We Who? Re: An Apostolic Declaration for the Third Millenium 1

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

Steve Starcher:

>> Mike Reed:
>
>>  Why are you speaking for all Apostolics?
>
>Brother Reed, the Apostolic Declaration for the Third Millennium will
>appear on The Apostolic Pentecostal Journal Web site.  This Web site
>states openly  that it is presenting the Apostolic faith
>from a moderate perspective.  I do not and cannot speak for
>conservatives or liberals.


Just courious, but why did you not entitle the document "Moderate
Apostolic Declaration for the Third Millennium" to further separate
yourself from us. This is your goal right...ot be "Apostolic" but not
one of those (being us) Apostolics?

>> This is not the general consensus of the majority of the Apostolics I
know.
>
>Please be patient with me Brother Reed.  Building an Apostolic identity
>takes
>time.  Hopefully The Apostolic Pentecostal Journal Web site will help
>build the identity of which I write.

This idea of "building a new identity: intregues me.

>> Do you exclude them as Apostolics?  You
>> need to make it clear that it is **your** declaration that you accept
>> those
>> that have not experienced the New Birth as Christians and not **our**
>> declaration.
>
>Bro Reed, we have been over and over this point.  You know that
although
>I call them Christians out of the respect I have for their faith in
>Christ I still maintain that they should obey Acts 2:38.  If anyone is
>inconsistent it is you, Brother Clifton, and Sister Lynne.  How can you
>deny these people anything which resembles Christianity yet read their
>books, use the Bibles they have translated, and sing their songs?
>Brother Reed, to me this is just not intellectually credible!


Yet another attack and attirbuted attitudes towards me....

I have said in the past and will say again in the future that I do not
doubt their faith and even their sincerity but they have not obeyed the
Word of God regarding salvation. Now the reason they have not is the
false teaching they are under. The Bible says someting about this

Matt 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly
Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Matt 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if
the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

I have often stated that God can move upon a person without them being
saved...He moved on me and probably everyone in the list, He sent an
angel to talk with Cornielus and Paul found the disciples of John. They
had faith and loyalty to the teachings they had learned of Christ
through...but there was more!

So yes a non saved person can be gifted of God, used of God...but unless
that person is obedient to the Word they will not receive the Holy Ghost
and have remmission of sin :o(

>>  Bro. Starcher:
>>  If I recall correctly, you, Sis Lynne, and
>> Bro Clifton are the ones who claim to speak for all Apostolics.  In
>> fact, you three seem to believe that anyone who does not agree with
>> your
>> version of the Apostolic faith is not really an Apostolic at all!
>
>>  Please cut and paste where I have said anything like that.  I will
>> hold your
>> feet to the fire on this one.
>
>Brother Reed, in this post you refuse to acknowledge the possibility
>that others possess real Christian faith.  You also are quite upset
that
>I am tolerant of other Apostolics by acknowledging their right to be
>called Apostolics even when their theology diverges from the New Birth
>message.  But I stand corrected.  You do not believe that everyone who
>disagrees with you is going to hell.  I am very impressed that you are
>tolerant in this way and anticipate a kinder, gentler Mike Reed in
>future posts!


See my answer above...it is not a question of faith, it is the teachings
that is the problem.

>>  There you go again. "An affirmation of **our** Apostolic Faith"?
Why
>> do you
>> include me in your declaration? Why can't you say this is Steve
>> Starcher's
>> declaration?
>
>Brother Reed, what I am doing here is building a "Moderate Apostolic"
>identity.  I want others, including Trinitarians to view the Apostolic
>faith from a moderate perspective.  I am  building an identity!  Now,
if
>you do not like this then you should get very busy because I am going
to
>be posting a whole lot of "Moderate" articles to the internet and
>challenging your conservative  Apostolic identity!


oh no... you are going to challenge us, what a surprise. I hope your
"new" identity has scriptural merit and is not soley based upon modern
thinking and philosophy. I hope that you will not sell out those things
which are good and true, I hope you will not sell out to make friends
with the denominal world.

>Also, I openly state the perspective I am coming from, AKA Moderate.
>Will you state openly that you are coming from a conservative
>perspective?


I open state that I come from a Bible believing persprctive, that
NOTHING over rules the Word of God...NOTHING. That is my perspective.

>>  Bro. Starcher:
>>  Did you miss my posts on the Apostolic norm for the Church?  I
>> anticipated some hallelujahs from you and Brother Clifton but somehow
>> they weren't forthcoming.
>>
>>  Mike:
>>  I may have missed it.  After all, I can't read everything you write.
>> Believe
>> me, if "halleujahs" are in order, I will give them.
>
>Bro Reed, this really disappoints me.  How can you assume that you have
>my theology "tuned in" and "figured out" when you acknowledge that you
>don't read my posts?
>
>To be honest, this is why I have stopped dialoguing with Brother
>Clifton.  I tire of individuals not reading my posts, attributing to me
>beliefs that I do not possess, and desiring me to continually answer
the
>same questions.

No, now lets get the record straight here...your stopping our dialogue
was a response to a series on modern thinking I did. A Biblical
perspective as opposed to the Philisophical perspective you hold so
dear. A perspective that the men who followed Chirst had the true Gospel
and that we need to get back to that as opposed to worrying about the
writings of a 20th century man. Rather than try to answer me with the
Bible as the referance you ignored me, because you have no answer other
than labeling and generalizations! BTW - just because a man is the
president of an organization, it does not mean he is the best, wisest or
even representative of the norm...I give for an example Bill Clinton.

As for reading your posts...I did, and do...that is why my remarks are
normally imbedded within your posts! I read it, pray about it for
guidance nad then later I reply if I feel there is need to reply.

>Brother Reed, please reread my posts.  I hope to have
>them available on The Apostolic Journal Web site soon.  Then be
specific
>with your questions.  A shotgun approach just doesn't work well in this
>type of dialogue!


Specifc....give me a break, we have tried to be specifc, Bro Litteral
treid to be specific and you avoid him a year ago...so I guess the reply
here should be "give us a specific answer to our questions".

>> Bro. Starcher:
>>  You know that in my expositions of scripture I
>> have no difficulty with Acts 2:38 as the New Birth.  At the same time
>> I
>> have to acknowledge that there are a whole lot of Apostolics who
>> believe
>> otherwise!
>
>>  Mike:
>>  I have to acknowledge that I don't agree with those that you say
>> "believe
>> otherwise."
>
>Brother Reed, I have stated this before, but it must be said again.  It
>is very obvious that your primary concern is not having individuals
>baptized in Jesus name, not having individuals filled with the Holy
>Spirit and speak in tongues, not having people receive the revelation
of
>the fullness of God in Christ.  You primary concern is not evangelism,
>converting individuals to Jesus Christ the Apostolic way.  Your primary
>concern is not discipleship, teaching individuals how to serve Jesus
>Christ.  Your primary concern is defending your theological system,
>which I have identified with Fundamentalism.  This is also true of
>Brother Clifton and Sis Lynne.


Funny thing....The Acts 2:38 message is the ONLY 100% fulfillment of the
Great Commission (as I have stated many times before and you seem to
have ignored those posts as well). So with repentance, baptism in the
Name of Jesus and infilling of the Holy Ghost you have done nothing for
the people. If you miss that you miss the point of the Gospel. I care
not about Fundementalism, you are only using that to not have to discuss
issues on a Biblical level. I care about souls getting saved and there
is one way...and one way only.

>
>This is a tragedy.  This is not the essence of Christianity.  This is
>not Scriptural.  This is not Apostolic.

Acts 2:38 - Peters responce to the hungry,
Acts 8: Stephen preaching to Samerians
Acts 9 & 22 Pauls conversion
Acts 10;48 - Peter again,
Acts 11 Peter defending preaching...same thoughts,
Acts 19 - Paul and the discsipe of John

What is not Apostolic is to not follow the example of the Apostiles. I
am beginning to see that your definition of Apostolic is no where near
the same as mine. I get the name from the teachings of the Apositles...I
am not sure why you have the name...your theology is more what I would
call Charismatic.


>And this is what is hindering
>the spread of the Apostolic faith.  This is what is keeping multitudes
>from becoming Apostolics. This is what is driving 1000's, yes 1000's of
>Apostolics away from the Apostolic movement.  I can no longer be silent
>and watch the movement I love and cherish hemorrhage by the blind
>devotion of Apostolics to a theological system and a philosophy.  I
will
>present the Apostolic faith from a moderate perspective and, unlike
you,
>Brother Clifton, and Sis Lynne rejoice whenever someone obeys the
>Apostolic gospel, whether or not they agree with my theological system.


So your theological system is NOT the Apostolic gospel????? I helped a
man get baptized (in a ALJC church) and rejoiced. I prayed with a
baptist and he got the Holy Ghost and rejoiced....you have again lied
about me and I tire of this methodology out of you. Lets talk facts or
lets not talk...OKAY?

>>  Mike B4:
>
>>  Why does Steve Starcher "declare" that "we"
>>  Apostolics believe those that have not followed Christ into his
>> death,
>>  burial,
>>  and resurrection, through repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus
>> > Christ in
>> > water, and the infilling of the Holy Ghost, with the evidence of
>> > speaking in
>> > other tongues, are Christians?
>
>This is a moderate perspective Brother Reed.  I requested a post
>outlining your perspective.  This should be very easy for you to
produce
>as it seems that you define yourself as something other than a
>conservative.  Please Brother Reed, make your arguments in the context
>of what I have written and respond to what I have written.


For those that just missed it starcher just asked Bro Reed to abide by
starcher's line of thought (he limits the conversation).

<snipped>This is the passion which
>drives you, Brother Clifton, and Sis Lynne. And let us be honest and
see
>where it has taken us!  It is estimated that 80% of Apostolic young
>people leave the church!

Read Genesis...only Seth and Abel are mentioned of the children of Adam
as being good...if they had only 10 kids....

The loss of the children is a passion of mine and we can not sell out
the doctrine to allow the kids to "stay". Bro. Starcher a year ago I
went through a church split were the conservatives (the very
conservative, that think the holiness is job 1) ran off those of us that
thought winning souls was job 1. We now have a better church, we have a
thriving jail ministry and outreach. We are growing with new visitors
almost every week (6 baptisms this year). I and my wife are spend many
hours to jazz up the Sunday School to try and compete and little with
the entertainment of the world. There is a lot of work going on...but
the basics are the basics. I might agree with you on some issues of
holiness, but it is important and should be taught...with love and
wisdom.

>The UPCI has not grown enough in the last 10
>years to account for the discipling of its own children into the
>denomination!

I do not hold a lot of credence to the "counts" as my church offers 1
count a year and there is a calculation based on that count of the
actual church attendance.

>The Apostolic movement is vilified and labeled as a cult!

Yeah...and Peter got himslef crucified and Paul was beheaded....the
world hating us for His name sake is nothing new...do you change to make
the world happy?

>Apostolics endure schism after schism as they separate over every
>conceivable doctrine!

This is sad, people leave over issues just like this list has seen in
the last year. A person that does not like the doctrine attacks it and
causes a split in the local church, local org or even the national org.
Here again, many that have been "saved" in the UPC are now in
other....still Apostolic (we almost went independant) churchs.They are
not counted by the UPC, but they are counted in heaven.

<Brother Reed, this breaks my heart!  How can you
>lead the young people the Lord has entrusted to you down this path?
How
>can you hide your head in the sand like an Ostrich and not see what has
>happened to the Apostolic movement as a result of your theology?


NOT theology...attitude. The problem is that things are presented in
black and white with no room for personal growth. I teach personal
conviction and growth. You do not toss out the Baby with the bath water.

>>
>>  Bro. Starcher:
>>  Brother Reed, I haven't noticed any disclaimers in any of your posts
>> saying that what you write is only your opinion and does not reflect
>> the
>> faith of other Apostolics.
>>
>>  Mike:
>>  That is simply because I have not made statements like "we as
>> Apostolics"
>> when stating my opinions.
>
>This is wonderful Brother Reed!  This means that you recognize that
your
>theology is not infallible, that it is just one Apostolic's opinion!
>Maybe your little dialogues with me are  bearing fruit!


This is very subtle...but I wish to point out the statement here that
Bro Reed is wrong and Bro Starcher is right that Bro Starcher makes.
Because Bro Reed has perceved attitude, Bor Starcher claims credit for
changing him to a better way of thinking (the fruit).

>>   Bro. Starcher;
>>  I know that my presentation of the Apostolic faith is not
>> representative
>> of all Apostolics.
>>
>>  Mike:
>>  Then why didn't you say that. Instead you wrote, "we."
>
>Brother Reed, I like to have people agree with me.  Especially Sis
>Starcher!  This is an affirmation of an Apostolic identity!  "We" means
>that we agree that this is our identity as members of the Apostolic
>Pentecostal Christian community.  What is so bad about some Apostolics
>agreeing to agree on certain aspects of the Apostolic faith?  If you do
>not agree, then do not sign the Declaration!  If you do not agree then
>get busy and present some positive statements about the Apostolic faith
>rather than spending all of this time critizing me.

It is not you...it is not personal...it is a doctrinal issue. Do not
take it personal, do not assume such is the reason. I post against what
I see as "false" words...not against anything that Bro Starcher says!

> Or you could form a
>new Apostolic group, "The Anti-Starcherites".  All they would have to
do
>is deny all of the affirmations I have made and all of the theology in
>my posts!


Get off your high horse there bud....pride goeth before the fall. Do not
think that we are after you, we are after a system of false doctrine and
a deceitful style of posting  that is creaping into our midsts. It is
the message, I care not WHO the messenger is!!

Lord Bless,
Bill


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