The Apostolic Dialogue With Catholics 3

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

Steve Starcher wrote:

> Bill Clifton wrote (about Apostolic diversity):
>
> > I do see your point, but my question is why is it so important that
> > every
> > "Apostolic" be part of the one big group (AWCF).

> I really feel that a united Apostolic movement would be a more effective
> witness to Jesus Christ both to other Christians and to the lost.

I disagree totally. There is no way that my fellowshipping with liberal "Apostolics" increases my
effectiveness in withnessing. If people are touched by my witness then they are touched by my stands for
the Lord. Now if a liberal "Apostolic" is able to reach someone then their witness is not increased by
fellowshipping with the more hardline Apostolics.

> I do not believe conservative and "holiness" Apostolics are wrong
> because they stand firm in their beliefs. I do not believe that any
> Apostolic should be required to compromise their holiness standards or
> their proclamation of the Apostolic Gospel in a blind quest for unity.
> What I am concerned about is the almost complete refusal of these
> Apostolics to dialogue with other Apostolics and other Christians.
>

hmmm, now in a previous post you said that the higher ups are talking, but now you say they refuse. What I
feel is that they know waht is expected of them and they know that the main body of the org. does not
desire a move in that direction.

> Because these Apostolics have refused to engage in a dialogue and to
> seek an understanding of the faith of others they all to often have only
> shallow and stereotypical  understandings of the faith of others.

Again you lump Apostolics together into an ignorant, arrogant and incorrect group. You seel out the truth
to be able to appeal to other denominations. This Bro. is how the Charismatics started....Pentecostals that
desired numbers more than truth!

> >  We must be firm on our beliefs.
>
> I agree with you Brother Clifton!  We must be firm in our beliefs.  This
> means proclaiming the Acts 2:38 message, baptizing in Jesus name,
> teaching of the revelation of God in Christ.  Those who have not been
> baptized in Jesus name should be rebaptized as they become part of the
> Apostolic Church.  Being in dialogue with other Christians doesn't mean
> we cannot be firm.  It does mean that we should understand the faith of
> others, acknowledge our similarities, and offer informed criticism.
>

I never said ignore them...I spent almost 2 years in the IRC learning about many other "Chirstians" and
their beliefs. I spoke with all denoms and a great deal of Apostolics. I have showed many tirnitarians the
truth about the trinity vs. oneness. BUt what I never did was acknowledge that they was right....because
the bottom line is only one is right and if they think they are right then they will never see the need for
more!

> >  Bro. you
> > ignored that
> > very question (about the salvation of other Christians) from Bro. Shaw and myself during your initial
> > eucaminical series.
> > You have not stated your position in black and white, you always leave
> > grey
> > areas.
>
> I believe I have answered the question about whether other Christians
> are saved several times in this forum.

Again you bypassed the statement but in short your anser is yes that others are saved even though they are
not born again.

> > I still feel that you are almost searching for justification for
> > accepting
> > non-Apostolics.
>
> I am trying to understand the reality of Apostolic and Christian
> diversity as it exists in the world.  I need my faith to correspond to
> lived reality.

The diversity has always existed, what one needs to see the whys is to look back to the roots....paganism
and the faith of Abraham. The heathen panthistic life and the life serving the God of Abraham. It is no
differnt now...there is religion that has copied or has portions of the truth, but do they match the Bible,
do they follow God's Word? If they have to deny or explain away parts then they can not be right.

> > Almost 2000 years ago there was one systematic theology.
>
> Brother Clifton, this is a statement which cannot be proven. It is
> better to say there is one canonical witness to Jesus Christ found in
> Holy Scripture.  Within this witness there is diversity.  If not, why
> don't all Apostolics interpret Holy Scriptures the same?

Cant be proven or you wont accept the fact. You are saying that Jesus taught many paths to salvation? You
mean that Peter had one way, Paul another and then many others came along? That all that is required is
some sort of referance to the Lord (not even to His name) then you are saved? If so you are sadly wrong and
IMO not Apostolic. Do you find any meaning to the fact that the Lord had the same man first preach
salvation to the Jews and the Gentiles, that He did not pour out His Spirit upon the Samarians until that
same man came to pray for them. Do you not find a single mindedness about that. Did the Lord change? He was
very exact in the OT (especially about worship and sacrifice and the things of the temple) the Law was very
exact, so now the Lord has gotten lax? I do not think so, I believe Him to be just as exact (only now He
has simplified the process, but there is still an exact process).

>  Then came the
> > false
> > teaching that the Lord warned of....now we have some truth and some of
> > the
> > leftovers.
>
> There is a lot of false teaching in Christendom today.  The problem is
> that the falling away from the faith described in the New Testament
> should not be identified with all of the doctrinal wars of the twentieth
> century.  I will be commenting on this "falling away" in a forth coming
> post.
>

THe falling away started in Paul's day...it is on of the topics addressed in the epistles of Galations,
Ephesians,Philipians & Colosians! False doctrine was the mentioned by Peter and Jesus. In the Book of
Revelation the churchs are chastized for false teaching. This false teaching has been going on for along
time.

> > I too have this issue, I know many "Christians" that are better people
> > than some
> > of the "Apostolics" I know.

> Everyone has to start somewhere don't they!  I think the difference
> between me and you is that I call God's work in the lives of men,
> whatever it might be, experiencing God's salvation.  You prefer to
> reserve this term for those who have experience the totality of
> salvation the Apostolic way.  We have the same goal, making disciples to
> Jesus the Apostolic way.  We're just expressing it and going about it in
> a different way!

I never said that the Lord is not working in their lives, I just can not called them saved (like it is my
call anyway). However I do not beleive in different perspectives or different paths to salvation, I see no
where in the Bible where such is taught. I maintian that Paul's reaction in Acts 19 to the disciples of
John is what would happen today if He walked into most denominal churches. There was an urgency to get let
them have the same experience that Paul earlier described and receiving the Holy Ghost.

Lord Bless;
Bro. Bill Clifton