Steve I'm still confused

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

yhclifto wrote:
> 
> Steve,
> 
> There was something very unusual about Steve's reply to my questions
> about
> what makes an Apostolic.
> 
>  An Apostolic need not be a conservative Christian.
> 
> In this comment he uses conservative and fundamentalist interchangly.
> This will offend the so called neo-conservatives and Barthians to
> death.

I guess we have some semantic confusion here.  Let me make some
clarifications.  Fundamentalism is not only a Christian movement but an
ideology.  Hence, one can embrace the central tenets of fundamentalist
theology without being a part of the Fundamentalist movement. 
Conservative Christians who call themselves Evangelicals are frequently
called neo-fundamentalists by many theologians for they retain
Fundamentalist ideology desiring to only to avoid the separation and
isolation of the Fundamentalist movement.

I am not worried about offending the neo-conservatives, Evangelicals. 
They are among the harshest critics of Apostolic Pentecostalism and
would like nothing better than to see the Apostolic movement  be
understood by all to be heretical and cultic.  As far as offending the
Barthians, I sincerely doubt it.  The neo-Fundamentalists have  great
difficulty with Barthian theology, his acceptance of Biblical criticism,
and his rethinking of the traditional dogma's of the Church, especially
the doctrine of the Trinity.  Incidentally, the correct theological
designation for Barthians is neo-orthodox.  


>  An Apostolic must believe in the Rapture.

It appears that you understand the Rapture only from the perspective of
dispensational theology.  I have a more expansive definition of this
term.  I believe it is a metaphor used by Christians to describe the
second coming of Jesus Christ to bring about the culmination of all
things and complete his work of salvation.  All Christians do not
believe in the pre-millenial Rapture of the Church.  But all Christians
do believe in the ultimate triumph of God in Jesus Christ to which the
rapture alludes.  This is an essential teaching of the Bible.



>  Non conservatives (Modernists, Humanistic
> Christians,or
> Liberal Christians) universaly deny the rapture claiming it is a
> metaphor
> for social change.  Most of them also deny the ressurection of Jesus
> Christ.  They further consider the scripture a man made document.
> 
> It is intersting that most conservative Christians who are not self
> avowed
> fundamentalists or charasmatics deny the rapture will occur.

You are  speaking in great generalities here Brother.  But you are
right, there are a lot of Christians who have a great deal of trouble
with these tenets of the Christian faith.  They are called Liberals and
their influence in Christendom and Christian theology has been waning
for the past two decades.  Why?  Because their positions are
intellectually untenable and not consistent with Holy Scripture or the
life and faith of Christian believers.

> I'm
> not suggesting that you are ignorant, but before I go to far I need to
> know of what you speak.

You seem to have some interesting thoughts Brother and I would like to
answer your questions.  But, and I do not say this to be condescending,
your sentences are incomplete and incoherent and your spelling poor. 
Could you please take a little more time with your posts and make sure
they are clear so that communication can occur?



> Were you aware that when a typical Apostolic reads the theology of a
> main
> stream protestant conservative (K. Barth or W.F.Albright for example)
> they
> find
> the material shockingly different from their view of Bible? 

I would not classify Barth or Albright as mainstream Protestant
conservative.  Barth is neo-orthodox and because of Albright's
historical emphasis I would place him with the moderates.  Very few
Apostolics have read either, much less incorporate the insights of their
works into Apostolic theology.  The Apostolic "shock" is the result of
years of separation and isolation from the thought of greater
Christendom.

 How much
> more
> shocked would they be if they were reading real liberal theology?

Once again, "real" liberal theology is no longer embraced as tenable by
the majority of Christian theologians, even in those who function in
academia. On my reading list are a number of books written during the
zenith of liberalism in the 50's and 60's.  These works have all been
refuted and or their authors repented and returned to a more biblical
presentation of Christianity. 


> Are you aware most liberal theologians support the ordination of Gays?

>From our Apostolic perspective, anyone who would support the ordination
of professed gays to the ministry would indeed be considered Liberal. 
But, and this is ironic, there are a lot of Christians who are very
biblical in other areas of theology and still support the ordination of
gays.
 
> Are you perhaps suggesting there is some fourth kind of protestant?

Yes!  There is another group of Protestants.  They are Apostolic
Pentecostals!  These Pentecostals need to develop their own theology
based upon their experience of Jesus in the Apostolic community and not
imitate the the theology of others to gain a measure of acceptance from
other Christians.


> I realize that you posted quite a bit about Fundamentalism, but it has
> thus far not matched the any definition I've found anywhere else.

I have enjoyed reading the works of George Marsden and Martin Marty. 
James Barr has a good, although polemical book, entitled
Fundamentalism.  These works should be readily available at any good
theological library.



> Did you consider the fact learning theology is a major undertaking. We
> apostolics are very happy, for the most part, being Christians with
> little
> or no theology.  It works, for talking to each other.  What is the
> gain in
> learning a language just to talk to other Christians?

Not knowing Christian theology does not mean we are not influenced by
it.  In fact, Apostolics are more influenced by  certain forms of
American theology than they realize or care to admit.

Also, if you don't speak the language you can't communicate your faith
to others.

> 
> Would it help incidently if I posted my sources on Fundamentalism
> (American and others)
> 
  Go for it Brother!

God Bless!

Steve