Salvation The Pentecostal Way 1

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

Matthew Shaw wrote:
 
 
> I still sense that there is a pattern of 'doublethink' (not to be too
> Orwellian) in your post to me.  You contend that you accept Acts 2.38
> as
> THE message of salvation, and yet you argue for the genuine
> Christianity
> of those outside of the Lukan scope.  


The "doublethink" of which you speak is called both/and thinking.  I can
understand why you would be troubled with it.  In most of your writings
I have read, including this post, you employ modern scientific either/or
logic to arrive at your conclusions.  This logic is the staple diet of
Enlightenment rationalism which assigns a priority to human reason in
ascertaining the truthfulness of all reality and truth, including that
of God.  The twofold problem you face using this logic is scope and
consistency.  To verify any statement using such logic you would have to
eliminate all other possibilities, an impossibility for a finite human
being.  You would also have  to demonstrate its logical consistency in
your presentation.  As this reply to your post continues I will point
out several inconsistencies.

Both/And thinking acknowledges the  "humanness" of all understanding and
presentations of reality.  Human beings do not have a comprehensive
understanding of reality nor do they possess the ability to do so.  Only
the God who dwells in heaven  is able to make infallible
pronouncements.  Human beings do not possess a pure consciousness of
reality, the perfect mind of God.  We are earthly creatures and see the
world and gain an understanding of reality through the lenses of history
and culture.  Both/And thinking recognizes the partiality of human
knowledge.  A particular human being may understand reality in a certain
way.  Another human being may understand the same reality in another
way.  These two different understandings of reality do not have to be
seen as contradictory as necessitated by either/or logic.  They can be
complimentary, expressing the same reality in different and unique
ways.  Together, seemingly different and contradictory understandings of
reality can be combined to gain a better understanding of a given
reality.  Let me provide a practical example.

The United Pentecostal Church was formed through the use of Both/And
thinking.  The two Churches which merged to form the United Pentecostal
Church disagreed as to the significance of the plan of salvation as
expressed in Acts 2:38.  But they agreed that they had experienced the
same spiritual reality.  Rather than separate, as required by either/or
logic, they united accepting the truth in both interpretations of Acts
2:38 while praying for unity and admonishing all not to be contentious. 
For a fuller statement see another reply I have made in this thread. 
This is my position Brother Matthew.  And it is Apostolic!

Two more comments before I move on. For scope and consistency, do you
apply your either/or logic to all Bible doctrines, i.e. prophecy,
holiness, atonement, etc., and separate from Apostolics who do not agree
with you?

Lukan theology is not the only theology in the New Testament.  Paul,
John, Matthew, Mark, et. al were inspired by God to witness to their
faith in Jesus Christ.  They were Christians who expressed the same
faith as Luke but in a different way.  Your either/or logic requires you
to harmonize these diverse accounts and produce "another gospel" by
which they can be interpreted and explained.  I need no such gospel.
Using Both/And thinking the faith of the biblical authors can be seen
presenting understandings of the Christ event which compliment rather
than contradict one another and lead to a fuller, although not complete,
understanding of Jesus Christ..

As I have said, I understand the
> dynamic history of Oneness Pentecostalism and the gradual
> crystallisation of a doctrinal concensus that came to embrace Acts
> 2.38
> as the complete New Birth experience.  However, you seem to have a
> reductionist approach allowing for unscriptural variations and the
> inclusion of evangelical prescriptions that have no Biblical
> foundation
> of practical New Testament  paradigms.

A lot of Apostolics are grimacing at your statement that Acts 2:38 has
"crystallized" to represent the New Birth for all Apostolics.  What has
actually happened is that official denominational policy of some
Apostolic organizations has refused to allow dissenting opinions.  These
dissenting opinions are alive and well in the Apostolic movement, and
will, in my opinion, come to define the Apostolic movement for the 21st
century.  Why this prophecy?  Apostolics who receive others as
Christians are present in all Apostolic organizations.  The arguments
for Apostolic exclusiveness to the reality of Christian salvation are
"tired and worn" and not credible in the information age and a
pluralistic society. But most important, the reality of the Christian
faith and experience of others is increasingly being acknowledged by the
faithful saints of God in the pew.  They serve Jesus Christ 
practically, experientially, and spiritually.  The truth that they are
uniquely Christians and not the only Christians resonates in their
hearts.  Apostolic theologians should listen to their voices as they are
inspired by the Holy Spirit.  What they are saying is often not
identical with the official dogma of the organization to which they
belong.

The last part of this paragraph has me confused.  I think that you are
saying that I am not getting the "big picture" and allowing Evangelical
interpretations of Scripture to influence my thinking.  I do read
Evangelical theologians.  Some are quite good!  But they stumble in
their interpretation of Scripture when they interpret it through the
lens of their cherished creeds. I want to avoid this same dilemma in
presenting my faith and recognize that the doctrines I present are not
equivalent with Scripture.

Once again, Brother Matthew, I am disappointed that you would make such
criticism without explicitly refering to my exegesis of Scripture.  I
know there was a lot to digest, but the faith we are discussing is based
upon the Scriptures I presented.

 
>
> I am not trying, Bro. Starcher, to set up a 'we'/'they' scenario; I
> believe that already exists.  Accepting the Apostolic faith
> necessitates
> rejecting the validity of other, traditional messages.  Christ and the
> Apostles adamantly warned of approaching heresies and doctrinal
> adaptations that would attack the primitive Church.  Our good Oneness
> brethren, such as David K. Bernard, have done much to retrieve and
> reconstruct the fragmented history of Apostolicity.


The we/they scenario of which you speak was created using the either/or
logic of Fundamentalism. Only according to your logic does embracing the
Apostolic faith require rejecting the faith of others as Christians. 
This statement shows very little understanding of Apostolic history or
of the Apostolic movement today.  This statement may play well in the
Apostolic circles you frequent, Brother Matthew, but it does not
correspond to reality. Please expand your horizons, investigate
Apostolic history and the living faith of Apostolics today.  As one who
seeks to present Apostolic theology you must do so in truth.  I was
disappointed that you choose not to answer the questions about what I
consider to be the dominate theological influence upon your presentation
of the Apostolic faith, Fundamentalism. Could you please take the time
and answer my questions as I have answered yours?

I have met Brother Bernard, read his many works,  and respect him.  I
have chosen not to comment on his works in higher-fire. I share his
passion for the presentation and defense of the Apostolic faith, albeit
in a different way.
  
> As awful as this may sound to one who is so interested in bridging the
> Apostolic/denominational gap, either we are right, or they are right.
> I
> don't see how we can have it both ways.  If God is one, then He is not
> three.  If God is three, then He is not One.  If baptism is necessary
> for salvation, then those without the sacrament are lost.  If baptism
> is
> not necessary, then we have misguided multiplied millions with our
> message.  If the Holy Ghost is necessary, then those without the
> Spirit
> are lost.  If He is not necessary, then (again) we have misguided
> multiplied millions.  It seems that Apostolics have covered all the
> bases.  I do not  know that we would be lost if ultimately our message
> is the propagation of poor exegetical peculiarities.  I fear for our
> trinitarian friends who have not obeyed the Apostolic message of
> salvation.  I conclude that we cannot have it both ways.


This is a very good example of the either/or thinking which has
separated Apostolics from responsible dialogue with other Christians,
and splintered the Apostolic movement.  For logical consistency Brother
Matthew you must believe that the Church is comprised only of those who
have identical beliefs in all areas.  Where is this Church?  It is also
an example of the elitism and judgemntalism that Apostolics are
routinely criticized for.  Isn't there a better way to present the
apostolic faith?



> Believe me, I'm not asking for a Catholic blindness to the workings of
> the Church.  I'm not asking for a creedal affirmation that ignores
> conflicting evidence.  We must at all times be willing to examine the
> facts.  I grew up heavily influenced by AOG relatives.  I know what
> trinitarian Pentecostals believe, and I thank God that I found the
> truth.   I assume, Bro. Starcher, that your background is Apostolic.
> Unless you have lived on both sides of the fence, it's hard to explain
> the confirmation and assurance of truth that one finds in the
> Apostolic
> Church.  I have been without truth, and I myself believe that I did
> not
> experience salvation UNTIL I found the Acts 2.38 message.
> 
> I pray that we can continue to present this message to those who have
> not heard it and do not understand it.  As you may have noticed in my
> posts on CPI, I do *try* to present my perspectives in a non-malicious
> way.  I believe it's important to be honest, however.  I don't
> disguise
> my doctrinal persuasions but attempt to communicate them in a
> straightforward and humble way.

I am completing a post showing the parallels of your faith with
Catholicism Brother Matthew.  I hope to have it ready by tomorrow.  My
wife was raised in an Apostolic family.  I spent several years in an
Apostolic church as a child with my Grandmother and was influenced by
her to become an Apostolic while in college.  I have been on both sides
of the fence and remain an Apostolic.  I share your love and devotion
for the Apostolic faith.  I have no desire to see Apostolics assimilate
into a worldly denomination.  But I am called to hear the voice of the
Spirit, see the working of Jesus Christ in the Apostolic community,
study the Bible, and to present the Apostolic faith I know and love.

> Well, enough of my rambling for now.  I did not mean, by the bye, that
> you *didn't* work a full-time job; I simply meant that some of us with
> them and heavy obligations outside of higher-fire don't have the time
> to
> digest such lengthy posts.

Just hit the delete key Brother Matthew!  But, you're probably like me. 
To great of an appetite for all of these theological things and not
enough time to really satisfy it!

God Bless!

Steve