The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 3

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

Bro. Starcher, first I need to appologize for the "tone" of my last post...too
little sleep and too much work have made me a bit cranky. After reading my post
on the list I felt that I was a bit harsh....

> > Just because people call themselves Apostolic does not mean they are
> > either....there is a Gay Pentecostal Assmebly (they claim to be
> > oneness). I do
> > not see this as an Apostolic Church, but another attempt by the enemy
> > to attack
> > the church. Many others that I have seen look more Charismatic than
> > Pentecostal.
>
> This is Apostolic diversity Brother Clifton!  How do we account for this
> diversity?   Is it reasonable to say that all Apostolics who do not
> agree with our individualized version of Apostolic theology are being
> deceived by Satan and lost?  What is the complete corpus of Apostolic
> beliefs that all true Apostolics adhere to?  The problem is that there
> has never been an agreement on a complete corpus of beliefs. The belief
> that there must be uniformity in belief has let to innumerable schisms
> in the Apostolic movement.  Jesus is not pleased!  His prayer is that we
> may all be one!

I do see your point, but my question is why is it so important that every
"Apostolic" be part of the one big group (AWCF). I understand the diversity and
I know that in all groups there are those on the edge of not bring part of the
group. Your primary idea seems to be that the more conservative and the more
"holiness" churches and groups ae wrong because they stand firm on their
beliefs.

I have an acquaintance that once witnessed to me about the AoG. Talked of
Baptism and the Holy Ghost. Since then the AoG pastor has determined that this
stance is devisive so they no long teach the necessity of it. Now the pastor is
part of a group of pastors that meet weekly to discuss how to get all the
churches together... my acquaintance is now going to a semi-charismatic Baptist
church. You see the pastor was not firm on his beliefs and now his congregation
is confused as well. We must be firm on our beliefs.

> > You see Bro. the bottom line is that every post you submit seems to
> > have one
> > basic underlying theme...the UPCI is wrong in its not joining the AWCF
> > of by not
> > accepting all "Christians" as saved.
>
> I've submitted a lot of posts which do not have this theme.  Also, could
> you please quote from a post I have made which says "all Christians are
> saved"?  I have said that the Bible teaches a universalism of hope,
> salvation is available to all, not a universalism of salvation, all will
> be saved.

For sake of hard disk space and other reasons I have deleted all of my archived
HF files and I am not going to search the HF archives, but Bro. you ignored that
very question from Bro. Shaw and myself during your initial eucaminical series.
You have not stated your position in black and white, you always leave grey
areas.

> I do believe that the UPCI is wrong for not joining the AWCF.

why is it wrong....I have visited (or talked to trusted brothers that have
visited a few churches) that are affiliated in some manner with the AWCF. The 2
I visited and a few others were Charismatic....not Apostolic. In fact the pastor
of one even mentioned that baptismal formula is not really that important - and
this is not what I call Apostolic.

> Have you ever attended a Society for Pentecostal Studies meeting where
> members of the UPCI are present?

Nope, they musta left my name off the invite list :o)

> They seem quite interested in the
> faith of others.  Interest in Apostolic ecumenism is not waning but is
> increasing!  I hope to generate a lot more discussion Brother Clifton.
> Please, if you really think i am on the wrong track help me find some
> more satisfying answers for the ecumenical questions Apostolics are
> answering.

I still feel that you are almost searching for justification for accepting
non-Apostolics. This is a great forum and I pray that many are blessed by the
infomation shared here. As fof helping you find answers....you have your beliefs
and I have mine.

> The problem with your usage of these passages is that you assume that
> they refer to a complete body of systematic theology which is to be
> believed and embraced by all.  Where is this systematic theology Brother
> Clifton?  If it exists, why don't Apostolics evidence this unity in
> their movement?  In my 26 years as an Apostolic  I have heard these
> Scriptures cited numerous times to support separation from other
> Christians on the basis of their doctrinal error.  Yet I see no
> Apostolic consensus as to what this one pure doctrinal faith is.  Its
> kinda like  this,"We all know it doesn't exist but we have to believe it
> any way to justify our faith".

Almost 2000 years ago there was one systematic theology. Then came the false
teaching that the Lord warned of....now we have some truth and some of the
leftovers. I can accept anyone born again as explained in Acts 2:38 (or
examplified in Acts 8, 10 & 19) that is living for the Lord (meaning that they
abide in holiness - not the dress standard as much as the spiritual side) as a
brother or sister.  Any "Christian" that denies the tongues as being from God
(in fact many claim it is of the devil) then they are not my brethern! IF they
deny the necessity of baptism or the formula used....they deny the Word of God.

Now what about "standards"? These vary and are subject to the interpretation of
those you place in authority over you. But they are part of the walk.

> Let me give you my interpretation of these passages.  The Apostolic
> doctrine  is not a complete body of systematic theology but a person
> Jesus Christ.  The Apostolic faith is not a complete systematic theology
> but faith (trust) placed in this person.  The content of the Apostolic
> doctrine and the Apostolic faith is found in the witness to Jesus Christ
> contained in Holy Scripture. The purpose of Holy Scripture is not to
> present an intellectually satisfying systematic theology but to lead all
> to an encounter with the risen savior Jesus Christ.  Was this not the
> locus of the Apostltles doctrine in the many proclamations of the Gospel
> in the book of Acts?  They proclaimed one Lord, one faith, one baptism
> as they witnessed to their one Lord Jesus Christ!  And there were many
> different versions of this "one faith" in the New Testament.  They are
> called the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, etc. each written by authors with
> their own unique theological emphasis and witness to Jesus Christ.

You again claim the "different versions" of the "one faith" yet all throughout
the Book of Acts (the only book of salvation) there is a central theme of
harping on the initial message of Peter and thus expanding on the last sermon of
Jesus. So you say that Paul (underguidance of the Holy Ghost) wrote "one spirt"
but meant "one spirit, well sorta one, well actually many but all centered
around the Lord"

> Finally, Brother Clifton, other Christians do share this one faith with
> me.  They acknowledge Jesus as Lord, pray, engage in ministry, and
> attempt to live Christian lives.  What is wrong with recognizing the
> faith directed toward Christ they possess and utilizing it as a
> springboard to discuss the Apostolic faith?

I too have this issue, I know many "Christians" that are better people than some
of the "Apostolics" I know. They are better witnesses, do more for others....but
being good is not enough - remember the rich young man, being good was not
enough. Remember Corneilus, being good and even faithful to God was not
enough....so if as you say it is a convo starter then we agree!

> Once again, I always enjoy sharing my faith with you Brother Clifton.
> Hope I didn't consume all of your lunch hour or create needless anxiety!

Nope....not all the lunch, nor any frustration.

Lord Bless;
Bro. Bill (I am back reading....praying...then replying!!!!)