Being Apostolic In The Modern World 9

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

Steve Starcher wrote:
>>Bill Clifton wrote:
>> So what do you propose is to be done...again please give me
>> application
>> as well as theology. Do we cease teaching Acts 2:38 as salvation once
>> the person is asking "What should I do?", do we present multiple
>> suggestions with the Apostolic doctrine beign but one?  You see it is
>> all fine and dandy to state that we (a generalization of Apostolics)
>> assume we are infallible (although I do not agree with that
>> assessment)
>> and say we claim to have 100% of the truth (again I do not see that)
>> but
>> it is another to say "and here is where you make your error " and
>> state
>> a Bible based refutement of something we claim as doctrine.
>
>Brother Clifton, why can't you accept the fact that I am Apostolic and
>believe and practice Acts 2:38?  It seems that you are fixated on the
>fact that while I ardently hold to the Apostolic faith I acknowledge
the
>Christian faith of others and values their spiritual experiences.  To
>you this means I must believe in multiple ways to salvation.  I do not!
>Jesus is the only way to salvation.  Please do not try to make me say
>something I do not believe.  We have been over this point before, why
>can't we move on?


I really wish I could, but you always seem to post things like the one I
qouted that cloud the issue, that ride the fence and oft times look as
if you desire to please man and not God. I dont discredit the faith of
others (takes a great deal of faith to believe teachings that are not
supported by the Bible just because a man says they are given to him by
God) I do at times wonder exactly what they really have faith in.


Maybe if you specified the points you disagree with I would then not
have to fixate on the ones you seem to disagree with....

>I have
>> asked
>> time and time agian for you to move to a deeper level in this
>> discussion, to talk actual doctrine or application instead of all
>> generalities.
>
>I did a whole lot of exegesis in my posts on salvation.  Please go back
>to these posts and interact with the Scriptures they reference.


You sure did and I posted 3-4 responces to you and you chose not to
contiue the discussion, but start a new lengthy series.

>> >How do we receive this correction Brother Clifton?  If we approach
>> Holy
>> >Scripture with the presupposition that our doctrines are already
100%
>> >correct how can we be open to the correction of the Word and Spirit?
>> >The answer is that we can't.  No matter how much we say we are open
>> for
>> >new insights from the Word our presuppositions preclude new
insights.
>> >We have arrived, our theology is final.  Holy Scripture becomes a
>> >commentary on our theology, not our theology a commentary on Holy
>> >Scripture!  Isn't this the theological method of a whole lot of
>> >Apostolics?
>>
>> Many (of many denominations) are not open to change, but you can not
>> claim a better gospel or a better method based upon "modern thinking"
>> or
>> philosphy and expect a Bible believing Christian to just accept man's
>> wisdom over the Word of God.
>
>Could you please answer the question in the above paragraph Brother
>clifton.  How do you receive the correction of the Spirit if you
believe
>that your doctrines are 100% correct?  Also, you have not yet explained
>how your theology is capable of error and therefore not infallible.


Okay Brother (you did not chose to quote all the post, especially the
part where I stated that I know I probably do not have 100% of the
truth) lets try this again and see how you will misdirect my statement
to avoid the real issues.

1) At this moment in time I do believe that I am 100% in line with the
Bible(as everybody should be) to the best of my knowledge, study and the
guidance of the Holy Ghost. Because by the very desire to please God I
would change anything that I know to be wrong, I would study diligently
anything (and I am currently studing a few topics) that I suspect to be
wrong. But until I am corrected by the Word of God through the guidance
of the Holy Ghost I have to assume I am right. Anything "outside" my
current beliefs is open to discussion and I love to study other versions
of the gospel, but I do not take anyone seriously any claim that is not
backed by the Bible.

2) To have an issue "how your theology is capable of error and therefore
not infallible" I would have to be shown by an annoited person or led by
the Spirit to know that which is the good, acceptable and perfect will
of God. Now philosopher, teacher or other man using man's wisdom and
generalities will not have any effect on my Bible base Holy Ghost led
beliefs.

Now if you think I am wrong. please submit details (seems like I have
asked this before) instead of generalities and assumptions with no
proofs that I am just wrong because I think I am right.

>> This is following the scientific method....
>> 1) ask a question
>>      What was preached in the original church. (good place to start
>> your
>> doctrine)
>> 2) form a theory
>>     Well...lets start with sermon # 1 of the original church (Peter
on
>> the day of
>>     Pentecost) and say that this is the plan of salvation.
>> 3) perform a test (or research)
>>     Is this message ever refuted or replaced, is there another
message
>> preached
>>     and on and on. You could (and should) spend a great deal of time
>> in
>> this test.
>>     Actually this test really never ends as we should always be
>> studing
>> to show
>>     ourselves approved.
>> 4) Evaluate the results to see if your theorem was right or needs
>> adjusting
>>     Did a scripture "seem" to be opposed to Peter's message and was
>> Peter's
>>     message ever repeated?
>> 5) Act accordingly
>>     At this point you can stand pat on your theorem (the point you
>> criticize people
>>     for) or keep trying to better the theorem. There comes a point
>> were
>> you will feel
>>     strongly that you have a good theorem, now you have to wait for
>> "challanges" to
>>     this and take them through the same process.
>>
>> When you are done you better have a doctrine that uses all of the
>> Bible
>> in its verification, so I do not see what is wrong with the case you
>> quote. The methods used are much better than just "expereinces" or
>> man's
>> wisdom.
>
>Did you notice that you left Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit out of
>this entire process Brother Clifton?  I appreciate you acknowledging
>that you are in fact a modernist interpreting Holy Scripture by the
>modern Scientific method.  Could you please show how the the writers of
>the new Testament used the same scientific method to interpret
>scripture?  You do claim to be an Apostolic and not only follow their
>theology but their methods don't you?


Really...how in the world do you think I evaluate the data verses a
theorem. Ever heard of prayer and meditation on a scripture? Who do you
think helps me on points 4 & 5...and really points 1, 2 & 3 too. Bro
Starcher I tire of you endless attempts to label me as a close minded
simplton that blindly follows some archaic doctrine. You see you can
attack for any angle you desire but until you get off the new age
philosophy and off the praise of modern thinking and get down to the
basics of Jesus Chirst, the Word He left for us and the guidence of HIs
Spirit you are just blowing hot air.

>> >We need to start with Holy Scripture.  What was the revelation the
>> >original authors of Scripture received?  How did God speak to them
in
>> >their original historical and cultural context, in their horizon of
>> >understanding?
>
>> He first taught them in person, then he opened their understanding
>> that
>> they might understand the scriptures and then he gave them the Holy
>> Ghost to lead them.
>
>But he taught them as members of a distinct culture and at a particular
>point in History didn't he?  Did he first save them from their culture
>so that they could learn about God?  Did he speak KJV English to them?


Save them from their culture...no their culture in the end killed them.
He saved them from their sins and sinful lifestyle. He change their
hearts and found good ground to teach them. This has no cultural
boundaries...this is why there is a world wide revival in the Apostolic
(Conservative branch). Because the Words of Jesus are not bound by
culture, race or age...they are TRUE yesterday, today and tomorrow. We
do not have to get in the Lord's head to see what He "really meant", we
need to read and obey what He "really SAID".

Again a poke at my intellegence, but I will answer...no he spoke in
either a dead form of Greek (Koine (sp) ) or Aramic (equally dead) so I
guess His words are equally dead since nobody in the world actively uses
these languages. I guess the only people he died for that live today are
scholars.....

>>
>> >This is how the message of Scripture was given wasn't
>> >it?  We need to know their message, their horizon of understanding,
>> and
>> >allow that message and horizon of understanding to grasp us and
>> >transform our 21st century horizon of understanding.  This means
>> >following the guidance of the Holy Spirit as he leads us into more
>> >truth.
>>
>> Again, why should our understanding be different than theirs? Same
>> God,
>> same gospel they have not changed. We need less modernizing of the
>> Scriptures and more simplifying, less explaining what was REALLy
meant
>> and more obedience.
>
>If we need less modernizing of the Holy Scripture then why do you
choose
>to use a Scientific method to interpret Holy Scripture Brother Clifton?
>You can't have it both ways!  Please reread my post on Holy Scripture
in
>this series which talks about the nature of language.  I think you
>missed some important points.


What do you mean both ways...the method 1) predates Christ and 2) does
no change the meaning but logically sorts through the data (scriptures)
and gives the most correct result (doctrine). I did not miss any
important points...I ignored many of your thoughts as your opinions.

>How can you possibly say that we need less explaining about what Holy
>Scripture really meant?  This sentence alone should verify the fact
that
>you really aren't concerned about the exegesis of Scripture, that you
>already know everything and just want obedience to your doctrines.
this
>is really sad Brother Clifton.  Why not tell everyone not to think any
>more that you will give them all of the answers about their faith.


You (and many people of the Liberal persuasion that look to explain away
the scriptures) imply that Jesus "hid" the truth in the Bible. That only
thought higher learning can we truly come to know Him. I got a news
flash for ya....God wants us saved and did not hid the truth...He
started His church with it and Borther He never changed it. Now the
"perfection" of the saint requires a great deal more to reach (cause it
is only open to a Holy Ghost filled person) but salvation is simple
because God knows that people are swayed and blinded by the world and so
He made it really east to understand.

>
>> >We must never assume that we possess all of God's truth.
>>
>> I do not, but lest the Lord moves upon me then to teach and preach
>> anything else is (as I stated before) in direct disobediance to the
>> Word
>> of God and in some cases might be viewed as being ashamed of the
>> Gospel.
>
>Only someone who believed that they possessed all truth would say that
>we need to stop explaining what the Bible originally meant!


Only someone that is trying to change the Word of God would think that
God hid His meanings so that only learned people could find the nuggets.
This is how the Catholic Chruch hid the truth from people...by saying
that only the priests could read and interprete the scritpures as the
rest where to ignorant!

>>
>> >We must not deify human reason until it becomes an idol .....
>>
>> You surely mean that we should not think that a man derived thought
>> process is better than the wisdom of the Lord.
>
>Like the Scientific method which you propose to use to establish the
>truthfulness of Apostolic doctrine?  Yes!  I think you have embarked
>upon a Don Quixote adventure, wanting to slay windmills, and to chase
>the impossible dream.


This is good....you claim we need to use modern thinking to disprove our
doctrine, but if we use it to prove our doctrine then it is a bad bad
thing...you need to find a stand and stick with it. Well or at least
admit what your stand is...

Bill Clifton


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get Your Own Free Pop or Web Based Email and a
10MB Web Site for FREE at: http://www.nettaxi.com!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=