross and it is pictured every time we have communion.

Exactly

What he said

Originally Posted by Steve Epley View Post
There is NO doctrine of Grace outside the Death-Burial-Resurrection and our identity with by obeying Acts 2:38. NOT ONE person since Pentecost has had their sins remitted without the preacher invoking the Name of Jesus in baptism.

You are of course correct. There has not been "NOT ONE"........ :)

[LUKE2447]

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8. Salvation has always been through the death of Jesus on the cross and then His subsequent burial and resurrection. Prior to the cross they looked ahead to the cross and that sacrifice was pictured every time an animal was sacrificed all the way from the animal sacrifice in Genesis three until the lambs who died at the Temple the day before Jesus died. We now look back to that sacrifice on the cross and it is pictured every time we have communion.

Correct!

[LUKE2447]

Luke did the thief die before or after Jesus or do you know?

Doesn't matter the gospel was about the DBR not just the death. Also Baptism is about burial as well and we was not buried yet.

The thief most likely died after Jesus!

[Shawn]

Doesn't matter the gospel was about the DBR not just the death. Also Baptism is about burial as well and we was not buried yet.

The thief most likely died after Jesus!

I'd agree.....most likely after they broke his legs.

[Ferd]

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8. Salvation has always been through the death of Jesus on the cross and then His subsequent burial and resurrection. Prior to the cross they looked ahead to the cross and that sacrifice was pictured every time an animal was sacrificed all the way from the animal sacrifice in Genesis three until the lambs who died at the Temple the day before Jesus died. We now look back to that sacrifice on the cross and it is pictured every time we have communion.

It is interesting to point out that no one pre-cross, was saved without making that sacrifice....


I completely agree that the cross is the fulcrum of salvation... but those before and those after MUST turn to the cross to find salvation...

[Ferd]

My answer Thief on the cross..

People salvation did not start at Pentecost sorry to bust your bubble.....

no bubble bursted at all.


Elder Epley said "since the Day of Pentecost" the theif died before the Day of Pentecost.

it wouldnt be accurate to say that I hated to bust your bubble. :thumbsup

[Sam]

It is interesting to point out that no one pre-cross, was saved without making that sacrifice....
...


Rahab was saved because she believed that YHWH was the true God and He was giving Canaan to the Israelites (Joshua 2:9-15; 6:21-25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25)

A whole lot of people in Nineveh were saved by faith and repentance (Jonah 3:5-10; Matthew 12:41)

[Ron]

All this chatter about Grandma, & thieves on crosses & in between Testaments, what does the Bible say about what Paul said to certain Disciples?
Paul didn't say just believe and everything will be fine, he asked pertinent questions & they rightly so, took appropriate action in response to the preaching!

It's simple folks, obey Acts 2:38!:thumbsup

Acts 19

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

[deltaguitar]

All this chatter about Grandma, & thieves on crosses & in between Testaments, what does the Bible say about what Paul said to certain Disciples?
Paul didn't say just believe and everything will be fine, he asked pertinent questions & they rightly so, took appropriate action in response to the preaching!

It's simple folks, obey Acts 2:38!:thumbsup

Acts 19

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I think Paul said believe at other times. This is a historical narrative and must be interpreted by the rest of the bible. Acts 2:28 is not repeated or reinforced anywhere else in the bible.

[Ron]

I think Paul said believe at other times. This is a historical narrative and must be interpreted by the rest of the bible. Acts 2:28 is not repeated or reinforced anywhere else in the bible.

Oh now, is that right???

Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, must be not relevant than if that were true.

Acts 2:38 is a work of faith & is a response to the "command" to "OBEY" the Gospel.:thumbsup

[deltaguitar]

Oh now, is that right???

Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, must be not relevant than if that were true.

Acts 2:38 is a work of faith & is a response to the "command" to "OBEY" the Gospel.:thumbsup

Is there anywhere that says that Acts 2:28 is the response to the gospel?

[KWSS1976]

Acts 15:11

[Ron]

Is there anywhere that says that Acts 2:28 is the response to the gospel?

Where does it say it isn't?:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

My answer Thief on the cross..

People salvation did not start at Pentecost sorry to bust your bubble.....

The thief did NOT confess the death burial resurrection. He was NOT in the church age.

[Steve Epley]

Luke did the thief die before or after Jesus or do you know?

That matters NOT repentance and remission was the preached in His Name BEGINNING at Jerusalem. Luke. 24:47

[Hesetmefree238]

Is there anywhere that says that Acts 2:28 is the response to the gospel?

Of course it's the response to the gospel. Peter preached the gospel in
Acts 2 and after he concluded his message, as conviction gripped upon the
hearts of the those who heard him, he instructed those who asked him
"what shall we do", to repent (believe the gospel and turn from your sins),
be baptized in the name of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost. He further told them that the promise of this
gift is for everyone.

[LUKE2447]

I think Paul said believe at other times. This is a historical narrative and must be interpreted by the rest of the bible. Acts 2:28 is not repeated or reinforced anywhere else in the bible.

Ahhh but the problem young Jedi is you do not know the force of believe in the proper context and Greek language. Which most scholars have now realized how big a dunce Luther was and how his translation to a failed word in the German language skewed its meaning for a very long time. Salvation will never be about knowing but doing! Jesus was clear on this as to have faith/believe on is to respond to infull. Faith must have context and relate it does not stand alone.

[LUKE2447]

The thief did NOT confess the death burial resurrection. He was NOT in the church age.

Amazing how faith only advocates and others point to the theif yet their plea won't be heard concerning ther Romans Road in this case either. There is a clear difference in hope of and realization of. pre and post DBR as the language and how they expected people to respond is different.

[KWSS1976]

Acts 15:11

[LUKE2447]

Acts 15:11

Acts 15:11 (King James Version)

11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.


your point? define what the context of grace is please. Grace just like faith has a meaning attached to it. It has defintion in context of the whole.

[KWSS1976]

Luke why did Jesus die on the cross?????????

[LUKE2447]

Luke why did Jesus die on the cross?????????

1) so that he could provide "justice" on our part
2) so the law could be written on our hearts
3) so a new man could be born
4) new administration of the Spirit in the life of a believer
5) so we can fulfill law due to the above by the power of His Spirit
6) in the end it is all about saving us which all of the above does!

[KWSS1976]

He died on the cross for our sins so we could have everlasting life nothing more we have to do he did it for us.....And if you truly believe that you will live a god pleasing life we do not have to turn around and try to duplicate what he did for us.....

[deltaguitar]

Ahhh but the problem young Jedi is you do not know the force of believe in the proper context and Greek language. Which most scholars have now realized how big a dunce Luther was and how his translation to a failed word in the German language skewed its meaning for a very long time. Salvation will never be about knowing but doing! Jesus was clear on this as to have faith/believe on is to respond to infull. Faith must have context and relate it does not stand alone.

To you the word believe means Acts 2:38 plain and simple. It really doesn't matter to you if a person really has true faith and really believes in Christ as their Saviour and does everything to follow his commands. Lets just admit it. You don't believe that people can really have faith without Acts 2:38.

Another point, the commands of Christ are really holiness standards aren't they? A person can live a godly humble life following all that they know how but in order to really "believe" they have to follow the standards that you feel are appropriate.

My prediction is that the UPC will slowly but surely move away from Acts 2:38 as a salvation doctrine. It might take another 20 years but the truth is that most of the saints don't believe the doctrine anyway. There are great men in the group who seem to have an understanding of scripture.

As far as Luther's contribution. Luther wasn't the reformation but his actions were the start of the reformation. You love to talk about how the scholars recognize his as a dunce. Can you please provide me with these scholars information?

[Sam]

Luther was a DUNCE.

You heard it first here on AFF.

[deltaguitar]

Luther was a DUNCE.

You heard it first here on AFF.

Really sad.

[Stephanas]

Luther was a DUNCE.

You heard it first here on AFF.

And from an Internet Savant.

It must be true.

There are some comments that say more about the poster than the target of their insult. Martin Luther may be controversial, and he may even have been wrong, but to say he was a dunce is ridiculous in the extreme.

A keyboard and too much time on your hands can be an excellent start to embarassing yourself.

[LUKE2447]

He died on the cross for our sins so we could have everlasting life nothing more we have to do he did it for us.....And if you truly believe that you will live a god pleasing life we do not have to turn around and try to duplicate what he did for us.....

You error not knowing the scriptures... You teach cheap grace and false doctrine.

Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (

Jesus is making the comparision of how he walked and parallel how we should also walk thus abide in his love as he did the Fathers..... HOW? Next verse!

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, JUST AS I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 You are my friendsIFyou do what I command you.

Reiteration of the law!

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

[KWSS1976]

Luke you just tell Jesus about his "cheap grace" when you get to heaven I will wave at you on your way "OUT THE DOOR"

[LUKE2447]

Luther was a DUNCE.

You heard it first here on AFF.

lol... context

Luther was a intelligent man but he made huge mistakes in areas that are flat out pathetic when it came to interpretation and many believe on purpose. Beign smart does not dictate whether one chooses to be a dunce.

Dunce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dunce is a person incapable of learning.

The word is derived from the name of the great Scholastic theologian and philosopher John Duns Scotus, whose works on logic, theology and philosophy were accepted textbooks in the universities from the 14th century. Duns or Dunsman was a name applied by early opponents to the followers of Duns Scotus, who were less disparagingly called the Scotists. Hence the term came to refer to anyone devoted to sophistry in their argumentation. When, in the 16th century, the Scotists obstinately opposed the new learning, the term duns or dunce became, in the mouths of the humanists and reformers, a term of abuse, a synonym for one incapable of scholarship. Dunces are often comedically shown wearing paper cone hats, known as dunce caps, with the word "dunce" or "dumb", or simply a capitalized "D" on them. Schoolchildren were sometimes compelled to wear a dunce cap and to sit in a stool in the corner as a form of humiliating punishment for misbehaving or for failing to demonstrate that they had properly performed their studies.

[edit] References
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunce"

Thus the term that was used was someone incapable of scholarship. WHY do many say that in reality of DUNCE when it comes to LUTHER... Pretty simple anyone that knows the mentality of him was that his Linguistic mentality was to force his belief upon the text and the meaning of the words. Thus for example and well known. "Faith alone" which was not in the text but has forever been used. His usage of "pistis" was tranferred into the German language as not a parallel meaning. Thus his personal opinion dictated and impeded his ability to give good scholarship.

Luther rendered "pistis" and "fides" with a German word "glaube." But in German, "glaube" only means a faith of intellectual assent. It has no comparable dualism as pistis and fides which can mean either faithfulness or faith. The word Glaube means in German: “belief, credence, estimation, faith.” Unfortunately no possibility exists that this means "faithfulness" (obedient living). In German, faithfulness would have been the word "Pflichtgefuhl." Hence, by the single step of a mistranslation by Luther, we end up with hundreds of years, and reams of books full of error which was most likely due to bias!

My context and what I said!

...."believe"(pistis) in the proper context and Greek language. Which most scholars have now realized how big a dunce Luther was and how his translation to a failed word in the German language skewed its meaning for a very long time."

Thus scholars seeing Luther did not like James and said it was not apart of the canon of scripture because it went against his "faith alone" mentality thus he biased the text and the mentality of the people and we still are seeing this wave of error ever since!

Thus Luther is a dunce in scholarship!

[LUKE2447]

Luke you just tell Jesus about his "cheap grace" when you get to heaven I will wave at you on your way "OUT THE DOOR"

great don't deal with the text just make meaningless words for your points!

[KWSS1976]

Just make sure up tell Jesus about his Cheap Grace

[LUKE2447]

Really sad.

know context!

[LUKE2447]

Luther was a DUNCE.

You heard it first here on AFF.

see below!

[LUKE2447]

Just make sure up tell Jesus about his Cheap Grace

No you make his grace cheap. By which I pointed out you ARE to be like him and walk as he walked. Anything else is cheap grace of which you are a partaker by your own words! Grace is costly both on his part and ours.

[LUKE2447]

Luke you just tell Jesus about his "cheap grace" when you get to heaven I will wave at you on your way "OUT THE DOOR"

Also as usual you don't read or choose not to comprehend. I never said his grace was cheap. I said what? YOU teach it by YOUR doctrine. So get it right and STICK TO SCRIPTURE not lip service to the Word of God.

[LUKE2447]

And from an Internet Savant.

It must be true.

There are some comments that say more about the poster than the target of their insult. Martin Luther may be controversial, and he may even have been wrong, but to say he was a dunce is ridiculous in the extreme.

A keyboard and too much time on your hands can be an excellent start to embarassing yourself.


I did not embarass myself. You did not comprehend the simple statement in the context it was given. Congrats for not comprehending!

[Steve Epley]

NOT ONE person from Pentecost to the present has had their sins remitted without being water baptized in Jesus Name.

[Ron]

NOT ONE person from Pentecost to the present has had their sins remitted without being water baptized in Jesus Name.

I agree Elder, I don't think some people are hearing that!:thumbsup

[KWSS1976]

So the lesson on saved by repentence in my UPC church last sunday was incorrrect Steve??? It was from the UPC sunday school material....

[Steve Epley]

So the lesson on saved by repentence in my UPC church last sunday was incorrrect Steve??? It was from the UPC sunday school material....

If you was taught men are saved at repentance ALONE it was not only incorrect it was false doctrine and you need to find another church! Repentence alone cannot save anymore than baptism without repentance saves. One without the other is useless. Baptism ONLY remits the sins of the penitent and the penitent does NOT recieve remission of sins apart from water baptism in Jesus Name.

[LUKE2447]

To you the word believe means Acts 2:38 plain and simple. It really doesn't matter to you if a person really has true faith and really believes in Christ as their Saviour and does everything to follow his commands. Lets just admit it. You don't believe that people can really have faith without Acts 2:38.

Yes as faith is a contextual term. Faith is a life long term as the word was used in Abraham's case "believed" which was not in the context of one moment but whole of his life with a consummation point of Isaac. Thus the scripture was FULFILLED that ABRAHAM "BELIEVED" GOD!

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.


Another point, the commands of Christ are really holiness standards aren't they?


That is correct as the sum of the law is about the first two commandments. Love God to do as he commands. Love thy neighbor as thyself with the depth of how Christ loved us.

A person can live a godly humble life following all that they know how but in order to really "believe" they have to follow the standards that you feel are appropriate.
What is appropriate is his Word and the principles that flow from his Word in which we live by.

My prediction is that the UPC will slowly but surely move away from Acts 2:38 as a salvation doctrine. It might take another 20 years but the truth is that most of the saints don't believe the doctrine anyway. There are great men in the group who seem to have an understanding of scripture.

Really doesn't matter what you think or I think. People will believe right or wrong for whatever reason. If they move away from Acts 2:38 then it's their throat not mine. You don't believe baptism is essential which is about the most pathetic position I have ever seen when it comes to scripture but that is my opinion and it means nothing. You have to destroy the text to get that but hey people have been doing that forever including ol' Luther, Calvin and whoever else!

As far as Luther's contribution. Luther wasn't the reformation but his actions were the start of the reformation. You love to talk about how the scholars recognize his as a dunce. Can you please provide me with these scholars information?


Scholars have ripped Luther forever for is lack of proper translation and bias with the text. Nothing new. Do your research!

[LUKE2447]

So the lesson on saved by repentence in my UPC church last sunday was incorrrect Steve??? It was from the UPC sunday school material....

way to ignore the points above! Also to repent is to turn away from sin. That would be to live as he lived which I have already pointed out of which you did not agree. Way to keep the contradictions coming.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976
He died on the cross for our sins so we could have everlasting life nothing more we have to do he did it for us.....(BAPTIST LINGO) And if you truly believe that you will live a god pleasing life we do not have to turn around and try to duplicate what he did for us.....

I WILL REPOST THIS SO WE CAN AGAIN FOCUS ON YOUR CHEAP GRACE MENTALITY OF NOT GIVING ALL AS CHRIST DID!



You error not knowing the scriptures... You teach cheap grace and false doctrine.

Joh 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (

Jesus is making the comparision of how he walked and parallel how we should also walk thus abide in his love as he did the Fathers..... HOW? Next verse!

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, JUST AS I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
Joh 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. EXAMPLE IN NEXT VERSE!
Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. TO ULTIMATE SACRIFICE
Joh 15:14 You are my friendsIFyou do what I command you.

Reiteration of the law!

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous REQUIREMENT OF THE LAWmight be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

[LUKE2447]

Let's continue from above and show more parallel aspects of doing as he did.


1Jn 2:6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1Jn 2:7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.

Reference that above passage in John!

Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

WITH reference to what!

Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Mat 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

yeah, we don't have to do anything else do we.

[KWSS1976]

Did you not understand when I said to (live a godly life)...Would that not be walking in the same way as him.......

[LUKE2447]

Did you not understand when I said to (live a godly life)...Would that not be walking in the same way as him.......

Then why the contradiction with the set of words?

"we do not have to turn around and try to duplicate what he did for us....."

Baptist theology is full of contradiction in these areas.


Also....

"nothing more we have to do he did it for us"

I hear this all the time when arguing with OSAS groups!

[KWSS1976]

We are on the same page I think just not communicating to well which is hard to do over the fourm..

[LUKE2447]

We are on the same page I think just not communicating to well which is hard to do over the fourm..

Probably so. It has happened before and probably happen again! LOL!

[KWSS1976]

"nothing more we have to do he did it for us" the baptist are not saying thats a free pass to sin... my mother is baptist she lives a more godly life then some other I know it is a misunderstanding between denominations as far as how one translate it..

[deltaguitar]

It is not a misunderstanding. There are baptist who teach incorrect doctrine concerning new birth, eternal security, and other points of doctrine.

The problem is that you can be a baptist and live a holy godly life and follow all the commandments and put your faith in God and if you don't follow Acts 2:38 you are damned. True faith will always be accompanied by the fruits of the spirit and righteous living. Quote all the scriptures you want about following God's commands and it doesn't uphold your doctrine over historical Christianity.

Luke, you try to take the weakness of people and attribute it to the Gospel message. No one has quoted Martin Luther or John Calvin. The scholars that you boast about are overwhelmingly against your positions anyway.

Also, the bible does not contradict itself. If it says faith and believe then we have to try to understand what that means. To you believe doesn't mean anything unless accompanied by Acts 2:38. Faith is the proper response to the gospel. To you that is cheap, weak, and greasy grace. To me it is the most powerful message ever told.

[LUKE2447]

It is not a misunderstanding. There are baptist who teach incorrect doctrine concerning new birth, eternal security, and other points of doctrine.

Better believe it!

The problem is that you can be a baptist and live a holy godly life and follow all the commandments and put your faith in God and if you don't follow Acts 2:38 you are damned.

That is correct as if you are not baptized you are not going to be saved. If you do not repent you ar not going to be saved. If you do not recieve the HS you willl not be saved.

True faith will always be accompanied by the fruits of the spirit and righteous living. Quote all the scriptures you want about following God's commands and it doesn't uphold your doctrine over historical Christianity.

You really want to go here? You know little about historical Christianity and if you did you would know you are wrong on baptism and the consistency of holy standards toward dress, adorment and many other things is not on your side. So if you want to go for it. I will meet you right in the middle. Do the early church fathers have every teaching correct? No! It is interesting what I do see though in many cases!

Luke, you try to take the weakness of people and attribute it to the Gospel message. No one has quoted Martin Luther or John Calvin. The scholars that you boast about are overwhelmingly against your positions anyway.

No, I am pointing out how failures of man have hurt peoples understanding of the gospel. Nobody needs to qoute them the mindset behind posts screams doctrines that have flowed from them.
Many scholars agree with one thing and many another. Again the Bible is the main source scholarly works are important and bring depth to discussion but it in itself does not define the Word the Word defines itself. The problem is "faith only" mentality and other improper doctrine concerning faith have been built off them. It does matter as much of how people view the Bible today and how it has been translated has been shaped sadly by these men.

Also, the bible does not contradict itself. If it says faith and believe then we have to try to understand what that means. To you believe doesn't mean anything unless accompanied by Acts 2:38. Faith is the proper response to the gospel. To you that is cheap, weak, and greasy grace. To me it is the most powerful message ever told.

Never said it did. Why yes Acts 2:38 is part of what it is to believe. You repent, you get baptized and you receive the HS. Is that all of the gospel of Christ? No! Also faith is a proper response to the gospel but that is not all faith is. THat is where it starts but not where it ends.

You can't even understand my points of cheap grace. Again read the points and you might get it.

[LUKE2447]

"nothing more we have to do he did it for us" the baptist are not saying thats a free pass to sin... my mother is baptist she lives a more godly life then some other I know it is a misunderstanding between denominations as far as how one translate it..

no it is not a license to by many BUT that is not the point. The point is you can break law and be saved. As grace to them = the ability to sin without eternal consequence. It does have connotations of OSAS and that is all that needs to be said. As that is one of the most false doctrines in the Bible.

[KWSS1976]

Luke you can sin and ask god to forgive you and he will therfore making you saved as you were before you sined. You make it sound like man is perfect and never sins..If you murder someone and truly ask god to forgive you he will...

[KWSS1976]

I not saying it is right to do these things but if you do god forgives all he hates the sin not the sinner...

[LUKE2447]

Luke you can sin and ask god to forgive you and he will therfore making you saved as you were before you sined. You make it sound like man is perfect and never sins..If you murder someone and truly ask god to forgive you he will...

uh when did I say that? Not sure how you got that!

[KWSS1976]

And the answer is:::drum roll please................................

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/

[Sam]

And the answer is:::drum roll please................................

http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/

thank you for letting us know it was now available

[timlan2057]

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

[Esther]

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

I'm surprised you mentioned Kilgore as a believer in the light doctrine. If he is, it must be given privately, because behind the pulpit I don't ever recall him leaning in that direction.

However, I do think that as he has aged there are some things he seems to have lightened up on, possibly due to his son's stance.

As to Jerry Ensey is this the son of J.R. Ensey?

If so, I will go on record to say that J.R. Ensey has some teachings I am totally aganist. :)

[Steve Epley]

Ensey misses the point nine country miles in linking Goss, A. D. Urshan and others to the "Light Doctrine. I'll elaborate.

Uh ... first let me digress. It's interesting that with the passage of time, Ensey thinks it's politically safe to openly refute AD Urshan and G. T. Haywood.

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Hmm ... why didn't Ensey mention S. G. Norris? He openly taught the light doctrine - that his Baptist mama would be saved because that's all she knew. I guess it's still a bit of a political hot potato for Ensey here lest he offend his buddy, S. G.'s grandson.

Also, Clyde Haney was another open proponent of the Light Doctrine. He's got plenty relatives, friends and disciples on this forum who will affirm this.

Ensey is astute in this case. To add the name Clyde Haney to his rogues gallery would be political suicide.

By the way, James Kilgore is another name I've had whispered to me that believes the light doctrine.

But my main point: Ensey sets up a strawman by trying to refute Goss and others for the Light Doctrine.

Ensey, Howard Goss believed a man was saved at repentance.

Thomas Fudge proved conclusively in "Christianity Without The Cross" that UPC pioneers such as Goss, Gurley, Yadon, Greer etc. believed a man was saved by faith - giving the UPC a link to mainline Christianity in contradistinction to the later radicalism that took over the movement in direct opposition to the terms of the merger in 1945.

Of course I can understand Ensey wanting to avoid the conclusions of CWTC since it proved a significant - and perhaps majority - of the UPC's founding leadership believed salvation was at repentance and rejected a "performance oriented" gospel.

If Ensey wants to attack the light doctrine, the names he should use are Kilgore, Norris and Haney. But yes, to include Clyde Haney in his blog would be political suicide.

Leave Goss and those other long-dead ministers out. THEY believed that salvation was at repentance - hence they had no need of a "light doctrine" as sop to their consciences.

Nice try at setting up a strawman, Ensey. It of course will fool the "dittoheads."

Unfortunately Ensey, for your attempt at scholarly conclusions, many of us have a head on our shoulders and a little perception and common sense.

True many PCI men did believe in salvation at repentance but also believed the light doctrine. Norris from what I understood believed pretty much like Bishop Haywood. I am shocked at Kilgore are you sure about that? However Haney did believe in some form of the light doctrine.

[Ron]

From reading the blog, it seems like he jit it out of the park!
Salvation is in Acts 2:38!:thumbsup

[Steve Epley]

From reading the blog, it seems like he jit it out of the park!
Salvation is in Acts 2:38!:thumbsup

Over the wall and out of the park.

Thank God for any good ever done by anyone seeking after God however salvation is NOT by works but faith in the gospel.

[LUKE2447]

Now ... I agree that the light doctrine IS somewhat ridiculous. It is sop to these UPC preachers who know deep-down that a performance-oriented, gotta-sweat-and-spit "gospel" is diametrically opposed to the REAL gospel.

Please explain your meaning behind this.

[Steve Epley]

Please explain your meaning behind this.

My friend NO longer believes what he preached and debated and wrote. I agreed with him then and fervently disagree now. Sometimes our spiritual condition will alter our thinking?

[Pastor DTSalaz]

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8. Salvation has always been through the death of Jesus on the cross and then His subsequent burial and resurrection. Prior to the cross they looked ahead to the cross and that sacrifice was pictured every time an animal was sacrificed all the way from the animal sacrifice in Genesis three until the lambs who died at the Temple the day before Jesus died. We now look back to that sacrifice on the cross and it is pictured every time we have communion.

Great post

Man of Wisdom

[Pastor DTSalaz]

I think Paul said believe at other times. This is a historical narrative and must be interpreted by the rest of the bible. Acts 2:28 is not repeated or reinforced anywhere else in the bible.

I agree 100% with you Acts 2.28 is not but Acts 2.38 is reinforced all over the word of God.

[Steve Epley]

There is NO salvation outside of obeying Acts 2:38 until the end of the church age. All Trinitarian preachers are false prophets.

[Crossfire]

There is NO salvation outside of obeying Acts 2:38 until the end of the church age. All Trinitarian preachers are false prophets.
Well spoken, Elder!

[Steve Epley]

Crossfire has joined the battle and is a breath of fresh air on AFF.:thumbsup

[Crossfire]

Crossfire has joined the battle and is a breath of fresh air on AFF.:thumbsup
Acts 2:38 is the only way of salvation. To state that one can be saved another method is to imply that the Cross is not the way, or the Cross can save the unrepentant. In either case, the light doctrine is false and shames the Cross.

The Bible speaks clearly about how to be saved.

And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. (Isaiah 35:8 KJV)