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.

This is again is opposed to every post I have made. IF you are Apostolic
and IF you really hold the Biblical plan of salvation as a must (which I
do not see youever saying it is a must) then you hold Acts 2:38 in what
si commonly refered to as an "Apostolic Way". If you desire to have less
importance placed on the plan of salvation and more on the easier issues
i.e. Love and being good...then join the ranks of those whos doctrine
already meets yours and stop trying to modify the Apostolic to meet you
ecumemical goals.

What you call the "correct theological system" is my insistance on the
necessity of following Acts 2:38. So brother does your theology (again I
ask) include another path to have ones sins remitted and to have ones
soul redeemed?

> 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 would what I will say next time by snipping a lot of scripture....

What I wish to say is that ALL of this is about the necessity of the new
birth experience. Your words about the Apostolci Doctrine do not match
your words about Apostolics and Christians as a whole. So brother, which
do we believe your claims of being Apostolic or you posts that seem to
lean away from the very tenets that define an Apostolic. This is not
about theology...this is about souls in heaven. I suppose that your lack
of responce to my posts should be seen as approval?

>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.


Yeah, I wrote that, and you seem to not understand what I am meaning. I
agree with your "blank Aposotolic decree" yet I do not agree when you
say **I Steve Starcher have a new and better way and way that allos us
to be acceptable to the denominal world** which is in effect your bottom
line goal. You want to meet them on their ground and not on Biblical
ground. To get your new image you use philosophy and when asked for
scripture to support yourself you either ignore the poster or you move
on and never answer for yourself.

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


You based ONE POST on scripture (seems like I ma repeating myself here)

>> 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!


You never did answer those posts...I was asked by two moderators to stop
making it personal (which it is not..but they refered to my directly
addressing you) so I did. And the only response you had was to say that
you would no longer talk to me.

>
>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".


Agian, you address them yet turn around and seem to toss them out to
allow the denominal world to be saved. I have said many times that I
hate this false doctrine of that misdirects the faith and devotion of
many in a way that falls just short of the fullness that the Lord
offers, and it does fall short :o(

>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).


Did you (or any of your supporters) address my posts on the Great
Commission...if you agreed with them then why are we having these
discussions?

>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?


Can we say "out of context"???

My comment was towards the statement you made (and I quote from your
reply in the thread... "Who We? Re: An Apostolic Declaration for the
Third Millenium 1")

"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."

This a lie and a slander and a personal insult...I called it that and
you attrirbute it to your "historical and Biblical facts" now tell me
WHO is out of context and WHO is attacking who?

>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?


Firstly I have often said that I am not concerned with 20th centry men
when I have the record of the Apositles to view and they never used the
term Christian about themselves. Ya know I was an atheist and thought I
was okay until I was born again and only then did I realize how lost I
was (so should I call atheists saved since I was one once??).
Christians are followers (obeyers in actions as well as words) of Jesus
Christ and if they deny the very last message He gave then how can we
say " Hey bud...see you in heaven!!"

>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!


My concern is the Word fo God...can you understand that...I am a what
you call a "Fundamentalist" (you use it as an insult) in that I believe
the Bible. The Holy Ghost has lead me to understand things within the
Word and had convicted me of such. This is not a theological,
philisophical or any other ...ical argument. It is about what people
HAVE to do to be saved.

>> 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!


If the shoe fits...wthin your responce is at least one blatently
deception on quote referances and a few more skirting the true issue.

>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.


WHOA....here is his statement again...the same one Sis Yohnk got nail
for and that a moderator stated should NEVER make it to the list....but
I guess if it is direct towards me and Sis Yohnk it is okay??

>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.


No...I have never said you imbrace the Doctrine...I say that you can
quote it...I can quote the pledge that Russians made to be in their
army...does not make me a russian soldier!

>
>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.


Again (for the umpteenth time) I agree that there is room for some
change. I have talked about the change within the new church I attend.
But we must hold to that which is true!

Lord Bless;
Bill


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