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

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

>From the Computer of Bro. Nally:
>Sis Yohnk scribeth....
>
>>Brother Starcher, 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.
>
>I believe that time-and-time-again we've read where he *DOES* strive
>for these.... just not in the same fashion/methods.
>
>>You primary concern is not evangelism,
>>converting individuals to Jesus Christ the Apostolic way.
>
>Still don't think that we've seen this either... he's told of several
>times where he's been successful at discipling others into the
apostolic
>fold from what's been called greater christendom.
>
>>Your primary
>>concern is not discipleship, teaching individuals how to serve Jesus
>>Christ.
>
>Nope, not seen this either.
>
>>And then changed it slightly more and said:
>>  Your primary concern is defending your theological system, which I
have
>>identified with Liberalism.  This is also true of others who agree
with
>>you.
>


Amazing brother you just corrected her for her post, yet you allowed the
same post (names changed) to flow towards us and no public rebuttal was
forthcoming. Are you agreeing with Starcher about these traits applying
to us?

I quote :

"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.  "


>It's his method that's different.  Not his love for our Lord.

Method...yes I agree, Love for the Lord...that I can not judge so I
assume you are correct, but at the same time we seem to keep stepping
all over ourselves to avoid the root issue here about the absolutness of
the plan of salvation according to the Word of God.

>Let's see
>if we can make an example of what is traditional and what is a little
>different and yields the same results.  Let's do it with mathematics...
>specifically addition.
<snip>
>Imagine that!  The same answer using a different method!  You'll not
>normally see the other way to do it taught in schools, but it's equally
>as effective and is probably even quicker to perform.  Without scratch
>paper even!


If you are wishy washy on salvation, if you are not set on what
constitutes salvation then how can you teach anyone? If you see many
paths you will not teach the one path if a person resists. If you do not
teach, then they will not hear and will not be saved...The issue is not
about methodolgy, it is about what the Lord laid forth regarding
salvation.

>I think, about Bro Starcher, you've got to realize is that you don't
>see him *witnessing* out there in the real world because you're not
>in his local area.  You're only getting one teeeeeny tiny aspect of
>what the brother is all about based on something that has been already
>condemned by some around here (a supposedly friendly place for
apostolics
>to hang out).  There's times when he's wrote about camping trips for
the
>youth in Yosemite and the spendor of how God was there to all.

Again amazing, and these do not apply to others in the list...even Sis
Yohnk herself (I recall her posts on Liberty, The Sabboth and Ladies
meetings). He has consistantly used generaliations, straw men and even
out and out mistruths to discredit us, all the while avoiding discussion
of actual scripture.

>>I wonder about the acceptance level. I have done this on numerous
>>occasions. Taking his words and turning them around and being told I
was
>>unloving.
>
>I think the first paragraph where you stated ... "Your primary concern
>is not".... "Your primary concern is not".... "Your primary concern is
>not" .... shows that you're trying to tear down the man rather than
>building him up.  Now, whether the motive is to *flush out the skunk*
>or *to correct a brother*, determines whether it's done in a loving
>manner.  Right now, I don't know what the motives are.


Brother...she quoted Starcher and replace referances of us with him and
vice versa.....and you proved her point :o(

>I think that Bro Starcher's writings are definitory *within* the
apostolic
>movement.

Now as a group we know what your stance is....


Again this is not personal against a man...I would love to take all
personalities out of it and talk scripture, but that is not possible! We
(the whole list) do need to move on from this...but I really do not see
how that can be done given the wide division of definition of basic
ideologies that now exist.

Lord Bless;
Bill

PS: Sis Kerridge's idea of a time of fast for the list....might be a
good thing.....


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