Steve I'm still confused

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

yhclifto wrote:

 
> I have considered your answer's to a number of my questions and have
> some
> more things for you to think about.

You have some really good sources!


>         Obviously, most of us are milliniarians, belive in an
> ifallible
> book, belive in the virgin birth and most of us are skeptical and
> resistant to Biblical scholarship.  So by these general definintions
> we
> tend to be pretty fundamentalist, aside from the fact that likes of
> Jerry
> Faldwell would like very much to say otherwise.


I appreciate your honesty on this point Brother.  I have had a lot of
discussions with people on this list who fail to perceive the linkage of
Apostolic and Fundamentalist theology.


>         First question, if we seem to have as much in common with
> conservative Christians as they have in common with each other
> (remember
> fundamentalist, Mormons, Catholics and Neo-Conservative Protestants
> are
> all called conservative Christians) why not call ourselves
> conservative
> Christians.

I do not feel that identifying ourselves with the John Ankerburgs and
Jerry Fallwells of this world has does justice to the reality of the
Apostolic faith.  Rather than seeking to articulate the reality of the
Apostolic faith, Apostolics seek to present their "Orthodoxy"  by
demonstrating the similarities of Apostolic and conservative Christian
theology and minimizing the differences.  I feel that the differences in
experience and expression of the Apostolic faith is significant enough
to warrant a uniquely Apostolic Pentecostal theology.

> 
>         You seem to be a rare objector to millinarianism, if I read
> your
> post correctly.  The question that I have for you is the Apostle when
> said, "If the dead are not raised then Christ is not raised.. If
> Christ is
> not raised then ye are yet in your sin." does he not seem to be urging
> us
> toke the rapture litterally? and doesn't the alternative to
> litteralism
> sound pretty bad?

I would not say I am an objector to such an eschatology, disinterested
would be a better term.  I tire of the endless debates on eschatology
which focus on the "how" and "when".  Eschatology in scripture is always
presented in an ethical and soteriological context.  Because we know
that Jesus Christ will triumph over the forces of evil and establish an
everlasting kingdom we ought to live for him in the power of the Spirit
diligently and continue his ministry.  This is the substance of New
Testament eschatology .


>         When I asked if you were suggesting Apostolics learn theology,
> you
> responded by pointing out that theology has a great effect on me
> whether I
> learn it or not.  So? how is that a reason to learn about it.  Being
> influenced by defunct theologians does not take away the fact God
> saved my
> life, God filled me with Holy Ghost, God healed me of a chronic sinus
> infection, God forgave my sins when I was baptised in His Name, and
> most
> of those dead theologians had none of that. The Holy Ghost is beyond
> theology.

No, the Holy Spirit inspires the hearts and minds of men to do
theology.  Saying you have no theology is making a theological statement
about your faith.  This statement is consistent with American
Fundamentalism  which ignores the historical and cultural influences on
its faith and proclaims that it has a pure, undefiled, and unmediated
knowledge of God.  I suggest you reread some of your sources on
Fundamentalism and note its historical development.  Also, check the
higher-fire archives for some posts entitled "Separation in the Third
Degree".  These posts present an overview of Fundamentalism and its
effects on the Apostolic movement.

> 
>         Finally how can anyone be open to a diversity of opinions on
> salvation issues?  

Once again, please refer to the higher-fire archives and check out some
posts entitled "Salvation the Pentecostal Way" where I present a Lukan
theology of salvation.  These may answer some of your questions.

God Bless!

Steve