The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 3

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

[Bro. Starcher]:
>First, I  don't recall any advocacy of "universal acceptance" of all
>Christian beliefs in my posts.  As I precede with my posts I hope to
>make it clear that dialogue does not require the blind acceptance of the
>beliefs of other Christians but a sincere effort at understanding their
>beliefs and an acknowledgment of their  similarities with my Apostolic
>faith.

[Matthew]:
Bro. Starcher, acknowleding similarities is one thing, but I think you *do*
suggest that we should recognise their experiences as salvational.  There
are similarities between purple and blue, but they'll never be the same
colour=)

[Bro. Starcher]:
 During a recent seminar I attended in Indiana I was quite
>critical of the faith of the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, and
>United Methodists who attended, especially their emphasis upon the
>sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  At the same time I acknowledged the
>commonalties of the Christian faith we shared, i.e. seeking to base our
>faith on the Bible, seeking to serve Jesus Christ, prayer, et.al.  At
>the end of the seminar they all knew I was an Apostolic Pentecostal who
>baptized in Jesus Name, had received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with
>the sign in speaking in tongues, and did not embrace the  doctrine of
>the Trinity.  I had the opportunity to share my faith because I gave
>them the opportunity to share their faith without fear of condemnation.

[Matthew]:
And, Bro. Starcher, this is wonderful!  If you can use dialogue this way.
Every Apostolic would do good to learn the value of productive dialogue and
the extreme error or militaristic elitism.  We are privileged to have a full
understanding of doctrine, but we should never use that great blessing as an
advantage over others who are making an honest effort to better understand
Jesus Christ.

[Bro. Starcher]:
>I am  "focused" on the relationship of Apostolics to other Christians
>because it is a subject which, in my opinion, has not been sufficiently
>addressed in Apostolic circles.  Apostolics normally assign all other
>Christians to hell or  offer some sort of future dispensation of God's
>grace which could account for their salvation.  These are very
>simplistic answers to a very important questions and they just don't
>resonate with me or with a lot of other Apostolics I am in conversation
>with.


[Matthew]:
So you do believe that these other Christians are actually saved?

[Bro. Clifton]:
>> 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.
>
[Bro. Starcher]:
>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!


[Matthew]:
Brother, you cannot possibly believe that the National Gay Pentecostal
Alliance is not deceived!?!  Where do we draw the lines on sin?  Holiness,
however we perceive it, does have to measure up with Scripture!

Diversity is part of our human experience, but doctrinal diversity can be a
deadly pill for the Church.

[Bro. Clifton]:
>> 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.
>
[Bro. Starcher]:
>I do believe that the UPCI is wrong for not joining the AWCF.  But,
>after having read  Bishop Smith's epistle, I can't help but wonder if
>the AWCF is drifting toward the separation  and isolation which
>characterizes the UPCI.  Perhaps the UPCI is winning the AWCF to its
>position!


[Matthew]:
Personally, I think the UPCI should be involved with the AWCF.  Of course,
we're not all going to agree, but I think the essentials are in place.  The
UPCI is committed to the unity of Oneness believers *with certain
stipulations.*  Myself, I think we would do good to commit outside of those
stipulations, and perhaps we could strengthen some of the weaker areas in
our brethren.

To accuse the AWCF of isolationism because they're not interested in the
greater oecumenical vision is ridiculous.  The organisation is committed to
Apostolic unity, and there is an existing context upon which Bishop Smith
has rested his argument.

I think here we must distinguish between oecumenity and dialogue.  The
former term suggests unity, solidarity; the latter implies discourse, mutual
discussion.  We can discuss our various beliefs, present to one another our
positions and allow love to prevail in matters.  Seeking common ground with
a view toward reconciliation with the Church of Rome or any of her spawn is
unapostolic and could only weaken our Apostolic resolve to be dedicated to
the truths of God's word.

Many Blessings.

Bro. Matthew