More over-reacting to the "Light Doctrine"

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Bro Flame

I know a good many Pentecostals that believe the Light Doctrine, even if they don't call it by name. I've heard so many people within these churches say how God will judge people by what they know, and that is the simplest description of the Light Doctrine.

Just for the sake of the thread topic, the above is NOT "Light Doctrine" as it has been historically known among Pentecostals. Maybe that's what people nowadays call it, but that ain't what it actually was.

Light Doctrine was the belief that God revealed different amounts of truth in different, successive "revivals" or restorations, after a period of darkness due to early medieval apostasy. God restored justification by faith via Martin Luther, believer's baptism via the Anabaptists and Baptists, sanctification via Wesley, divine healing and crisis sanctification via the Holiness Movement (Phoebe Palmer et al), the Pentecostal baptism via Azusa Street, Oneness and Jesus Name baptism via Arroyo Seco, Finished Work sanctification via William Durham, etc.

In each phase of restoration, "Light" (truth) was made available to people seeking God. Each phase built on the ones that came previously. Obviously, in each phase, folks didn't have the truths that came LATER after their time. So the ones who lived in each restoration phase will be judged according to whether or not they accepted and walked faithfully in the Light GIVEN TO THEIR GENERATION. Early Oneness believers felt they were in a period where more Light was being given. Thus they were in a TRANSITION period. So folks who at that time had not accepted the new Light were considered to be in the learning process, with the warning that if they do not eventually get on board with the new Light they would wind up likely lost for rejecting God's Truth. Or, sometimes an allowance was made on the basis "these are old timers walking in yesterday's revelation, so the new Light is not for them or their generation."

Light doctrine was NOT "God will judge people by whatever truths they believed in with no regard for truths they did NOT believe in." THAT approach essentially means all non Christians are saved as long as they are sincere! Real "Light Doctrine" for the most part stipulates that once a Truth is established, anybody intentionally refusing to move forward is lost.

And yes, Light Doctrine is an erroneous attempt to account for a perceived lack of chronological continuity between the NT and the present.

It is also the basis for Sowderism, Branhamism, Protestant Evangelicalism, Protestant charismatic belief, and some other isms.

[Esaias]

The song "The Water Way" appears to allude to Light Doctrine:

It shall be light in the evening time,
The path to glory you will surely find;
Thru the water way, It is the light today,
Baptized in Jesus Name.
Young and old, repent of all your sin,
The Holy Ghost will surely enter in;
The evening Light has come,
It is a fact that God and Christ are one.

Another song that is somewhat more obvious is Baptized Into The Body by G. T. Haywood:

Those who died before the Holy Spirit
Came upon us from on high
May, by faith with Saints of old departed,
Arise to meet Him in the sky.

That latter song also alludes to Bride Doctrine (the idea that the saved and the Bride are somewhat distinct entities, with the Bride being an end time purified remnant of the saved, and which is the only group that will actually be RAPTURED at the time of the end). Very similar to Man-Child Ministry belief, and other restorationist views common among some Pentecostals, Branhamites, Sowderites, charismatics, and certain Baptist groups ("Baptist Briders" etc).

Note: Baptized Into The Body (like The Water Way) is still ambiguous enough to not be considered a definite Light Doctrine song. For example, the verse cited above could be taken to mean Old Testament saints who died before Pentecost. But considering the original milieu in which these songs were written I think it is highly likely they were written with definite allusions to Light Doctrine. Their ambiguity may in fact have been an attempt to not alienate either side of the issue.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just for the sake of the thread topic, the above is NOT "Light Doctrine" as it has been historically known among Pentecostals. Maybe that's what people nowadays call it, but that ain't what it actually was.

Light Doctrine was the belief that God revealed different amounts of truth in different, successive "revivals" or restorations, after a period of darkness due to early medieval apostasy. God restored justification by faith via Martin Luther, believer's baptism via the Anabaptists and Baptists, sanctification via Wesley, divine healing and crisis sanctification via the Holiness Movement (Phoebe Palmer et al), the Pentecostal baptism via Azusa Street, Oneness and Jesus Name baptism via Arroyo Seco, Finished Work sanctification via William Durham, etc.

In each phase of restoration, "Light" (truth) was made available to people seeking God. Each phase built on the ones that came previously. Obviously, in each phase, folks didn't have the truths that came LATER after their time. So the ones who lived in each restoration phase will be judged according to whether or not they accepted and walked faithfully in the Light GIVEN TO THEIR GENERATION. Early Oneness believers felt they were in a period where more Light was being given. Thus they were in a TRANSITION period. So folks who at that time had not accepted the new Light were considered to be in the learning process, with the warning that if they do not eventually get on board with the new Light they would wind up likely lost for rejecting God's Truth. Or, sometimes an allowance was made on the basis "these are old timers walking in yesterday's revelation, so the new Light is not for them or their generation."

Light doctrine was NOT "God will judge people by whatever truths they believed in with no regard for truths they did NOT believe in." THAT approach essentially means all non Christians are saved as long as they are sincere! Real "Light Doctrine" for the most part stipulates that once a Truth is established, anybody intentionally refusing to move forward is lost.

And yes, Light Doctrine is an erroneous attempt to account for a perceived lack of chronological continuity between the NT and the present.

It is also the basis for Sowderism, Branhamism, Protestant Evangelicalism, Protestant charismatic belief, and some other isms.

That's interesting.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In this passage Peter issued a command for a person to do something "in the name of Jesus Christ". Grammatically it is not saying Peter did something in the Name, rather that he told somebody else to do something in the Name.



Same thing here except the command is given to a spirit.

These are identical to a preacher telling someone "I command you to get baptised in Jesus' name" or "In Jesus name I instruct you to get baptised." It is not specifically identifying "what the baptizer says when he baptises someone", only identifying either into what name the person is to be baptised or by what authority the preacher demands a person submit to baptism.

If I ask somebody to proclaim healing on a sick person in Jesus' name, the person will show up and say "in the name of Jesus I tell you" as Peter did.
If I ask somebody to baptize in Jesus' name, the person will do the same when baptizing another person.
If I ask somebody to get baptized in Jesus' name, that person will get baptized with somebody doing it on behalf of, or with the authority of Jesus, saying, in Jesus' name.

I'm simply instructing them to use the authority of the name of Jesus because there is no another name for salvation. Even if the instruction is for those receiving the baptism, I'm just telling them to get baptized by somebody with the authority or in behalf of Jesus.

I don't see how the text can mean something else.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

If I ask somebody to proclaim healing on a sick person in Jesus' name, the person will show up and say "in the name of Jesus I tell you" as Peter did.
If I ask somebody to baptize in Jesus' name, the person will do the same when baptizing another person.
If I ask somebody to get baptized in Jesus' name, that person will get baptized with somebody doing it on behalf of, or with the authority of Jesus, saying, in Jesus' name.

I'm simply instructing them to use the authority of the name of Jesus because there is no another name for salvation. Even if the instruction is for those receiving the baptism, I'm just telling them to get baptized by somebody with the authority or in behalf of Jesus.

I don't see how the text can mean something else.

If I told you "I command you in the name of Jesus to send me a donation" would you take that to mean that I want you to say "In the name of Jesus" as you mail the cheque? Or that I want you to send me a cheque because I believe that Jesus gave me authority to demand your money?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If I told you "I command you in the name of Jesus to send me a donation" would you take that to mean that I want you to say "In the name of Jesus" as you mail the cheque? Or that I want you to send me a cheque because I believe that Jesus gave me authority to demand your money?

If it is absurd, why did they mention the actual name in the verses I posted then?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

In the book of Acts, what I see is that "in the name of Jesus" in the context of doing something was indeed mentioned by the one doing the work, because it means to act in behalf of, with the authority of, and the one affected by or receiving the work needed to know the authority being used.

Acts 3:6 (NKJV) 6 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

Acts 16:18 (NKJV) 18 And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.”

Originally Posted by coksiw

If it is absurd, why did they mention the actual name in the verses I posted then?

Who said something was absurd?

They announced by whose authority the demon was to come out, and by whose authority the lame man was to walk. Just like in Acts 2:38 Peter announced in whose name they were to be baptised. In all three cases an instruction is given.

I'm not understanding how any of this is difficult to understand. Except that maybe folks have done something a certain way so long they just automatically assume the Bible is referencing THEIR particular practice. That would be eisegesis.

I'm trying to get this thread onto the TWO RESPONSIBILITIES, in baptism: that of the baptIzer, and that of the baptizee. The latter has pretty much been established by Scripture. The former everybody seems to be having difficulty with.

Either that or nobody understands what I'm asking about here?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Who said something was absurd?

They announced by whose authority the demon was to come out, and by whose authority the lame man was to walk. Just like in Acts 2:38 Peter announced in whose name they were to be baptised. In all three cases an instruction is given.

I'm not understanding how any of this is difficult to understand. Except that maybe folks have done something a certain way so long they just automatically assume the Bible is referencing THEIR particular practice. That would be eisegesis.

I'm trying to get this thread onto the TWO RESPONSIBILITIES, in baptism: that of the baptIzer, and that of the baptizee. The latter has pretty much been established by Scripture. The former everybody seems to be having difficulty with

Either that or nobody understands what I'm asking about here?

The way to be saved is to call on the name of the Lord. Romans 10:13. The seeker does this in water baptism Acts 22:16 and spirit baptism Acts 2:16-21.

So yes I understand and agree.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The way to be saved is to call on the name of the Lord. Romans 10:13. The seeker does this in water baptism Acts 22:16 and spirit baptism Acts 2:16-21.

So yes I understand and agree.

So, the trinitarian dunkee that calls on Jesus during his baptism regardless of what the dunker says…

[diakonos]

Hi, guys.