The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 1

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

[Bro. Starcher]:
>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.
>

[Matthew]:
Bro. Starcher, good to hear from you again.  I had noticed your absence when
I left my months-long 'postpone furlough'=)

I believe dialogue is productive and acceptable for Biblical Apostolics.
What is not acceptable is the compromising of Bible  doctrines and the
message of salvation in order to meet the 'common ground' requirements so
prevalent in many oecumenical endeavours.

I have written articles criticising such organisations as the Assemblies of
God, the Church of God in Christ, etc. for their oecumenical efforts, which
align them with the Roman communion.

I am not opposed to observation or discussion; but when that evolves into an
affirmation of their Christianity or a tolerance of their liturgy as a valid
expression of Christian worship, I think we have compromised and departed
from the kernel of our Apostolic faith.

[Bro. Starcher]:
>But lets make this personal!  Wouldn't it be wonderful if Apostolic
>critics would take the time to study Apostolic theology, observe our
>worship, and watch our Christian lives?  Opposition to the Apostolic
>faith frequently melts away when our opponents encounter the living
>Christ in an Apostolic worship service!  Is this not preferable  to
>judging the Apostolic faith by stereotypes, i.e. holy rollers,
>apostates, heretics et. al.?

[Matthew]:
So, you view oecumenism as an outreach tool?  Perhaps.  But, conversely,
what happens when brothers and sisters of the Apostolic faith are seduced by
*observing* false doctrine.  The danger of not remaining within certain
parameters is compromise, assimilation and the outright loss of our message.
I think the converse of the above could be true.

[Bro. Starcher]:
>And what about the Apostolic propensity for separation?  It is ironic
>that Bishop Smith quotes scriptures to justify the Apostolic separation
>from Catholics which are also used by Apostolics to justify the
>fragmentation of the Apostolic movement.

[Matthew]:
I'm personally opposed to fragmentation of the movement, but there must be
standards of relationship.  Not everyone who hangs 'Apostolic' on the
doorpost is one.  Otherwise, you may wind up in fellowship with such groups
as the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (eeks!)

[Bro. Starcher]:
 By questioning the faith of
>ecumenical Apostolics Bishop Smith's article is not consistent with this
>vision and gives credence to those Apostolics who would fragment the
>movement.

[Matthew]:
No, it doesn't.  I'm sure Bishop Smith is operating on a premise that
defines what the Apostolic movement is according to the AWCF.  I'm sure that
includes Oneness and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Blessings.

All Honour to Christ Jesus.

Matthew Shaw