The Primary Concern

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

Brother Steve:

> 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.

What were my intentions in penning these words?  I do believe that
Brother Reed, Brother Clifton, and Sis Lynne are concerned about having
individuals baptized in baptized in Jesus name, about having individuals
filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, about having people
receive the revelation of the fullness of God in Christ, about
evangelism, converting individuals to Jesus Christ the Apostolic way,
about discipleship, teaching individuals how to serve Jesus Christ. But
I think there is a concern which takes precedence over all of these
above concerns.  This concern is primary.  It is not enough to be
Apostolic in all of the above ways.  One must also have the correct
theological system.  Then, and only then, is one truly Apostolic.  Let
me illustrate this reality by Brother Clifton's responses to two of my
posts.

These responses were made only a few days after the following responses
by Brother Clifton to my post on The Apostles Doctrine. (I am including
some of text from the post in addition to the responses to establish
context.)

> Steve Starcher:

> >The Apostles' Doctrine
> >
> >Being Apostolic  means to "continue steadfastly in
> >the apostles' doctrine" (Ac 2:42).  The word "doctrine" has its
> origins
> >in the Latin term "doctrina" , which is derived from the verb "doceo"
> >teach.  The Kings James Version uses doctrine to translate "didache"
> (Mk
> >4:2; Ac 2:42; and "didaskalia" (1Tm 4:13,16; 5:17; 2Tm 3:10,16).
> Recent
> >translations have chosen to translate "didache" and "didaskalia" as
> >teaching.  This avoids the connotation that these terms refer to a
> >complete and systematic corpus of Christian doctrine which developed
> >subsequent to the Apostolic era.

Bill Clifton wrote:

> 
> Amen! This is the root of the issue, you desire to know what is right
> and true you better go to the story of the people that got the
> teaching
> first hand.

Steve:
> 
> >What was the teaching of the Apostles?  As noted above, there have
> been
> >many attempts to identify this teaching with the doctrines,
> theological
> >systems, of later Christian history.  Through eisegesis these
> doctrines
> >are read back into the  New Testament and obscure the teaching of the
> >Apostles.  The apostolic teaching focused on three realities; 1)
> Jesus
> >was the Christ (Ac 3:18); 2)  Jesus was risen from the dead (Ac 1:22;
> >2:24,32; and 3) Salvation was received by calling upon his name in
> >faith, water baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit (Ac 2:38; 3:16).
> 

Brother Clifton:

> Again, amen!

Brother Clifton:

> 
> <snipped the scriptures for brevity>

Steve:
> 
> >This is the teaching of the apostles.  This  is the Apostolic
> >proclamation of Jesus Christ.

Brother Clifton:

> 
> This is true.

When I present the Apostles' Doctrine including a large amount of
Scripture, which Brother Clifton chose to snip and not comment on,
Brother Clifton is in total agreement with me.  We both embrace The
Apostles' Doctrine.  But this is not enough.  This is not his "primary
concern".  To be Apostolic one must also express this doctrine within
the context of his theological system.  If not, then one is "deceitful"
and advocating false doctrine.  One is not really Apostolic! 

I have tried to the very best of my limited ability to present my
understanding of the Apostolic faith.  It is very frustrating when
Brother Clifton and others misrepresent what I have written and the
nature of the dialogue which has occurred.  Let us examine Brother
Clifton's arguments against my post An Apostolic Declaration for the
Third Millennium chronicling his misrepresentations.

1) Brother Clifton agrees with Brother Starcher's exposition of the
Apostles doctrine including the many scriptures it references yet
writes:

> 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.

2)  Brother Clifton knows that I base my posts on the authority of
Scripture and the first century Apostolic norm yet writes:

> 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! 

3)  Brother Clifton knows that I have specifically addressed the
salvation issue many times yet writes:

> Specifc....give me a break, we have tried to be specifc, Bro Litteral
> tried 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".

4)  Brother Clifton knows that I am Apostolic and embrace the Apostolic
message yet writes:

> 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).

5)  Brother Clifton knows that I present historical and Biblical facts
about the Apostolic movement yet writes:

> you have again lied
> about me and I tire of this methodology out of you. Lets talk facts or
> lets not talk...OKAY?

6)  Brother Clifton knows that Apostolics considered themselves
Christians in another way before they became Apostolics and that many
Apostolics today have no difficulty in acknowledging the Christian faith
of those outside the Apostolic movement yet he writes:

>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?

7)  Brother Clifton says his primary concern is not his theological
system yet writes:

> 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!

 
> 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!

Throughout this dialogue Brother Clifton's primary concern is not with
The Apostles' Doctrine, it
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.  His primary
concern is not evangelism, converting individuals to Jesus Christ the
Apostolic way.  His primary concern is not discipleship, teaching
individuals how to serve Jesus Christ.  His primary concern is defending
his theological system, which I have identified with Fundamentalism. 
This is also true of my dialogues with Brother Reed and Sis Lynne.

To defend his theological system Brother Clifton selectively reads,
interprets, and misrepresents my posts.  Brother Clifton is also
logically inconsistent in one breath affirming that I embrace The
Apostles' Doctrine and in the next breath saying that I embrace false
doctrine.

My devotion is not to a theological system.  I receive Brother Reed,
Brother Clifton, and Sis Lynne as the devoted Apostolic Christians that
they are.  I am only disenchanted by the theological system which they
have uncritically adopted to understand, present, and defend the
Apostolic faith.  I will ardently defend the fact that they are
Apostolics, while at the same time seeking to establish a new moderate
Apostolic identity in Christendom.  

God Bless!

Steve