Salvation the Pentecostal Way

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

[Bro. Starcher]:
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.

[I write]:
Bro. Starcher, I am not saying that individual identity is lost in
inspired transcription.  I am saying that is unthinkable that inspired
works would not work together to produce a single theology and a total
impression of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the beautiful work of
salvation.  In short, New Testament writers are not at odds one with
another in presenting us with the message of the Gospel message.


[Bro. Starcher]:
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!

[I write]:
Yes, Jesus Christ is at the centre of all of our theology, Christology
and doctrinal stances.  However, Acts 2.38 is the doctrinal centre of
the Apostolic faith (in whatever perceived reality) and is the
intersection of divine grace in the human conversion.

[Bro. Starcher]:
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.<snip>

[I write]:
Then you castigate us for the way in which receive and interpret the
texts.  If you understand the perceived and believed reality of the Acts
2.38 experience in so much of Apostolic Pentecostalism, then why are you
attempting, my friend, to reform us by asking us to step away from a
belief so kerygmatic to our faith?
  
[Bro. Starcher]:
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.<snip>

[I write]:
Perhaps Acts 2.38 is not self-evident to those who exist in the
dogmatic, denominational framework.  I believe emphatically that its
reality can be proved through consistent Apostolic accounts in Acts and
the epistlary assumption that water and Spirit baptism is a reality for
the Church of God.

<snip>[Bro Starcher]:
The fiath of the living Christian community to which I belond follows a
pattern present in the first Christian communities.  It is biblical and
it is authentically Christian, not a heresy or a cult.

[I write]:
It is biblical and neither heretical or cultish ONLY if it is perceived
as A way and not THE way to be saved, right?  Your attempt to defend the
Apostolic faith against charges of cultishness results in compromising
the standard of salvation held by a vast majority of Apostolics.  

[Bro. Starcher]:
  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.<snip>

[I write]:
This does not have to be our approach.  I have had many productive
dialogues with those outside of my own community of faith.  I do not
introduce any dialogue on any topic by claiming my doctrinal superiority
or my monopoly on Truth.  I believe that Truth is universally available,
and I believe that we can present and defend the Apostolic faith in a
manner that is exemplary and motivated by true Christian love.  You seem
to suggest that anyone who rigidly holds to the Acts 2.38 plan of
salvation is an elitist bent on condemning the world!  That is
ridiculous.  Many of us who believe in the necessity of water baptism in
the name of Jesus Christ and the infilling of the Holy Ghost are doing
our best through the power and witness of the Spirit to communicate that
salvational message to the lost.  You are attempting to break down the
definitions of saved and lost to the unknowable.  Salvation, in your
model, is dependent upon personal opinion and private interpretation of
the Scriptures.

[Bro. Starcher]:
  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.

[I write]:
So there is a state of partial salvation that is not full?  Is there
salvation outside of the Pentecostal Way (as defined by Acts 2.38).  I
believe there is not unless God Himself should, in His infinite wisdom,
dispense grace outside of the context.  We have been given one way to be
saved.
 
[Bro. Starcher]:
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!

[I write]:
I am familiar with Roman Catholic doctrine.  I'm not arguing for
Apostolic succession or for the establishment of a papacy.  I am arguing
that Christ gave to Peter an authority that was critical in the
establishment of the Apostolic Church of the New Testament.  What were
the keys, then, Bro. Starcher?  I agree that the revelation of Jesus as
Christ is the foundational doctrine of the Church upon which we are
established, but Jesus spoke of the future founding of the Church and
presented to Peter the keys of the kingdom.  What were they if not this
authority exercised at Pentecost and in the formative years of the
primitive NT Church?
 
[I wrote]:
  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.

[Bro. Starcher]:
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.   

[I write]:
I do not believe that I was saved according to Scripture until my sins
were remitted in baptism in Jesus' name!  Salvation, for me, was a
process of understanding and revelation.  I believe that repentance and
receiving the Holy Ghost were components of that salvation which was, in
my case, completed when I was buried with Him in baptism.  I do believe
that I would not have been prepared to meet God before baptism in Jesus'
name.  There is a supernatural element in water baptism through faith in
Jesus Christ, and I know that at that point my sins were remitted, and I
had the answer of a clear conscience toward God.

[Bro. Starcher]:
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 write]:
I believe, with you, in the tenses of salvation as past, present and
future.  Understanding the New Birth as being born of water and of
Spirit doesn't negate the importance of the continuing Christian life.
Acts 2.38 is *not* the finale of salvation!  Rather, it is the
commencement!  I agree that Acts 2.38 is not a graduation programme into
the realm of the saved and that salvation will be present throughout the
Christian life.  That is to say, there are those who have experienced
the components of Acts 2.38 salvation who will, to be sure, not be in
the Bride of Christ.  

[Bro. Starcher]:
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.

[I write]:
Yes!  If faith exists in someone, I wouldn't want to destroy their
foundation to reconstruct.  I believe we can use an existing structure
to lead people into a 'more excellent way.'

[Bro. Starcher]:
In my post I defend Acts 2:38 as the New Birth experience for
Apostolics.  Why should this surprise you?<snip>

[I write]:
Because, you are the first person I have ever encountered who at once
attempts to affirm the message and yet criticises those who believe in
its full and sole reality.

[Bro. Starcher]:
  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.

[I write]:
I am not excluding any *Apostolic* from the movement.  I do exclude
trinitarians on a doctrinal basis as they preach another Jesus and
another Gospel.
 
[I wrote]:
> 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.

[Bro. Starcher]:  
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!

[I write]:
Dear brother, I am sorry that your heart was torn out.  I'm just
attempting to be honest.  In my view, I have found the blessed truth.
The Word says:  'Buy the truth and sell it not.'  I'm not interested in
compromise because I simply don't believe that it expresses biblical
faith and commitment to the message of Jesus Christ.  

I do believe that the probability of someone returning to the true
Apostolic faith is greater if they do not become entangled in the
falsifications of denominational Christianity and charismatic renewal.
Jesus warned that there would be deception in the last days.  Truly, we
are seeing it now more than ever.  I renew, daily, my commitment to this
great Way and will continue to steadfastly remain with the faith that I
have gladly received, the heritage of pioneers that I gladly defend.

[Bro. Starcher]:
May the God of love and compassion fill your life today Brother Matthew!

Steve

[I write]:
Many returns to you, dear brother.  I appreciate your disagreeing
without being disagreeable.  We are still brethren, and I don't doubt
your sincerity.

Bro. Matthew Shaw