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?


[Starcher]:
>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.


[Matthew]:
In my reading of the NT, the apostles employ multiple perspectives toward a
unified doctrine.  Elsewise, we have each apostle having his own version of
the truth.  The scripture seems clearly affirmative of a single Gospel
message and a single perception of how that message is realised in the
Apostolic Church.

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


[Starcher]:
>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?


[Matthew]:
Brother, I'm not arguing that each of the writings are cookie-cutter
documents.  I'm saying that they agree, complement and do not provide us
with multiple theologies.

You are using the multiplicity of documents to transitively imply that
denominational differences have a Scriptural foundation.  If I am
interpreting your preceeding comments properly, you view denominationalisms
as veritable expressions of Christian faith with Apostolic Pentecostalism
being the sort of capstone experience for believers.

I, on the other hand, believe that there is One Church, One Body and One
Truth.  I believe there are sincere believers on the peripheries of the One
Body, and I believe that Christ is merciful and just.  I try never to put
myself in the place of Judge, but I cannot affirm another version of the
truth.  I don't see how you hold in tension the belief that Apostolic
doctrine is solid truth and that other doctrines (which are patently false
and would have been rejected by the holy Apostles) are also valid
expressions of worship and 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?


[Starcher]:
>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.


[Matthew]:

So, which doctrines are we to reject?  I'm not requiring that someone agree
with my on *every* level.  I'm sure there are Apostolics who would disagree
with my persuasion concerning the sin-remitting efficacy of baptism.  I
don't consider them less Apostolic so long as they baptise in Jesus' name.

I'm not asserting that there exists a monolithic standard of Apostolicism
that conincides with any organisation.  I think there are basic Apostolic
principles (which I have stated above) that make us Apostolic in our
perception of the identity of God and the meaning of  the Gospel.

But, at what  point has a church departed from the true Apostolic message?
Are we to receive trinitarianism despite its evolutionary history, its pagan
and false philosophy?  Are we to affirm salvation by works?  Can we receive
the veneration of the saints, the mediation of the priesthood, the
co-redemption of the Virgin Mary?


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.


[Starcher]:
>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.


[Matthew]:
That sounds like a fair description of the Lord's Supper, but I don't think
Catholics experience Christ as they *think* they do in the sacrament.

>>
>> 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.


[Starcher]:
>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.


[Matthew]:
I guess this is the religious version of the preference/orientation argument
raging on a more carnal issue=)

>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.


[Starcher]:
>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?

[Matthew]:
Jesus, is God the Son, they are seeking to serve.  They have not even
understood His true identity.

[Starcher]:
  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?

[Matthew]:
I'm just a bit precautious about some of the things you say.  I do agree
that we aren't building the faith of others when we're tearing it down.  I
believe that the truth can be constructed on a protestant, Catholic or
orthodox understanding of the Gospel, but I don't believe that the Truth is
fully present until there is an acknowledgement of God's true identity and a
conversional experience based on that knowledge.

[Starcher]:
  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!


[Matthew]:
Of course, we don't have a monopoly on truth.  I believe Apostolic
Pentecostalism has become, in many ways, a filter and interpretive tool of
truth.  As I've said before, whilst I believe we posssess the closest
message to the NT Apostolic Church, we should feel privileged and not elite.


>> 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.


[Starcher]:
>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.

[Matthew]:
Please, don't think I mean that you're in any way apostate.  Again, our
understanding *is* different, but I'm not judging you.  I honestly believe
that you understand and believe the true, apostles' doctrine.

[Starcher]:
  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!


[Matthew]:
Fine, brother, of course, you are entitled to your opinions.  I'm not trying
to belittle you, but I think you use this forum far too often to criticise
conservative Apostolics who receive this message as *THE* message.

If I seem particularly defensive, I suppose it is because I grew up in a
different way.  I was raised AOG, and I praise God that He has brought me
into this marvellous truth.  I believe I have effectively discussed this
truth outside of Apostolic circles with a humble attitude and with an
acknowledgement of our common efforts to know Christ and more of Him.  This
approach, to me, is effective and does not require that I compromise this
Truth which I have received in order to represent my beliefs.

I have found commonalities, and I'm always thrilled to realise that the
chasm that divides us from some expressions is not as great as we may think.
I'm thankful for those who are flowing out of denominationalism into the
full light of the Apostolic message.  In the meantime, I'm not doing them
any favours by patting their backs and assuring them that their present
stance is correct enough for me.  We can discuss our differences, reach
understandings and affirm  our commonalities, but not at the cost of
sacrificing my Apostolic faith.

I understand that you are not as well.  But, I do think that you are not
looking at the issue properly.

Please don't be offended by what I say on this issue.  I embrace you as a
brother in Christ, and I have no ill feelings toward you.  If your efforts
convert one soul to right doctrine and into the true body  of the Lord, I'm
thrilled.

We must each work according to conviciton and understanding.  Our
differences give us different strengths and weaknesses as we approach other
believers.

I would only ask that you rethink your approach those of us who are solidly
convinced of our Apostolic experience and not use this list to make us sound
as if we are narrow-minded Christians on a fast track to self-annhiliation
through isolationism.

With all love,

Bro. Matthew