Salvation the Pentecostal Way

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

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.


Inspiration does not mean that the Biblical authors lose their distinct
personalities and become passive compilers of  God's word.  Biblical
inspiration is incarnational, human and divine.  The Biblical authors
expressed their witness to Christ in the language and thought forms of
their day and with their individualistic styles and emphasis.  You and I
share a common faith Brother Matthew.  After reading several of our
posts people on higher-fire are able to identify who is writing by the
unique writing style and by recurrent themes which are emphasized.  Luke
has a right to be heard as a theologian!  In fact, it has taken
Pentecostal scholarship a long time to have this point generally
accepted in academic circles.  The post you are reading is not only
intended for Apostolics but for a broader audience.  This audience
readily receives the emphasis I have placed upon Luke's unique
theological style.  To put it another way, I have used the understanding
of Luke's theology developed by redaction criticism and widely accepted
in academia to present and defend the Apostolic faith.

 
> 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.


A very good observation Brother Matthew.  Acts 2:38 is not at the center
of the Lukan theology or of the Apostolic faith.  Jesus Christ is at the
center of Lukan theology and of the Apostolic faith.  Acts 2:38 is not
the hermeneutic, the key to interpretation, of Luke-Acts, or of the
Bible.  Jesus Christ is the hermeneutic, He is the key!

The conversion experiences in Acts do not consistently follow Acts 2:38.
Luke records a variety of conversion experiences.  I have no
justification for assuming that these conversion experiences explicitly
followed a logical pattern.  In fact, Luke's emphasis on the
supernatural intervention of God seems to preclude that possibility. 
Shifting the interpretation of Acts away from Acts 2:38 and restoring it
to the proclamation and experience of  salvation in Jesus Christ is, in
my opinion, a good interpretation of the data found in Luke-Acts. 

Once again, this post is not only written for Apostolics but for a
broader audience. There is a scholarly consensus that the advent of the
Kingdom, reign, of God, was the primary message of Jesus.  I have taken
this widely accepted motif and used it to present and defend the
Apostolic faith.  As you read in my post, I interpret Acts from the
experiential reality of my Apostolic faith.  I understand how my
community receives and interprets these texts.  In the discussions on
this list Apostolics are describing the wide variety of their conversion
experiences.  The consensus of opinion seems to be that they did not
know the fullness of God's salvation until they had experienced
Salvation the Pentecostal Way. This also describes my experience! And I
want others to understand and experience the fullness of this salvation.
To accomplish this task requires that I engage in a responsible dialogue
and not assume that my interpretation of Acts is self evident to those
outside the Apostolic movement.  Responsible dialogue means that I
acknowledge the diversity which exists in Acts, and the interpretation
of Acts, but  also point out the distinct conversion experiences by
which my community defines itself.  These are the conversion experiences
which present the experiential reality of the Apostolic faith.  The
faith of the living  Christian community to which I belong follows a
pattern present in the first Christian communities. It is biblical and
it is authentically Christian, not a heresy or a cult.  

My approach acknowledges the faith of other Christians and does not
immediately put them on the defensive by saying that they have the wrong
interpretation of the book of Acts.  At the same time it guides them to
an understanding of the Biblical basis of the Apostolic faith in the
hope that they will experience the fullness of Salvation the Pentecostal
Way.

 
> 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)

WOW! The keys to the Kingdom of heaven are Peter's knowledge that Jesus
is the Christ, not his Apostolic authority to formulate a church
doctrine to be binding upon all.  This is the same Scripture and same
interpretation Roman Catholics use to demonstrate the authority of the
Pope and the authority of their doctrine of Salvation.  More exegesis is
required here Brother Matthew, and a study of Roman Catholic doctrine!

 
> 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.

The interim is what we are talking about Brother Matthew.  Salvation is
salvation!  God's salvation is present and is experienced in many
different ways.  Luke emphasizes the present reality of salvation,
living life even now as God intended.  But salvation is also a past
event, the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, and a
future hope, we shall be saved when Christ returns in glory.  Salvation
is past, present, and future and should not be rigidly defined from any
one perspective!

To be consistent in your argument you would have to deny the reality of
this experience of God's salvation in the "interim".  You were not saved
but lost even though you had repented, received the baptism in the Holy
Spirit, spoke in tongues, and were living a godly life.  I would rejoice
that you had experienced the reality of God's salvation and encourage
you to be baptized in Jesus name as a natural consequence of your faith
and experience in Jesus Christ.  You would inform yourself that you had
to obey the Acts 2:38 to be saved or face eternal damnation.  How could
you look yourself in the face having received the baptism in the Holy
Spirit, being alive with the Spirit of God, experiencing the love of
God, radiating the glory of God, joy welling up within your soul, and
tears flowing from your eyes and announce that at this moment you were
lost, separated from God, sinful, worthy of damnation, and without
salvation?  This is the logic of your position.   

>
> 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?

Our differences are becoming clear.  You define salvation as complete
obedience to Gods "plan" found in Acts 2:38.  I have followed Luke's
definition of salvation as participation in the reign of God.  This
definition is much more radical than your definition.  It encompasses
the whole of human existence and involves salvation in all of its three
tenses.  Seeing salvation as a way of life, a way of believing and
behaving in the world means that salvation is not a static but a dynamic
reality.  Salvation is not a state we reach by obeying a formula but a
life lived through faith in the the grace of God revealed in Jesus
Christ. Full salvation is an eschatological, last day, reality, awaiting
a future fulfillment and completion at the return of Christ..

I affirm the reality of God's salvation whenever and where ever I see
it.  This does not mean that I agree with the plethora of denominational
doctrines and assorted strained interpretations of the Bible.  It does
mean that I acknowledge and value the faith in Christ others possess and
attempt to utilize that faith as a foundation to guide them to Apostolic
fullness.

In my post I defend Acts 2:38 as the New Birth experience for
Apostolics.  Why should this surprise you?  At the start of my post I
acknowledged the presence of multiple models of salvation in the
Apostolic community.  Your either/or logic necessitates that I affirm
one and deny the other.  I see no such dilemma.  Both conversion
experiences occur in the Apostolic community. There is a Biblical and
historical precedent for allowing both to coexist and for differing
Apostolics to be united together so that we can demonstrate Apostolic
unity and proclaim the Apostolic Gospel to the world.  I am not
questioning your Apostolic faith Brother Matthew, but rather its
expression which excludes other Apostolics from the Apostolic movement
and and other Christians from the reality of salvation they have
experienced.

 
> 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.
  
This statement is really tearing my heart out.  You would rather that
someone be a pagan than be a Christian in a way different from your
conservative Apostolic faith?  I need to pray!

May the God of love and compassion fill your life today Brother Matthew!

Steve