Salvation The Pentecostal Way 1

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Steve Starcher wrote:

>Many of these first Apostolics
>had been Christians in another way before becoming Pentecostals and
>Apostolics.  They had a Christian history.  They had been "saved" in
>another way, been baptized according to Matthew 28:19, and  preached
>another gospel.

Another gospel (cf Galatians 1:6-9)? Or, instead, a new understanding of
how the gospel (Christ's death, burial and resurrection) is fully
appropriated by believers, i.e. the "full gospel" experience?

>Is it not possible that some Apostolics who were believers
>in Christ before the Apostolic revelations interpreted these revelations
>as events "subsequent" to salvation?

For some, absolutely. Frank Small, great pioneer of the Apostolic movement
in Canada, is a prime example.

However, some others who had been converted prior to their Apostolic
experience, such as G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan, did equate Acts 2:38
with the new birth. Most of the early Apostolics who took this position
nevertheless also taught that non-Apostolic Christians would ultimately
enter heaven. 

>The statement of faith which united UPC Apostolics allowed for salvation
>to be expressed utilizing either of these two models.

Since the drafting of the Fundamental Doctrine has been examined in past
H-F threads, I don't wish to belabor this important point. I'll simply add
that apart from the Fundamental Doctrine, which was specifically intended
to accommodate differing views on the new birth, there is no reference in
the UPCI Articles of Faith declaring water or Spirit baptism essential to
salvation.

In fact, the article on "Repentance and Conversion" states, in part:
"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)." No similar claims are made for the efficacy of
water baptism or Spirit baptism. Clearly, the founding fathers of the UPC
intended to allow freedom of interpretation in this area of doctrine.

A little book still available from the UPCI's Pentecostal Publishing House,
_Our Gospel Message_ by Oscar Vouga, succinctly presents "some of the
truths that we feel should be proclaimed to them that are lost," in a
manner which clearly demonstrates this allowance for differing views on the
salvational significance of water and Spirit baptism.

>Apostolics and Trinitarians Pentecostals interpreted their new found
>faith with the understanding that it would conform to some sort of
>logical and chronological order.

Bro. Starcher attributes this to the influence of Fundamentalism and
Protestant Scholasticism.

Another profound influence, I would suggest, was the Wesleyan theology of
early Methodism as revived in the later Holiness Movement, which was so
foundational to the reemergence of Pentecostal experience and doctrine. In
contrast to the dead and dry "orthodoxy" of Scholasticism, the Holiness
Movement was a revival of heartfelt, experiential religion with its own
ordo salutis: conversion/justification, followed by a second work of grace,
entire sanctification (Wesley's doctrine of perfect love and purity of heart).

Until the "finished work" controversy began in 1910, entire sanctification
as a second work of grace was the predominant position of the early
Pentecostal movement. Holiness believers who experienced the baptism of the
Holy Ghost evidenced by tongues found their doctrinal framework in need of
revision, and added a third stage to their ordo salutis.

Pentecostals who subsequently rejected the Wesleyan view of sanctification,
in favor of the finished work teaching, adjusted their theological paradigm
yet again.

Thus, by the time the message of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ began
spreading rapidly in 1913, the reworking of sequential theologies of
Christian experience, in order to accommodate restored truth, was nothing
new for many Pentecostals.

Within the Apostolic movement, I believe the Fundamentalist impulse found
its most potent expression later, when some came to believe that
proclaiming the Oneness of God in Christ and experiencing and proclaiming
Acts 2:38 were not sufficient grounds for fellowship; holding a specific
and exact theological interpretation of that experience was also essential.

Cary Robison