Being Apostolic In The Modern World 9

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

Steve Starcher wrote:

>>Bill Clifton wrote:
>
>> ><snip>  Please explain once again how you do not possess all of
God's
>> >truth, how your theology is not identical with Holy Scripture.
>> Brother
>> >Reed, if you theology is identical with Holy Scripture then why do
we
>> >still need the Bible?
>>
>> Well now...funny thing here is that the Scriptures (specifically the
>> letters of Paul to Timothy) refute the last part of this
statement....
>>
<snipped a lot on my quotes from Timothy>

>> All of this in the same letter! First Timothy had the plan of
>> salvation
>> and the doctrine of Paul (got it first hand 2 Tim 1:13) and Timothy
>> had
>> been studing since he was a child (strange that Paul wanted him to
>> hold
>> fast to the words that he told him as well as the scriptures). Then
he
>> also tells Timothy that he should still study. Inspite of it all
>> study.
>> Now we do not assume 100% scriptural knowledge, but I have yet to see
>> a
>> good refutation of the issue of heaven and hell. So if you are ready
>> to
>> give examples of where and how I am wrong then lets do that,
otherwise
>> I
>> would appreciate the qualifier of "some" before any other negative
>> reference of Apostolics. Your generalities are very bluntly not true.
>
>Brother Clifton, thank you for this quotation from Timothy which does
>indeed prove that you in fact do consider your doctrines identical with
>Holy Scripture.  It is very clear that you believe there is a 1 to 1
>correspondence.  How is this not possessing infallible doctrine?


Bro Starcher....if anyone knows that are not in line with the original
doctrine and chose to reamain outside the truth then they are willingly
ignorant and will spend eternity in hell. I do not know any "Chirstian"
that does not believe that they are in a doctrine that is the doctrine
of the original church. So yes it does prove that I (today) beleive that
I have had my understanding opened by the Holy Ghost and lead to a
doctrine that is inline with the original. Now I acknowledge that my
understanding growing and in minor areas it is becoming more detailed
through study...but the basics seem to be intact.

Do you think you are not in the will of God or know where your doctrine
does not match scripture?

>> Now I can say that I know that I have not all the truth and that
there
>> is more....
>
>Please explain how you incorporate the possibility of there being more
>into your theology Brother Clifton.  Please explain how your theology
>can err.


Done this a few times now....

>> We
>> >have very good translations of the text of Scripture.  Personally I
>> do
>> >not believe that the KJV is a good translation because it is made in
>> >archaic English and is not based on the best manuscripts.
>>
>> OHhhh the KJV argument.....this oughta be good.
>
>I knew I would get you riled up Brother Clifton!


Did not rile me up....but I knew that eventually you would start on
translations. You see I have seen the same philosophical arguements
before (from Southern Baptists and Evangelicals) and when you start to
use the Word of God as proof the next step is to cast doubt on the Word
of God, using the translations. Nothing new under the sun....

>>
>> >Now,
>> >translation involves interpretation doesn't it?  In order to
>> interpret
>> >you need to know the horizon of understanding of the author of the
>> text
>> >and the audience who was to receive the text.  Their horizon of
>> >understanding was shaped by the culture they lived in.  They were
>> real
>> >people just like you and I weren't they?  In our contemporary world
>> the
>> >authors of Scripture don't need to be saved from their culture to
>> prove
>> >the Bible is inspired and authoritative.
>>
>> Do you read or study...reading will allow the confusion of old
English
>> to happen at times, but good study will show you the meanings in new
>> light. I actually like the KJV cause I have to look up the words
since
>> oft times they do not make sense (like charity = agape = love without
>> expectation of reward).
>
>Once again, you prove my point!  You cannot even read this translation
>because it is archaic! it is written in another historical epoch, in
>another culture.   Brother Clifton, please try to be consistent in your
>arguments.  Take some time to digest the posts I have written instead
of
>just "wingin it"!


Well in response to personal integrety attack no 5 (in two just the 1st
2 posts) I do tire of you rude attempts to discredit me with statements
like the above (and others) when this discussion is not peronal, it
should be about theology, doctrine, the Lord and proper assimulation and
interpretation of the information to give a person a sound God given,
Bible based, soul saving doctrine.

As for the "winging it"...I offered my view and since I do not line up
with you I am wrong? My statement was that the archaic nature of the
language makes one study the true meanings of the words instead of
assuming that the writter of the new version is right because it "makes
sense". I often use other versions in addtion to Greek and Hebrew
dictionaries to dig into the meaings of the words. Funny thing is that I
have often wondered where the newer versions author gets his verse from
as it does not seem to match the original any better today that the 400
year old version (with its archaic language) does.

>>
>> Except that you are forcing him (and all Apostolics) to wear that
shoe
>> and if it does not fit it is not confortable and we desire to take it
>> off.
>
>That's exactly what my posts are intended to do Brother Clifton!

Now this sounds like the arguement my children have....one accuses and
the other (instead of answering the accusation) reverses it.

>If you
>don't like the way the Apostolic faith is presented then please try to
>explain it in another way.  The tendencies i have addressed are very
>prevalent in the Apostolic movement.  It is very painful pointing out
>how illogical they really are but after the agony of admitting that we
>were wrong will come the thrill of realizing that God through his Holy
>Spirit is leading us into more truth.


I agree that some have the tendancies you address (some in my church are
very much that way) BUT that is not doctrine, that is not
theology...that is attitude. So to combat a poor attitude you attack
their theology, their background and them in general? We seem to have a
big difference of opinion of ow to effect change in people. You desire
thD discussions that leave most going "Huh???" and assuming due to
volume and good grammer you gotta be correct and I prefer to simply sit
down with the Word and show them what God said.

Attacking people puts them in a corner and makes them defensive....you
have done this. This attack has not helped the schism of the people in
this list...it has widened it.  You have clouded issues, used
generalities and avoid specific discussions. You say you are Apostolic,
then blast Apostolics for not being like you and then say we blast you
for not being like us. As I stated before if this conversation gets
fleshly we will go no further, if we can not get into specific details
we will not get anything resolved and since I see no change in your
posting pattern since I made that statement I am left to assume you
desire that result. Well brother I will not lower myself, I will
proclaim the gospel and I will answer your charges (with scripture) but
I will not get into the flesh with you. This discussion is not about you
and I...it is about much truth and that is the goal.

Lord Bless;
Bill


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