The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 2

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

[Bro. Starcher]:
>Clearly this passage is not addressing the present denominational
>separation of Christians but the drift toward syncretism with pagans in
>the first century Church.

[Matthew]:
Bro. Starcher, clearly the Apostolic Church was intolerant of doctrinal
diversity and maintained a singular, monolithic position.  It is, therefore,
logical that they would not have been oecumenists (in the most common
sense).

[Bro. Starcher]:
>Is it really credible to define Catholics and other Christians as
>"unbelievers"?  This is the tenuous position Bishop Smith and other
>Fundamentalists seek to present and defend.  How can these Christians be
>called unbelievers if they acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior, seek
>to base their faith on Holy Scripture, and are attempting to live a
>Christian life?

[Matthew]:
Since when did the HRCC seek to base their faith *solely* on Scripture?
When basic Christian doctrine and worship is accompianied by the weights of
post-apostolic tradition and a canon of uninspired writings given the weight
of the Word of God, then we have lost a basis for comparison.

Bro. Starcher, there are all kinds of aberrant groups that superficially
maintain a core Gospel message but amend that message with unbiblical,
unapostolic and patently false beliefs.

You are attempting, I believe, to move the bar.  Where do we draw the lines?
If we allow all sorts of admissions based on some areas of commanality, we
would ultimately extend our Christian parameters to include everyone and be
left with blatant universalism.

[Bro. Starcher]:
 If they really are unbelievers, then why are Apostolic
>bookshelves full of their books, Apostolic stereo's playing their music,
>and Apostolic ministers fellowshipping with them?  The answer is that
>behind all of the rhetoric Apostolics, however reluctantly,  do
>acknowledge the faith of other Christians, even Catholics, and receive
>them as Christians.

[Matthew]:
No one is denying that there aren't lessons to be learned from others.
Humans, of any sort, are innovative, creative, pensive, and some writers
have added new dimensions to the way we think about such topics as church
growth, outreach, witnessing, etc.  Accepting their writings as informative,
educational or even inspirational is not the same thing as affirming their
doctrine, accepting their Christian experience as full or valid.

I don't deny, my friend, that Christians outside of the confines of the
Apostolic Church have encountered Christ, but I believe that there is a more
excellent way.  Salvation outside of the Biblical pattern and precedent is,
to be sure, at the discretion of our God.  But, as Apostolics, I think it is
critical that we remain faithful to the wonderful New Birth experience and
to the doctrine of the mighty God in Christ.

[Bro. Starcher]:
>The Biblical call for separation is not a call for separation from
>other  Christians, those who place their faith in Christ, but a call for
>a separation from a life outside of Christ.

[Matthew]:
And you have done nothing to prove their Christianity.  I think we must
first define what it means to be a Christian, and I believe it is more than
just a desire to follow the philosophy of Christ, a mental position that He
was the Son of God and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  What
about relationship and a genuine, conversional encounter?

You're simply opening the doors too wide!  A Church that followed your plan
of action could not possibly sustain Her Apostolic identity and example.
Yes, there is room for discussion, observation, and I believe every
Apostolic should be broad enough to build on existing faith a better
understanding of others.  However, if we become a huge melting pot without
parameters, we lose our commitment to the core of truths that make us THE
Apostolic Church.

If you believe that the Apostolic Church is truly Apostolic, then how do you
haromise that belief with your oecumenical affirmations?

[Bro. Starcher]:
 The people of God, Israel in the Old
>Testament and the Church in the New Testament, are  to be witnesses to
>the reality of God's salvation in the world.  They are to live for God
>in the world and evidence their faith by their lives and testimony.
>Their ministry is not to separate and isolate from the world but to
>separate unto Christ and engage the world with the knowledge of God they
>have received.
>
>Paul's sermon in Athens is a good example of Biblical separation (Acts
>17: 16-34). Paul's separation onto Christ compelled him to engage the
>people of Athens with the Gospel. What is remarkable, from my Apostolic
>perspective, is that Paul possesses a knowledge of Greek philosophy and
>uses this knowledge as a tool to present the Gospel.  How many Apostolic
>sermons have I heard by Apostolics condemning all philosophies, except
>their own Common Sense Philosophy, as paganism?  How many warnings
>against studying philosophy have been proclaimed from Apostolic pulpits?

[Yet Paul had studied philosophy and effectively utilized it in his
>presentation of the Gospel!  Furthermore, Paul went to academia with the
>Gospel. Once again, Apostolics routinely criticize higher education,
>especially theological education.

[Bro. Starcher]:
Come on!  Are you talking about churches in the sticks?!?  I have never
heard a pastor, evangelist or organisational leadership criticise higher
education from the pulpit!

I don't mean to sound angry, but you have a very limited and, dare I say,
condescending view of the people of God!  If you consider the initial
demographics of this movement, we have come a loooong way in education and a
more standard and systematic approach to theology.

I'm not advocating ignorance, but I don't think you can judge any saint or
preacher on his or her education.  God can use any instrument that is
yielded to Him.  You don't have to be versed in philosophy (thank God some
are), and you don't have to have an Master's of Divinity (thank God some
have).

I believe the most powerful Apostolic witnesses are not those who can wield
the powerful tool of theological and Christian history, philosophy,
apologetics, patristics, etc.  The greatest witnesses are those who have an
abiding Christianity that is made apparent through their consecrated life,
their sweet and Christian spirit and the testimony of the power of God in
their lives!

[Bro. Starcher]:
  Paul, however, had the best
>theological education of his day and utilized this education in an
>effective ministry.  Paul's separation unto Christ did not involve
>isolation from his contemporary culture but an engagement with that
>culture for the furtherance of the Gospel!

[Matthew]:
Paul's engagement was Christocentric.  He did not attempt to assimilate,
establish common ground or meet the heathens at a shifty middle point.  He
illustrated the Gospel in a way they could understand it, and I'm sure any
Apostolic would be willing to do the same.  There is a chasm's difference
between using an existing infrastructure to build the truth on and affirming
the validity of false doctrine or worship.
[Bro. Starcher]:
 Paul sought to understand how Christ was already present in
>Athens in the nascent faith of the Athenians.  Paul disclosed the
>"unknown God", Jesus Christ, the Athenians were already worshipping!

[Matthew]:
Paul articulated the Gospel in a way they could comprehend it.  He did not
seek to prove that Christ was already present.  He identified the God they
had not met!

Many Blessings.

Bro. Matthew Shaw