Salvation the Pentecostal Way

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

Dear Bro. Starcher,

I have spent some time going over your septpartite post on the Apostolic
theology of salvation and would like to make some prelimenary
observations.  First of all, I would like to compliment you on your
level of scholarship and your honest efforts to present Apostolic
Christianity in terms that exceed our
general experiential theorem:  'I know it's the truth; therefore, it
must be.'

In examining the post, I do realise that you personally accept Acts 2.38
and the expression of contemporary Apostolic Pentecostalism as the best
form of  Christianity.  I'll admit that I rather doubted whether you
personally subscribed to the basic tenets of our faith and your writings
have, heretofore, been suspect.  The re-assurance of your commitment to
the message of the Apostolic faith has made examining your points more
simple and less defensive.

That said, I think your critique of Acts ignores some important
elements.  Firstly, Luke wrote the book under inspiration (II Tm. 3.16).
You are allowing for all sorts of stylistic interpolations that present
'diverse' conversion experiences.  I will say that I agree with you that
Apostolics tend to view Acts 2.38 as a sort of graduation process by
which we attain salvation.  This is not a productive view of personal
conversion.  I am perfectly willing to admit, with you, that Acts 2.38
is only a commencement and agree with your broader view of 'the way' as
the evidential, Christian life of the Apostolic community.  

Your chart and accompanying commentary, however, suggests that elements
of salvation are not simply not described but not present.  Therefore,
it seems that you conclude that some have experienced conversion without
actually undergoing (in whatever order) repentance, baptism in Jesus'
name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost.  This requires a paradigm
shift that decentralises Acts 2.38 as the most complete, foundational
Apostolic instruction.

Peter's Pentecostal sermon and his conclusion with the Acts 2.38 message
is obviously the fulfillment of Christ's charge in Matthew:

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:  for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto
thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:  and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:  and whatsoever thou shalt loose
on earth sall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 18)

Peter is, by Christ, given this undeniable Apostolic authority exercised
at Pentecost and throughout the founding of the Church.  Therefore, it
is argueable that Acts 2.38 is the paradigm of salvation, elements, of
which, are described by the inspired Luke throughout the Book of Acts.
The variation of description is, no doubt, as you have suggested,
demonstrative of the suddeness and universal liberty of the experience.
Systematic theology would disallow an isolationist identification of a
single experience or description as holistic.

Where we part ways is your conclusion that there are those experiencing
true salvation outside of the Apostolic paradigm.  I am not insisting
that any sort of chronology be followed in conversion.  I am saying that
the elements should be present in the experience of a converted believer
in whatever order of ephiphany the individual receives.  I personally
received the Spirit and was not baptised until nearly a month later.
That interim, of course, in no way effects the reality of my salvation.

Evangelicals and 'orthodox' Pentecostals flatly deny the necessity of
the salvational elements.  You apologetically connect water and Spirit
baptism, and yet admit the salvation of those who reject its efficacy
and essentiality?  At what point do we affirm their salvation?  Many of
them initiate believers into the community without baptism at the point
of their confession of faith.  Is this acceptable?  If we share
salvation, then what is Acts 2.38?  What is baptism?  What is the
baptism of the Holy Ghost?  How do we explain Jn. 3.5?

Also, concerning your niece, you cannot blame her renunciation of any
form of Christianity on the rigidity of this movement.  You must
realise, Bro. Starcher, that Apostolics have long believed in their
uniqueness.  You will find, as well, that many backsliders will, with
you, affirm the truth of the Apostolic message and lifestyle.  They may
choose other paths, but they often will not renounce the core beliefs of
their former Christianity.  It seems that you would rather have seen
your niece compromise her beliefs rather than leave the Church with the
possibility (probability) of a later return.  I am being quite honest
when I say that I would rather see my children not attend any church
than to leave this blessed truth for false doctrine or a lifestyle that
has no Biblical license.  

Well, I'm running off to Bible Study just now, but I wanted to make some
brief comments.  I'm sure there will be plenty of time for elabouration
as this thread continues to spread.

Bless you.

Bro. Matthew Shaw