My Unrefined Treatment of Light Doctrine

[Chateau d'If]

bump

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

...I now believe that there was no need for progressive revelation because faith in Christ has been present in every generation, without fail, since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The believing church has, in fact, had elements of Apostolic practice restored. But penitent sinners have been restored to right relationship with God through faith in Jesus, for two millenniums, in an unbroken chain of succession.

This person sounds like a greasy grace, easy believism, weak on the message, one-stepper Bapticostal like me.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Many modern water/Spirit proponents believe that Jesus words in Matthew 16:18 are proof that there was no need for Progressive Light. They say that the church never needed restoration because the doctrine the UPCI teaches has existed in an unbroken chain, throughout history, from Pentecost to present.

These men are working to separate themselves from the very pioneers responsible for the doctrine they now believe and teach. To do so, they must prove their doctrine of an unbroken chain is true, so they grasp at every historical straw they can find. It's standard operating procedure for them to find some obscure sect that practiced one of the two measurable steps in their soteriology - baptism and/or speaking in tongues.

Although they have been minutely successful in identifying sects who practice one of these steps, they have been completely unable to find anyone who believed and preached their exact doctrine, with identical emphasis, in any portion of history, pre-1913.

Additionally, many of the men who formed their current doctrine did not emphasize it with the present vigor. They preached all three steps, yet believed in justification by faith. Baptism and Spirit infilling were subsequent to salvation, and proceeded from salvation.

This person sounds like a greasy grace, easy believism, weak on the message, one-stepper Bapticostal like me.

[commonsense]

I was always taught the light doctrine..........but it wasn't called that.

Modern day UPCers have tightened up the requirements quite a bit since the 50's of my childhood. By their rules no one is saved....not even "them"!

It borders on the scams prevelant in todays' get rich quick society.......salvation's a gift, BUT you have to pay for it.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Romans is an incredible and life-changing book.

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by Chateau d'If

Yes, it has.

I want to add one last thought I gleaned from Romans 3.

"This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus."

Faith in Jesus Christ pre-dates his birth.

Those who "sinned in times past" are those Old Testament saints who believed in Christ without a revelation of His name. They had faith in Him before He was born.

This extraordinary forward-looking faith justified them in the same way our backward-looking faith does.

Paul's words reveal what we've known, but rarely speak: Jesus is the fulcrum upon which all of history rests. He is truly the same, yesterday, today and forever.

Nothing has ever justified sinful man but faith in Jesus.

What can wash away my sins?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

What can make me whole again?

Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Oh precious is the flow, that makes me white as snow
no other fount I know

Nothing but the blood of Jesus

So living lukewarm according to what God had given the israelites was acceptable? As long as they believed a messiah would come? Who gave the law on Mt. Sinai?

Also do you even know the argument concerning the phrase.... Pistis Christou and it what it is saying? IN BOLD

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Romans is an incredible and life-changing book.

Yes, because it certainly trumps the Book of Acts.

[LUKE2447]

I love how people just take the text especially those like in Romans 3 and accept whatever translation like the NLT. Instead of knowing the issues in interpretation they just go say ok. All translations have some levels of theological bias. Not everything is debatable but some of it is and is very significant.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Yes, because it certainly trumps the Book of Acts.

I don't think any NT book trumps any other NT book.
Each was written for a specific purpose at that time and can have applications for us today.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I love how people just take the text especially those like in Romans 3 and accept whatever translation like the NLT. Instead of knowing the issues in interpretation they just go say ok. All translations have some levels of theological bias. Not everything is debatable but some of it is and is very significant.

yeppers, that's why we don't want another translation/interpretation/version from an OP group which would display/promote their bias.

KJV was authorized by a pervert to promote the Anglican Church and combat previous translations like the Geneva Bible.
So if it was good enough for King James it should be good enough for us today.