Dangerous Conclusion?

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

This is the full post which Sis. Lynne is referencing.  I thought it
might be good for list members to review the entire text.

>Bro Steve:

> I guess I just have  a different conception of dialogue Sis Lynne.
> >From
> >my understanding of dialogue you treat others with dignity and
> >respect.

> Lynne A. Yohnk wrote:

> I fully agree.  I would not tell a Catholic I was witnessing to about
> the
> great whore unless I felt it in the Holy Ghost because it might hurt
> them.  I would try to show them doctrinal error in a loving, non
> condemnatory way.

This is great Sis Lynne!  Do you know that the posts we make on
higher-fire are archived and available on the WWW?  What would a
Catholic think if they read through some of your posts on Catholicism? 
Would they come to the conclusion that you were addressing them in a
loving non-condemmiong way?


> 
> >You don't "rape their minds" by assigning to them thoughts,
> >attitudes,
> >and beliefs which they may not possess.  You don't make them
> >something
> >less than human because they disagree with you theologically.
> 
> Here is a problem I have with your posts, Bro. Starcher.  You say "You
> don't rape their minds by assigning attitudes (etc.) they might not
> possess."  I see you doing this very thing with Apostolics (assigning
> attitudes that do not exist, for example: saying we are unwilling to
> dialogue simply because we do not say others are saved and/or
> Christians.) and yet if I said "Bro. Starcher, you cannot rape our
> minds"
> I think you would say "See there!  The attitude of Apostolics."  I see
> a
> double standard here.

Well, I'm kinda glad Sis. Starcher didn't read this "mind rape" thing. 
She's really sensitive about strong language and this is pretty strong! 
I apologize if I offended you Sis Lynne.  The point I was trying to make
is that we have to listen to others and not try to assign them thoughts,
attitudes, and beliefs they do not possess.  In your posts about
Catholics you assumed that all Catholics should be defined with your
understanding of Catholicism.  This is simply not the case.  Catholics
are as diverse as Apostolics.  You also assumed that all Catholics agree
with official Roman Catholic theology.  This is also not the case.  Do
all members of the UPCI agree with every jot and title of UPCI theology?
No!  You also seem to vilify Catholics referring to them as dwelling in
darkness.  And was not your statement about Catholics killing others for
doctrinal reasons kinda extreme.

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

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.  But are not
some on this list and a lot of Apostolics, including Bishop Smith,
completely unwilling to dialogue with Catholics?  How can they hear the
Gospel if there is not a messenger willing to go to them? 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!
 
> 
> Also, we were really getting somewhere a while back talking about
> salvation and the definition of it. You did not address those issues
> when
> we were getting to the crux of the matter which is seen as evasion by
> myself.

What did I evade Sis. Lynne?  I will answer any question.  Giving an
answer you do not want to hear is not evasion.


> My theology:
> 
> I believe Acts 2:38 to be the salvation message and that those who do
> not
> obey it will be eternally lost. I believe that some have had wonderful
> experiences with God that God has given intending to draw people to
> himself and the salvation experience of Acts 2:38. I know that God is
> sovereign and that we have limited understanding and leave room for
> God
> to change my mind about some things. When I am witnessing, I do it on
> the
> basis that the person I am witnessing to needs to hear the gospel and
> needs to obey it to be saved from eternal death.

I to believe Acts 2:38 contains the message of salvation and that all
should obey it Sis. Lynne.  But I take the sovereignty of God and my
human limitations seriously.  This means that God, and not man,  will
decide the ultimate destiny of those who have not obeyed Acts 2:38, and
that I must ever be open to the Holy Spirit to guide me into more
truth.  From my perspective Sis Lynne the above statement violates the
sovereignty of God by absolutizing your understanding of salvation.  How
do you incorporate room for God to change his mind in your theology? God
is bound by your human intellect Sis Lynne.  If our Apostolic
forefathers possessed this attitude there never would have been an
Apostolic movement.

Salvation is not just be saved from sin and hell but experiencing the
newness of life in Jesus Christ.  This is experiencing eternal life, the
life of eternity lived here and one through the Holy Spirit.


> Bro. Starcher's theology: 
> 
> He believes Acts 2:38 to be the fullness of salvation. 

This is correct.

He is not
> really
> sure whether you have to obey Acts 2:38 in order to be saved from
> hell.

Why are you so obsessed with hell Sis Lynne?  There is a whole lot more
Scripture about God's grace and heaven than there is his judgment and
wrath.  In fact. isn't it the greatness of God's Grace and the beauty of
heaven which makes his wrath and hell so abhorrent?

Anyway, those who do not obey Acts 2:38 are accountable to God.  He will
decide their eternal destiny not you and me.  We need to demonstrate the
reality od Acts 2:38 in our lives Sis. Lynne so that the salvation of
God we experience through it will be attractive to others.  All of this
talk of hell and wrath is unbalanced.  The Holy Spirit brings life and
joy.  We are saved to enjoy the  abundant life of the Kingdom of God.  


> He believes others have
> salvation
> experiences when they are healed etc. and he cannot know for sure
> whether
> they are saved from hell or not.

Other's sure do experience the reality of God's salvation Sister Lynne. 
Their salvation, as is yours and mine, is in the hands of God.  It seems
that you want to wrest this salvation from God's hands and place it into
fallible human hands.  Can you really offer a perfect judgment of the
spiritual condition of others, including Apostolics, Sis Lynne?  

Once again, I hope they are not just saved from hell, but saved to walk
in the newness of life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

>  He calls them brothers and other
> Christians because of their experiences with God. 

Perhaps it would be better to say that I treat them with the same
dignity and respect as my Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the
Apostolic movement.  Out side the Apostolic movement they don't use this
Brother and Sister Lingo.

He thinks we might
> receive further revelation if we open up our hearts and minds to
> receive
> truth from them.

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? 
Could there have been an Apostolic movement if our forefathers possessed
this attitude?

Also, Sis, Lynne, to be intellectually consistent, are you ready to say 
say that you have never read a book about the Christian faith written by
someone outside the Apostolic movement.  You have never garnered any
spiritual insight from anyone other than Apostolics.  This is true isn't
it?


>  Who knows? They might save us. 

This is kinda embellishing isn't it?  But, isn't part of living in the
kingdom of God loving our enemies.  Maybe our salvation is somehow tied
up with our attitude toward other Christians!


In the meantime, if
> they
> accept the Acts 2:38 message, they are probably being more biblical
> than
> they were before, but it is possible they were just bent that way
> anyway.

I don't really understand this Statement Sis Lynne,  If they accept Acts
2:38 they will definitely be more biblical.  You left out that I feel
they need to understand the Fullness of God in Christ.  I don't think
the Trinity is a good expression of the doctrine of God do you?  

Maybe by being "bent" you mean that they have uncritically adopted an
understanding of the Christian faith.  They just don't know the right
way to respond.  Yes, I do believe this.  Most people aren't great
theologians.  They just accept what is said and makes sense at the
moment.  We need to show them a better way!



>  Whereas my theology
> encompasses the scriptural warnings against false prophets and false
> doctrines, Bro. Starcher's theology seems to gloss over these
> warnings.

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.  It
seems that Apostolics assume that anyone who disagrees with their
theology is a false prophet.  Sis. Lynne, this isn't really following
Scripture is it?  Find out the beliefs of the false prophets in
Scripture first before you make your condemnations!

> Whereas I believe that
> we must have a form of self preservation given the scriptural
> warnings,
> Bro. Starcher doesn't seem to like self preservation too much and says
> it
> is "unwillingness to dialogue".  

Sis Lynne, I have repeatedly said that I do not want any Apostolic to
assimilate into another faith!  From my perspective the best way to do
this is to really understand the faith of others, their strengths and
weaknesses.  Apostolics are not naive.  They know when our presentations
are biased.

The only unwillingness to dialogue I see on your part Sis Lynne is your
refusal to acknowledge the similarities other Christians have to
Apostolics, to affirm their faith as genuine, oriented toward Christ,
and then proceed to present your Apostolic faith.  Why must these
similarities be denied and their souls assigned to hell as a
precondition for dialogue?


Whereas I dialogue and leave my heart
> open to God for further revelation if he were to reveal it to me, Bro.
> Starcher says unless we accept his form of theology, further
> revelation
> is not possible, even though Paul was converted under these very
> circumstances.

I am glad your heart is open to hear from God Sis Lynne.  I don't recall
saying that my theology is the only theology.  In fact I think I am one
small voice in the Apostolic movement, and even a smaller voice in
Christendom.  What I do want to do is give a contemporary expression to
our common Apostolic faith Sis Lynne. You don't have to agree with me
Sis Lynne to be an Apostolic.  But maybe your faith can be clarified and
enriched by these little dialogues?

I am open to change Sis Lynne.  In fact, you are helping me to better
express my Apostolic faith.  I need to learn from you Sis. Lynn.  That
is why I spend these hours on higher-fire.  

 

> The very fact that Bro. Starcher feels the need to talk about this
> over
> and over leads me to question is motive. 

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


 He says he is trying to get
> us
> to "dialogue" but he says we are not "dialoguing"(according to his
> definition) unless we are open to the beliefs of others. Why this
> focus,
> folks? Why does he insist that we be "open"?  He says it is so we can
> receive "further revelation". 

God can speaks in many different ways Sis Lynne!  Have you really never
read a book by another Christian?


He says we are just like Catholics if we
> refuse to do it his way.  His way and his way alone is right.  There
> is
> no other way to do it.  He accuses us of rigidity and is rigid
> himself.
> If we are somewhat rigid, at least we admit it. He is rigid while
> claiming not to be.

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 am open to
change!


> Bro. Starchers definition of salvation is very broad. He has never
> clarified whether he means that when one is "saved" according to his
> definition whether they are saved from eternal hell or not.

In the last days God will judge all of humankind and definitly assign
some to hell.  The difference between me and you Sis Lynne is that I am
more patient.  Patient to a fault!  I am willingly to wait and allow God
to decide an individual's eternal destiny.  You, as a fallible and
erring human being, make that decision for God today and violate his
sovereignty. I am weeping over Jerusalem, waiting for the prodigal son
to return Home, looking for the lost sheep. What are you doing Sis
Lynne?

 
> 
> "Sis Yohnk, what do I have to do to be saved?" Obey Acts 2:38 and live
> a
> righteous, godly life.

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

> 
> "Bro. Starcher, what do I have to do to be saved?"  Well, you are
> probably saved already. Have you ever had an experience with God?
> Then
> you are saved.  You might want to obey Acts 2:38 because I think that
> is
> the fullness of God's plan, from my perspective.  I understand your
> perspective may not be the same as mine. You may have a great
> revelation
> yourself and want to share it with me.  In any case, I am open to
> dialogue.

Sis Lynne, you know this is not representative of what I have written
about Salvation.  Why not read my posts and try again!


> A theological difference.
  
Yes!  But the same Apostolic faith, with the same goal of winning others
to Jesus The Apostolic way!

God Bless!

Steve