The Apostolic Dialogue with Catholics 6

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

Matthew Shaw wrote:

> So, Bro. Starcher, what you are saying is that there was no apostles'
> doctrine?  

No Brother Matthew, I believe there is one Apostles doctrine found in
the Biblical narratives.  This doctrine tells the one story of Jesus
Christ and his significance for the world from the multiple perspectives
of the Biblical authors.  

You seem to be arguing that the existence of multiple
> documents
> that have come to comprise the canon is the foundation of doctrinal
> diversity. 

I believe this is true.  The theologies of Luke and Paul although
witnessing to the same reality are unique.  Where in the writings of
Luke do you find extensive treatments of justification of faith?  


> It is clear from the Scriptures that the Apostles were unified on the
> identity of Jesus Christ as God manifest the flesh, the reality of His
> death, burial and resurrection and their inclusion in the Apostolic
> Church
> through His Spirit.  Is this common basis and the repeated Apostolic
> warnings against false teachers and doctrines not enough to assure us
> of the
> fact that they maintained a certain singularity?

Yes, the Apostles were concerned about departures away from their
witness to Christ.  The problem is Apostolics expand these departures to
include every single doctrine that they disagree.

>  Do you believe in
> transubstantiation?  Is Christ bodily present in the sacrament?  You
> are
> suggesting that our worship of Christ is unified allowing for a
> diversity of
> perspective.

What I actually said was that the experience of Christ unites Christians
and that these experiences are different.  I do not believe in a literal
bodily presence of Christ in the elements of communion.  I do believe
that Christ is present in the body of Christ during communion as
Christians recall his death.  This is the real presence of Christ in
communion.

> 
> While I don't deny that there are those within every communion that
> exercise
> a true love for Jesus, we deny the truth if we say that Christian
> worship is
> a matter of preference. 

I don't recall saying preference.  Perhaps heritage would be a better
word.  People repeat acts of worship during which they experience the
presence of Christ.  This might be communion, or the singing of certain
songs.   

I suppose I don't understand how we maintain
> an
> evangelistic thrust if we admit a soteriological universalism for
> those
> outside of the parameters of the Biblical Apostolic Church.

Once again, I do not advocate soteriological universalism. Why is
discussing how Christ may be present in the lives and faith of others
such a danger?  Is not Jesus the God they are seeking to serve?  Is not
Jesus the God who is calling them to salvation?  Is not Jesus the one
they are calling upon in faith?  Does not Jesus hear their prayers?  Is
not Jesus leading and guiding them by the Holy Spirit into truth? If all
of this is true, the are they not, in some way, experiencing the reality
of God's salvation?  If so, why not rejoice in the faith they possess
and not panic because their theology is different?  Are just we
defending a theological system and attempting to conform Christians into
its mold?  I really believe that the Apostolic Pentecostal reality
transcends any theological system, mine or yours!   


 
>  Honestly, what is the point of these posts?  You're going round Robin
> Hood's barn to tell us that Apostolics have lived too long in
> isolation,
> must be willing to accept the Christian experience of others and can
> communicate their faith more effectively by doing so.

I think I told Brother Josh that I was "venting" in these posts.  I was
really disappointed by Brother Smith's epistle.  I'll admit that I "go
around the barn" in presenting an issue.  I feel this is necessary
because I want to clarify my position, let everyone know where I am
coming from.

 
> I agree with you that our faith will not be understood if we turn our
> noses
> up and pretend that other expressions don't exist.  I disagree with
> you that
> this process or our effective witness requires us to affirm their
> salvation
> experience.

I think this is the crux of the the difference between me and you
Brother Matthew.  I affirm the salvation experiences of others without
feeling my Apostolic faith threatened.  From your presentations, and
that of others, I have compromised, or better departed, from the
Apostolic faith.  First I have not departed from the Apostolic faith. 
My beliefs are consistent not only with Holy Scripture but with a large
number of Apostolics, past and present.  Second, I have departed from
Fundamentalist theology and seek to present a distinctive Apostolic
Pentecostal theology.  Why is this so harmful to the Apostolic faith? 
Is Apostolic Pentecostalism wed to Fundamentalism and conservative
Christians who would like nothing better to see the entire world believe
the Apostolic movement is heretical and cultic?  I think it is time for
a divorce!  Or better, an annulment.  Because this marriage has never
really worked.  The theology of Fundamentalism cannot express the
dynamic reality of the Apostolic pentecostal experience of Jesus.

God Bless!

Steve