Dangerous Conclusion?

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

Just call me stupid.... but I don't see any derogatory
remarks in this post by Bro Starcher.  I'm assuming that
he was the one with the ">" in front of his words and
you without.

I think there are a coupla statments that are borderline,
but not discardable....

Show me the derogatory remarks *explicitly*... I think
that I read things with a different understanding than
you.  Right now, I don't know if what I see has the potential
to be derogatory is the same ones that you see.

I think it's this kind of stuff that's at the whole crux
of the matter.  There's such a mis-match in communications
over this whole thing ... whether it's verbal, conceptual,
statemental, etc. ... there's such dis-parity of thoughts
and ideas (of what each side's been discussing) that there's
never been a good link established between the arguing sides.
It's kinda like disassembling a computer and seeing a ribbon
cable that hooks up a floppy disk drive to the FD controller.
See how that ribbon cable has a "half twist" in the cable
near the end where the floppy is plugged in?  There's only
about 6 or 8 wires that are included in the "twist". That's kinda
how I see this conversation.  I see 50 channels of communications
going simultaneously.  In order to gain a complete understanding
of what the other side is talking about, all 50 channels have
to be open, synchronized, and fully operational.  The computer
term for this is "parity-error checking" I belive. You can't
have 6 or 8 channels with a "half twist" of understanding mixed
in there to fully get the picture of what's being communicated.

Sometimes it seems like 44 channels are in good communications
where there's agreement, but those last 6 channels are evidently
worth arguing about for the last eon.

For the record, I think the only thing doctrinally that Bro Starcher
has said that's any different (becuase he's time and time and time
again confirmed on H-F the need for repentence, baptism in Jesus
name, and being filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of
speaking in other tongues), is the *possibility* that in heaven
there might appear an Aborigine from Australia that never had the
gospel presented to him.  Doesn't know Jesus.  Never heard of Jesus.
Never saw a missionary.  But there he is ... flat footed in heaven.
How in the world can something like that be explained when we have
the plan-of-salvation settled and concreted as the way to enter?
All along Bro Starcher has held to the *traditional* badges of
apostolics (Acts 2:38) but he's not going to say *only* Acts 2:38
certified folks can enter heaven cause he's not God and he can't
judge man's heart.  He understands Acts 2:38 as the "fullness of
salvation" [we call it the plan-of-salvation] as man knows it today.
When he talks of "affirming" someone else's faith, that doens't mean
he declares it righteous and true, he "acknowledges" what they've
experienced to start to take them down the Acts 2:38 path.  In the
hopes that he'll be able to introduce them to the person at the
center of the apostolic community, Jesus.  If they meet Jesus, then
they'll hopefully become Acts 2:38 certified.

Bro Starcher's other sticking point (and it's more a point of
terminology and practice, not doctrine) is the fact that he'll
call others in greater christiandom .... christians.  Personally,
I call these folks "generic christians" ... where someone will
confess their sins, acknowledge Jesus as their savior, and then
try as best as they can (without the Holy Ghost) to live a life
that's hopefully good enough to enter heaven.  Whereas we apostolics
typically only call fellow apostolics (and the key term is "fellow")
"christians" meaning their doctrine lines up with ours (most
normally) and we share the common experience of Acts 2:38 obedience.

Bro Starcher's of the opinion that God's working on them (those
in greater christiandom) to become apostolics of some kind of
flavor.... hence he calls them christian and maybe even brother/sister.
They might only have a mustard seed of truth, but God's working on
them.

Personally, I think many of those in greater christiandom don't
have a clue about what apostolics are about.  They're spoiled by
the higher-ups in the churches and organizations that label the
oneness folks a cult in advance of contact.  Kinda like a Hari-
Krishna alert at a local airport or something.  Where people learn
to avoid the apostolics because they've heard about their whereabouts
and are avoiding the area at all costs.  Yet without contact.  Never
coming in contact with the person at the center of the apostolic
community Jesus.

Personally, I think that many of those in the apostolic community
are going on past experiences.  I don't think that if you asked
Bro Joe Schmoe if he could give a bible study on Acts 2:38 that
he'd be able to honorably be able to put something together about
it, plus oneness, plus holiness... they'd defer to their pastor.
I think this is the reason why apostolics don't grow by leaps and
bounds because they tend to focus on the who's and what's of the
pentecostal community rather than on the work of God and the presence
of Jesus.  When people lift up the what's of standards, people don't
see Jesus.  People see the standard, think it's click-ish, and decide
they want nothing to do with it.  But, when people hold up Jesus,
all manner of men are gathered together.  When people hold up Acts
2:38 certification *primarily*, they see it how it's different and
they see that it's click-ish, they then decide they want nothing
to do with it.  But, when people hold up Jesus, and Jesus woos them
into the fold, and Jesus confirms their need to have their sins washed
away by first repentence, baptism in Jesus name, and then arising into
new life, people will stay... they aren't staying because someone
"said so".  They're staying because they met Jesus at the center of
the community and he's made a difference in their life.

As I see the conversations/arguments over the last many many moons,
I see it in much the same manner.  Sis Lynne, Bro Clifton, and Bro
Reed have been holding up the what's of pentecost rigidly and as
noble-ly as possible.  I would say that's an honorable thing mostly
and nothing to be ashamed of ... but it isn't the topic at hand.

Whereas, Bro Starcher has been lifting up Jesus by showing how
historically Jesus has been the center of the apostolic community
and that folks need to meet him.

Where Bro Starcher originally was coming from was the premise
that there's a spectrum of apostolics out there.  There's a
traditional (Conservative) colors and there's kinda-traditional
(Moderate) colors as well.  The liberal colors are considered
charismatic and don't mean much and haven't really been talked
about in this conversation to any degree because anything goes.

The whole crux of writing what he has been writing is the creation
of "Moderate Apostolic Theology".  Up to this point in time when
he started writing it, nobody had penned what a "Moderate Apostolic"
believes.  How this theology is based, how this doctrine is similar
and different to traditional conservative apostolics.  It's not
so much a "I'm right (moderate) -vs- a you're wrong (conservative)"
thing.  But a way to measure and compare the two differing theologies
by holding the yardstick of comparison up to both and seeing where
one goes ahead and one falls behind (in all points)... deliberately
and forensically.  Just to see how/what the two creatures differ.
I've worked on cadavers before... and lemme tell you, it's no fun
during the time.  When something different is found in one than
the other, the differences are noted and the examination continues.
We don't, while examining the cadavers, argue about the possibilities
why the kidneys on this subject are all shriveled up with holes in
it and why the kidneys on another subject are plump but obviously
slowly losing moisture.  We continue on.  We don't argue why the
Pancreas is in one condition in one and another condition in another.
Maybe we'll eventually be able to figure out that one cadaver had
kidney stones and the other cadaver had diabetes.... by reviewing
the notes made during observations in comparison to medical journals.

It is still.... all about perceptions.

Bro Tyler

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne A. Yohnk <lyohnk@juno.com>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org <higher-fire@prairienet.org>; ReedActs@aol.com
<ReedActs@aol.com>; woodrow_@nettaxi.com <woodrow_@nettaxi.com>;
Psalms271@aol.com <Psalms271@aol.com>; Motiva8ed@aol.com <Motiva8ed@aol.com>;
lyohnk@juno.com <lyohnk@juno.com>; ryohnk@juno.com <ryohnk@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 10:45 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: Dangerous Conclusion?


>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]