The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 1

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

Steve theis is a very intersing letter but it seems to confuse issues> 
> The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics
Taken litteraly the answer to most of these questions must be no, but it
is unclear what any of them have to do with progress.
> 
>   Can one be an
> Apostolic and receive others as Christians?
No,	If by this you mean recieve those who call us non-believers (most
people calling themselves Christians do not) we would be denying what we
know about the plan of salvation.
 
  Can one be an Apostolic and
> participate in ecumenical forums where the Christian faith is
> discussed?

No, since the word ecumenical implies that there is an effort to reunite
all Chirstians with the Catholic Church and by implication admit the Holy
Ghost is associated with that organization (ecuemnical protestants admit
this is their goal.)
 
  Can one be an Apostolic and not embrace Fundamentalist
> theology and Common Sense Philosophy?
No, since modernists define a fundamentalist as any Christian who is
conservative, believes in the litteral return of Jesus Christ and in
seperateness from the world (this is far broader than adherents to the
Fundamentalist movement.) The reader will note these ideas are basic to
our faith, so it becomes technicaly impossible to not have a kind of
fundamentalist theology.

I would not that common sense is essential to our belife because our
theology is not that elaborate so we are left with common sense philosophy
at the core.

  Is it really "Fatal Progress" to
> be Apostolic, ecumenical, and give the Apostolic faith a contemporary
> expression?

Again the term ecumenical is a sticker. 

So taking your questions at face value with every word in a litteral
sense:

A forum with an Apostolic present would cease to be ecumenical in nature,
it would become a dialog between ecumenicals and non ecumenicals.

We are fundamentalist and common sense people at least in sense that
modernist define those terms, whether or not we these are obligations.
But there is nothing about these statements which would prevent us from
having a dialog with Catholics, or Budhist, or Hindu or ect.

> 
> The Nature of Dialogue
> 
> embraced. 

 This theology reduces the Christian faith to certain
> "Fundamentals" which define the essence of Christianity and which must
> be embraced in order for one to be considered Christian.

I cannot find your definition of Fundamentalist in any Encyclopaedia or
dictionary, and I suspect somehow that you are changing the words around.
This definition would exclude alot people who consider themself
fundamentalist (do some litterature search.)
> 
> 
>  These theologians listened to the
> concerns of their liberal critics, studied their theology, and met their
> challenges utilizing the very best in scholarship.  The ashes of
> Christian liberalism strewn throughout Christendom are their legacy, not
> that of Fundamentalism.
>
I fail to see what this has to with the questions above.  Both the
liberals and fundamentalist shot themselves in the foot more than
anything.  What does that have to do with being Apostolic?
 
> True dialogue does not require acceptance of the theology of other
> Christians.  True dialogue does not require the abandoning the
> essentials of the Apostolic faith.  True dialogue does require an
> attempt to understand the faith of other Christians.  This means reading
> their theology, observing their worship, and watching their Christian
> life.  Only when this is done can the faith of others be properly
> understood and evaluated.
> 
The fact is that not many others are willing to talk to us unless we
declare ourselves ecumenical from the start of the dialog, and the fact is
that because of our common sense orientation don't see the point of
anything as abstract as dialog.  Most preachers I have spoken to are
neither for it not against it.

> In my next post I will continue this discussion by presenting  a
> Biblical understanding of separation.
> 
> 
I look forward to it, let's continue the dialog,

			Yeaton