Fw: Re: Dangerous Conclusion?

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

Here is the post written after Bro. Starcher apologized for saying that I
"raped the minds" of Catholics. He goes into derogatory remarks
immediately after he apologizes. 

Lynne Yohnk

The following is all original post:

Post summary: Bro Starcher sincerely believes he is not contributing to
Apostolics attitudes that do not exist. He apologizes if this is the
case. I accept his apology, and at the same time, demonstrate that he has
done that very thing.

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:03:40 -0800 Steve Starcher <stevstar@prodigy.net>
writes:

>What would a
>Catholic think if they read through some of your posts on Catholicism? 

I have felt to write these things. I said "unless I feel it in the Holy
Ghost" which qualified my statement. I don't feel bad about what I have
written and I trust God will use it to further His kingdom.

>I apologize if I offended you Sis Lynne. 

Alright.

You also assumed that all Catholics 
>agree
>with official Roman Catholic theology.

When I wrote my post I said I was speaking of the organization and not
individuals. You are assigning an attitude to me that does not exist,
telling me what I have assumed.
  
 You also seem to vilify Catholics referring to them as dwelling 
>in
>darkness.

  Vilify:To lower in estimation or importance. To utter slanderous or
abusive statements.  
Nope, I'm not vilifying them.  It is God's will for all people to be
treated with respect. It is also God's will for people to be told the
truth which is where my negative statements fit. I was not degrading
individuals in any way.

  And was not your statement about Catholics killing others 
>for
>doctrinal reasons kinda extreme.

It was pure fact.

>I appreciate your willingness to dialogue Sis Lynne, but this 
>dialogue
>must be informed and not overtly offensive.

What should I say now?  I'm sorry I'm uninformed and overly offensive?
Sounds like your assigning attitudes to me that do not exist again.   

>I sincerely hope I have not put thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs in 
>your
>mind Sis Lynne.  If I have, then I am wrong and apologize.

Okay, fine. I just wish you would see what I am saying at face value.
  
But are 
>not
>some on this list and a lot of Apostolics, including Bishop Smith,
>completely unwilling to dialogue with Catholics? 

I doubt it.  If there are any, I'm sure they are small in number.
Repeatedly those on the opposing side from you have indicated a
willingness to dialogue. 

 Bishop 
>Smith's
>epistle questions the Apostolic faith of those who desire to dialogue
>with Catholics.  I am glad you do not agree with him!

I probably do agree with him.  I have not read the statement so I do not
know for sure (I looked on the web but could not find it.)But I know how
confused you get about what I think and I think you may be confused there
also.

>What did I evade Sis. Lynne?  I will answer any question. 

Ok. Answer these, please. How are sins remitted? Can one go to heaven
with unremitted sin?

>From my perspective Sis Lynne the above statement violates 
>the
>sovereignty of God by absolutizing your understanding of salvation.

Here's where you are in error about my theology. This is the point that
*you* (not others) repeatedly bring up and say we are so far apart on.
When we agree that we are far apart, you then say we are close together.
The difference is that you say we are far apart on a minor issue and we
say it is a major one.

My viewpoint does *not* take away from the sovereignty of God. It *does*
leave less room for different biblical interpretations which does not
contradict itself.  I believe with all my heart that Acts 2:38 is THE
way. I am open to God for what He wants to tell me.
  
>God
>is bound by your human intellect Sis Lynne.  If our Apostolic
>forefathers possessed this attitude there never would have been an
>Apostolic movement.

See, you're attributing an attitude to me that does not exist. I am sorry
I "bind God" so much with my attitude of hanging on to human intellect!

>Why are you so obsessed with hell Sis Lynne? 

Because eternity is a long time. This question seems like evasion to me
because you did not address the statement I made. Obsession is a strong
word which is really not applicable to me. I take hell into consideration
and there is nothing wrong with that.(I am sorry I am "obsessed".)

>Anyway, those who do not obey Acts 2:38 are accountable to God.  He 
>will
>decide their eternal destiny not you and me. 

Thank God for that.

  All of 
>this
>talk of hell and wrath is unbalanced.  

I'm sorry I'm unbalanced, brother.

> It seems
>that you want to wrest this salvation from God's hands and place it 
>into
>fallible human hands.  

No, Jesus Christ did this when He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven
into the hands of Peter. 

>I do believe that biblical revelation is continuing Sis Lynne.  We do
>not possess all of God's truth.  Do you possess all of God's truth? 

The scripture says that the SPIRIT will lead and guide us into ALL truth,
and so I trust God and don't worry about it too much. I live for God and
then leave it in His hands except for fasting and praying to seek it.

 You have never garnered any
>spiritual insight from anyone other than Apostolics.  This is true 
>isn't
>it?

I've garnered spiritual insight from Readers Digest.  In fact, I used to
garner it from rock and roll sometimes before I was saved. I see no point
to your point.

>This is kinda embellishing isn't it? 

I don't know.

 You left out that I feel
>they need to understand the Fullness of God in Christ.  

I'm glad you pointed this out. I just didn't include it this time. I
suppose kind of like they didn't include everything every time they wrote
in the scriptures because everyone pretty well had a basis of
understanding.

>Maybe by being "bent" you mean that they have uncritically adopted an
>understanding of the Christian faith. 

Yes, this is what I mean. I gather you feel this way about alot of us.

>Actually I don't gloss over them.  I try to understand who these 
>false
>prophets were in their historical, cultural, and biblical context, 
>and
>then expose and condemn those who possess similar beliefs today.

Please expose and condemn something right now as an example.(Besides us.)
I would appreciate that if you would do it right now.

>Find out the beliefs of the false prophets in
>Scripture first before you make your condemnations!

I am sorry I have never, ever studied any false prophets in the bible!! I
am also sorry I make so many condemnations!

> Apostolics are not naive.

Really?

> Why must these
>similarities be denied and their souls assigned to hell as a
>precondition for dialogue?

I have not denied similarities (here is another attitude attributed to me
that is not so). I just don't think the similarities makes them saved. I
do believe that unless they obey Acts 2:38 that they will go to hell. I
have not made that assignment myself. I believe it is biblical and
therefore not my decision.  If it was up to me, there would be alot more
saved than there are. 

>I don't question your motives Sis Lynne.  Why do you question mine?

You really do question my motive when you attribute attitudes to me that
do not exist. You aren't *saying* "I question your motive" but that is
what I interpret it as.

>Sis Lynne, I am seeking to serve God the best way I know how.  If you
>think I am wrong please show me where I am in error. 

I'm trying.

 The difference between me and you Sis Lynne is that I 
>am
>more patient. 

I am sorry I am so impatient. 

You, as a fallible and
>erring human being, make that decision for God today and violate his
>sovereignty. 

OH! I am sorry I violated God's sovereignty!!

>Why did you leave Jesus Christ and the Gospel out of your message of
>salvation Sis Lynne?

Same reason Paul left out alot in alot of His writings. You all know
where I stand.(I think.)

>Sis Lynne, you know this is not representative of what I have written
>about Salvation. 

No, I really don't. Another brother said he saw it the same way I did.
I've read and read and read your posts. I really think I know what you
believe. I leave a little room for you.

Conclusion: Bro Starcher tells me I have made assumptions, I seem to
vilify, I am willing but need to be informed and not offensive, God is
bound by my intellect and if the forefathers possessed my attitude there
would have never been an Apostolic movement, asks me why I am obsessed,
says all this talk is unbalanced, that I seem to want to wrest salvation
from God's hands, tells me to find out beliefs before I make
condemnations, infers I deny similarities, tells me he is more patient
than I, and, lastly, tells me I have violated God's sovereignty.

If you have the right to say these things and be under the umbrella of
"love", then afford us the same right. I am not mad. I am pointing out
what I see to be the double standard.

Lynne Yohnk

___________________________________________________________________ You
don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get
completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or
call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]