Salvation The Pentecostal Way 1

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

On Thu, 21 May 1998 20:45:10 -0700 Steve Starcher <stevstar@prodigy.net>
writes:
> "Salvation The Pentecostal Way".
Bro. Starcher,

Thank you for your response to my post.  I have some comments.	

> Salvation is not just an abstract theological doctrine, but an
experiential
>reality within the Apostolic community.

If salvation is not an abstract theological doctrine, then it must be
concrete. Not by experience only, but there must be some formula to it.
  
>The Apostolic Pentecostal doctrine of salvation should be a description
of
>the experience of salvation in the Apostolic community informed and
>interpreted by Holy Scripture. Since the inception of their movement
>Apostolics have struggled to give this dynamic and powerful salvation 
>a biblical and theological expression.

Salvation must be interpreted by scripture.  I think other people who do
not have the Acts 2:38 experience have struggled with scripture to make
their experience fit scripture. If there is a struggle in the Apostolic
movement I think it is more one of personal growth than anything.


>The questions raised by Sis. Anneliese and Sister Lynne are those 
>which have always perplexed and separated Apostolics.

Some are perplexed because they are young in the faith.  Some, because
they do not have faith.  

> When Brother Drost's responded to my post and reminded me that there
have always >been Apostolics who have believed that the baptism in the
Holy Spirit was 
>an event subsequent to salvation, he made me realize how Apostolics have
a
>tendency to forget Apostolic history and not voice dissenting opinions
>to what is perceived to be an Apostolic "consensus" of belief.

I am all for voicing dissenting opinions.  Let's get it all out in the
open and hash it out.

>Why are there different interpretations of the Apostolic experience of
>salvation?  Is it not possible that some Apostolics who were believers
>in Christ before the Apostolic revelations interpreted these 
>revelations as events "subsequent" to salvation?

This is absolutely possible, but does it mean they were right?

> After all, they considered
>themselves to be devout Christians before they received the baptism in
>the Holy Spirit and were baptized in Jesus name.  It fact, it can
>reasonably be argued that they received the baptism in the Holy Spirit
>and Apostolic understanding because they were devout Christians.  Not
>wishing to dismiss and/or minimize their prior Christian existence,
>they taught that their Apostolic faith was  subsequent to
>salvation.

In Acts chapter 10, It says Cornelius was a devout man that feared God,
but God WARNED him to send for Peter.  Why?  Because he needed more than
he had.
(Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness for they
SHALL be filled.)
According to this account it is scriptural for one to be filled with the
Holy Ghost before baptism in Jesus name as it also scriptural for it to
happen beforehand.

>It is hard for some to accept, but these two models of salvation were
>present in the United Pentecostal Church at the time of its creation. 

I'm sure it has always been that way and probably always will be.  

>  Christians who had been serving the Lord for many years were
>embracing the Apostolic message, subsequence!  New converts were being
>made who had never know the Lord in any other way, New Birth! .... It is
consistent with the original Apostolic faith! 

Is it not possible that finally some were receiveing a revelation of the
truth and the experience these folks had with God was just like
Cornelius?  Is it not possible they were warned that they needed more
from God Himself?  Luke 21:8," Take heed that ye be not decieved: for
many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth
near: go ye not therefore after them."   I think that there are
multitudes who have an experience with God.  Possibly every man on earth
has one.  Would I discount their experience?  No way. God calls and draws
every man.  The calling and drawing experience is wonderful but does not
constitute salvation.  People who are decieved have to be decieved by
something.  What may that something be?

Also, if  this thinking ( subsequent and new birth, both) are consistent
with the "original Apostolic faith"  To what are you referring?  Biblical
or recent historical?  I find the thinking consistent with recent history
but not biblically.



  How can Apostolics
>effectively present their faith if they believe others are Christians,
>if they embrace subsequence?  Many Apostolics fear an avalanche of
>liberalism in the Apostolic movement and a loss of Apostolic identity 
>if Acts 2:38 is not presented as the New Birth.

So you are for stating that Acts 2:38 is not the new birth? John 3:5 "
Jesus answered and said unto him , Verily ,Verily I say unto thee, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God."   John 7:38,39 "He that believeth on me as the scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. ( But this
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because Jesus was not yet
glorified.)"   Romans 8:9, " But ye are not in the flesh but in the
Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
 
>  The Apostolic gospel is a fulfillment of and not a total contradiction
of the prior existence of Christians who become Apostolics.  Moderate
Apostolics place an 
>emphasis
>on the positive proclamation of the Apostolic Gospel, not on a 
>negative
>apologetic against the faith of other Christians.

Bro. Steve,  I think you have to have both.  The Apostolic gospel will
always be a fulfillment of the calling and drawing of God, but we can't
do away will all the warnings in the scripture or as some may call it,
negativism.  Hell is rather negative and so is truth to the flesh.
  
>  But this is an understanding within faith.

I agree completely.

>  An understanding
>born of the experience of Jesus in the life of the Apostolic 
>community.
>An understanding which can take time for others to develop.  And true
>understanding requires a similar Apostolic experience. 

Yes, but I see no conflict between this and believing what you term "New
Birth" philosophy versus "Subsequence"

>  I have made a sustained argument against the
>bondage of the Apostolic faith to Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism in
>my posts.

Do you want "unity" between all apostolics or will you call the "New
Birth" people to be in bondage?

>  They turned a heartfelt, 
>experiential
>religion, into a dead and dry "orthodoxy".  True to their program of
>providing a complete systematic presentation of the Christian faith,
>the Scholastics conceived of salvation as following a divine plan with 
>a
>very logical and chronological order.  The mystery of salvation was 
>now
>mastered and controlled by man.  The Holy Spirit was imprisoned by 
>human
>logic.  God was no longer free.  God had to follow the pattern of
>salvation which made "sense" to a fallible human creature!  The
>technical name for the Scholastic doctrine is "ordo salutis", which
>means order of salvation.

Maybe your real concern is that we don't lose our fervent worship and
love for the truth.  Frankly, I have seen some who live by the "letter of
the law". ( The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life.) I do not,
however, agree that holding to the Acts 2:38 experience as the new birth
will create such a dilemma as you suppose. Really, to the contrary, I
think to get away from this belief will create the very thing you seek to
stay away from. 
>
> The baptism in the Holy Spirit was placed
>before
>salvation and after salvation.  Individuals were baptized in Jesus 
>name
>before they received the Holy Spirit and after they received the Holy
>Spirit.  Repentance and faith usually preceded water baptism and 
>Spirit
>baptism, but sometimes they were created by water baptism and Spirit
>baptism. 

This is history and it is needed and interesting, but we must find out
what the scripture says and go by it.

>The Pentecostal, Apostolic and Trinitarian, interpretation of Acts has
>consistently found a logical and chronological order for salvation
>present.  Perhaps it is time to reread these crucial Pentecostal texts
>and determine if Pentecostal interpretation has indeed been influenced
>by the Protestant Scholastic concept of an "ordo salutis".

I am all for digging it out and looking at it.  We are not infallible. 
If God desired to show me something that I needed to live for Him I would
desire to see it.  Possibly you are seeing the closemindedness of many of
us.  However, it seems you equate closemindedness and judgementalism with
hardliner "New Birth" people.
Really, I don't think we can classify people this way.  The walk takes
faith and people can stop walking in faith at any time.  Maybe you see
some outside the church taking steps in faith whereas some inside don't
and so come up with your conclusions.  I come to a different conclusion. 
Those who are outside of Acts 2:38 can exercise faith and God will show
them more truth and they can step into it or reject it.

>  For Luke salvation means
>participation in the reign of God.  

"They that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled."
"Therefore leaving the pricipals of Christ, let us go on unto perfection;
not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of
faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands, and
of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement."Hebrews 6:1

We can't lay another foundation than that which is laid.

Sincerely,
Sis. Yohnk

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]