The "Light Doctrine"
 

There is a doctrine spreading the church derived from a thought that people well only be judged by what they know of the Gospel. The generally consensus, as I see it, is that God will not judge people by the parts of the Bible that they do not have full understandings of.

On the surface, the thought of the Bible supporting a Light Doctrine does entice. I'm sure many of us would like to believe that our loved ones, who probably don't see all the Truths we do, will not be accountable for their fallible doctrines and teachings. None of us want to see anyone not make Heaven their home.

I've heard people bring forth the thought of the Light Doctrine on a few different occasions, even if they did not bring it up by name. I recall watching a video of a baptismal service on Facebook sometime ago where the pastors of a congregation baptized the converts "in the name of the Lord Jesus". While I was in agreement with their proper application of the name of Jesus during water baptism, I was a little tossed off at how the pastor's wife spoke to the congregation after (or perhaps before). Basically she said that baptizing in Jesus' name was "what they saw to be true," but that those that baptized in the titles were not necessarily wrong because they had not yet been enlightened. She also said that some of the best services they (as in her family, who were once a traveling musical ministry) were in were in churches where they baptized in the titles. If memory serves me correctly, she differentiated the two methods of baptism as "titles" and "Jesus' name". If could be wrong.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this doctrine, like many fallible teachings cluttering our churches, is contradicting. At what point does the Light Doctrine end? If a child molester dies without knowing Jesus or the Word, does he die saved and therefore go the Heaven because he know not what the Bible taught? Many adhering to the Light Doctrine would be quick to condemn such a person to hell for never turning from their wickedness of harming small children.

Have any of you ever come across this?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

The way I see it is that We preach the truth and we practice it. It is not our duty to send people to heaven or hell. It is OK to not know something. It is typical of human to want to answer all questions and know everything, but in reality, and humbly, better to accept that some things belong entirely to the Lord.
If I were her, I would keep my mouth shut up regarding those that didn't and are gone, and keep encouraging people to be baptized in Jesus' Name.
Sometimes, it is OK to say "I don't know" or "I can't tell at this moment", and steer the conversation to what the Bible says for us, the living.

I came from an Assembly of God church, and I did receive the Holy Spirit there speaking in tongues, and I also saw other getting it, and walking in Holiness moved by the Spirit, even though it was taught from the pulpit much.
I have known also of cases of baptists Scholar receiving the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues and keeping it as a secret for years.

God deals with those that truly seek him. Sometimes the fear of being wrong when leaving some traditional interpretations and other traditions don't let them move forward, especially as they get older and more careful.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Well, what this Sister was saying was that those baptizing in the titles, supposedly naively, would not be held accountable for their actions because they had not seen baptism in Jesus' name. If I were to get even more technical, she was saying that there are simply different interpretations of the Bible.

I know of a number of people that received the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking with other tongues, "on credit" while attending the Church of God or Assemblies of God churches. I've even known some dear Elders that were baptized with the Spirit while going to old-time Holiness Baptist churches. They all saw the revelation of Jesus, baptism in His name, and the sacred, set-aside lifestyle of holiness, however, and eventually left those churches for not preaching Biblical doctrine.

That's the issue. Some of the people receiving what is said to be the Holy Ghost in churches not preaching the Truth of the Gospel cannot possibly be receiving the real deal. The reason I say that is this: If they were receiving the genuine Spirit of God, which leads us into all truths, would they not receive Biblical essentials and therefore embrace them as the truths they've always been? I know of tongue-talking Church of God pastors that openly deny Oneness, Jesus' name baptism, any holiness in lifestyle or dress, but yet still speak in tongues praying for the people at the altar on Sunday. While I don't want to be a finger-pointer and question everyone's Holy Ghost, but it's hard for me to believe that these individuals have the same Spirit I have when they openly deny and teach against such Biblical fundamentals.

The Baptist movement as a whole has a difficult relationship with tongues. I know some of its denominations, namely the Full Gospel Baptists, the Holiness Baptists, and some Free Will Baptists, are generally opened to being baptized in the Spirit in the Biblical sense and the outpouring of the spiritual gifts operating in their services. The Southern Baptist organization revised their doctrinal statement a few years back to allow their denomination to support and send out evangelists and missionaries that have a "prayer language". There's the issue you run into with denominational churches and other so-called charismatics that relegate the Holy Ghost to a prayer language. Many of them do not even call it the Holy Ghost, but a prayer language. While one could argue that the tongues the Holy Ghost adds to our prayer life is a "prayer language", the vast doctrine surrounding most "prayer languages" is not necessarily Biblical. They almost entirely remove God and His Spirit from their view, which results in millions of people praying in stagnant gibberish that often seems quite obviously fleshly, if not rehearsed or taught.

In concluding my stay on my soapbox, I want to again clarify that I do believe people in denominational churches can receive the genuine Spirit of God. The issue is if they do not accept Biblical essentials. If they deny what the Bible says and what their Holy Ghost is trying to reveal to them, I do believe God will eventually leave them. That will leave them praying in a tongue that's no longer anointed or sent by God.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

The light doctrine has been around for ages.
GT Haywood taught the light doctrine . Read his book “ The Life and Writings of G T Haywood” sold by UPCI.
Andrew Bar David Urshan the father of general superintendent of UPC didn’t believe you needed the Holy Ghost . He said if you needed it God would give it to you on the way up. UPC IS FULL people that believe the light doctrine.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I was not aware of any of that. I'm not UPC, so maybe that's why.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.

From Pentecost to the second coming, there is only one way into the Kingdom.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

There is a book that provides a historical survey of the light doctrine on American Pentecostalism.

It is called Christianity Without the Cross. The author is Thomas Fudge.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I have never met anyone in the UPC who believes the light doctrine. I've attended two Bible schools, have lived in three states and attended countless camp meetings, conventions and conferences.

Not saying there aren't some in the UPC who do believe it. I just don't believe it's "full" of people who do. I believe it's mostly historical and from the early years of the UPC.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I've heard more "friend of the bride" teaching from some of the older UPCi folks. Our church was UPCi for years and both light doctrine and friend of the bride were preached in our church in years past. Thank God, we are now a solid water and Spirit church!

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

That's my point too. In addition to that, sometimes reality is more complex that we think, and we oversimplify things.
I received the Holy Spirit in an Assembly of God church. It was an authentic experience. Nobody was praying for me and forcing me to speak tongues or nothing like that. After it, God began to use me in healings, including instant ones. I can tell that even though I had that experience, I felt a struggle to find the presence of God, however I sought him. Overtime, He guided me to Oneness and baptism in Jesus' name. It opened a new dimension of my worship. I began to feel God much closer and more often.
That being said, I don't judge some elders when they struggle to change the traditional way of interpreting stuff. Elders tend to be more afraid of changes. If I look at their fruit, I can say they are as righteous as a Oneness pentecostal. I don't know what the Lord does to those people when they die.

I just keep preaching and practicing the true, and challenging them with the truth as well, hoping to convert some :).

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I thought the two were the same. What is the difference?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

What’s “friend of the bride” doctrine? I have never heard of that.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Same here.
Been all over the country, went to many oneness meetings and never met anyone who believes it.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Clyde Haney taught the light doctrine. But we never discussed it as students at CLC.

Nor did we ever really hear about anything Clyde Haney taught.

My understanding of the light doctrine comes from Thomas Fudge.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

And then what about the rest of the truth? Is baptism in Jesus name and Oneness the only essential truths? Because Apostolics see being born of water and spirit does that excuse them teaching other false doctrines? Does it excuse them if their works are not perfect?

Or is there an APOSTOLIC LIGHT DOCTRINE?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I personally don’t know anyone in the UPC that believes in the light doctrine. However, light is right the early pioneers believed in the light doctrine.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I would say Acts 2:38 and believing in One God is completely essential. Your lost without it. Standards, internet, TV, rings, watches, etc.. that can be labeled as “light” doctrine.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Read United we stand by Arthur L Clanton

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Assembly of God, All trinity Pentecost

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

The light doctrine has nothing to do with dress Standards or tv.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

What about the resurrection? Eternal Judgment? Perfection? Non essential?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I understand that. I was stating that Acts 2:38 and the belief in One God is essential. No light doctrine in those beliefs.

I meant that we can treat standards as some treat the light doctrine.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Friend of the bride claims there will be others at the wedding feast than the actual bride. They will not be in the bride, but they will not be lost. Had one elder tell me that he worked with a Baptist minister that came to work with one day all excited about a dream he had. The baptist gentlemen had seen heaven in a dream, and around the throne was a group of people who were the bride of Christ. He said he was not a part of that group and did not have access to the throne as they did but that he was perfectly content to be in Heaven with them. This elder believed that his baptist friend was not a part of the Kingdom of God but that he would not be lost. He told me that instead of ruining a friendship by making a doctrinal argument, he decided to leave things as they were. I was dumbstruck at the time.

It probably is very similar to (maybe same thing as) the light doctrine. Both are equally false and equally dangerous.

From Pentecost until the second coming, there is only one door into the church, and the church is the only escape from the wrath that will come on the children of disobedience. He is coming to execute wrath on them that know not God and obey not the gospel. The only way to know God begins with the new birth, which is water and Spirit.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Wow. That's certainly spread some new "light" on me. I've never heard of this Friend of the Bride doctrine. It does sound a little similar to the Light Doctrine, with the root of the theory being derived from that some people will go to Heaven because they did not know any better.

I must agree: they are both false and both dangerous.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Friend of the Bride is as old as oatmeal cartons in beehive hairdos

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Hey man.... Plus 1's are a thing ya know!

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Ha!

Funny thing is...in the times I've discussed the doctrine with people who actually believe it, I've not once had a scripture quoted to support it!

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

While I long for "Old Time" Pentecost, I do appreciate the fact that we live in a more literate age.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

There are a lot of Baptists who hold to "Friend of the Bridegroom" teaching. They are known as "Baptist Briders". They believe their "pure Baptist" churches are the Bride, and other Christians are Friends of the Bridegroom.

I think there may be some dispensationalists and charismatics who hold similar views, with the Jews = the Bride and Gentile Christians are the Friend of the Bridegroom. Maybe even reversed in some cases.

I thought Bride/Friend of the Bridegroom teaching was common among some Branhamites as well, and maybe among certain Sacred Name, Messianic, and Adventist groups (like the Branch Davidians, although I'm not certain about the Mt Carmel/Waco group of Branch Davidians). I think the JWs have a variation of it with their 144,000 doctrine.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

I always heard it taught that the friend of the groom was John the Baptist as well as the old covenant saints. And then the bride was the new covenant saints. Together they both make up the church.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

The Light doctrine was very strong in the Pacific Northwest for a time. Conquerors Bible College had some teachers from the Western Oregon and Western Washington districts that believed it, and Clyde Haney believed it. Back in the 70's and 80's there was a determined push from many out in those areas to correct that false doctrine with Dugas being one who helped further the 3 step Acts 2:38 doctrine in that area.

When I began to research this I also found out that ABI in Minneapolis had some on their staff who believed it and for a time there were some who came out of that college who had leaned that way. It does seem to have more roots in the north than the south.

Having pastored in the Central North for a time I did come across some older saints that remembered that teaching and that is actually the first ones I heard it from. It was a little more common than we would think today. That would have been back in the 90's.

I think that as a whole, within the Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal movement, that it has kinda died out or those that believed it have moved on to "More Light".

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Theres a video out there where David Bernard refuses to say the Oneness message of who Jesus is.....is a heaven or hell issue. Does that make him a "light" teacher?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Mike? There is a video out there? Really? That's your proof.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Are you referencing the video where Brother Bernard and another preacher, by name of Brother Cook (maybe?), debate the Oneness and Trinitarian view of God?

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Is the "Light doctrine" a leftover from the (misnamed) "PCI view"? I seem to recall many early Pentecostals (both Oneness and trinitarian) were divided about the status of those who rejected the "current revealed truth" regarding Holy Ghost baptism. Some held those who refused to enter in were cutting themselves off from God and were being left behind to die in the wilderness as the fiery cloudy pillar moved on. Others felt the non Pentecostals were still in the church just unempowered and therefore generally not very useful to God.

The Oneness issue carried that difference with it: those not walking in the current light were those who rejected Oneness, etc, with the same split among Oneness people about how to relate to trinitarians.

Friend of the Bridegroom teaching seems to interact with this as well.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

You definitely don't know what "Light doctrine" is, and you've been corrected on that point numerous times. Yet still you persist...

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Here a dispensationalist explains Light Doctrine:

https://www.advanceministries.org/ar...l%20be%20saved.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Mike doesn't care about correction from anyone, or anything. If it isn't coming from his chimney it just isn't smoke. Maybe one day Satan will land his flying saucer on the white house lawn and request they send for Mike.Or God will send His LOGOS space suit down to earth and only rapture Mike. Anyway you cut it, Mike only follows Mike. :heeheehee

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Esaias is correct. The light doctrine was focused on soteriology, not other aspects of theology.

I am not sure geographically how wide spread it was, or is. But yes, it was common in the Pacific Northwest. Not sure about how ABI fits into the equation. Howard Goss was not from the Pacific Northwest, so I am uncertain how widespread it was.

Re: The "Light Doctrine"
 

Ask any pastor this question Will A person be lost who doesn’t follow (obey) Acts 2:38???