Old Higher Fire Posts
 

This was a huge discussion where a "liberal" was trying to get us conservatives to "dialogue" and be open to other Christians. I ended up leaving this list over this because I felt the list was too "liberal".

Again, the Bro. is > and I am plain.

Maybe some others would also like to share their old posts! LOL!
__________________________________________________ ______


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

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.

>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. XXXX. 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. XXXX, you cannot rape our minds"
I think you would say "See there! The attitude of Apostolics." I see a
double standard here.

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.

> You strive to keep the lines of
>communication open that the Holy Spirit might use you to witness to
>Christ. In this way they a relationship of trust is built which
>gives
>credibility to your faith. This is all I am trying to say.

You keep saying that this is all you are trying to say, but because of
some of the things you say, it leaves constant nagging questions about
your theology to myself and others.

I think you are intelligent and are able to express yourself which is why
I think we have a theological difference rather than a communication
problem.

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.

Your theology: (Feel free to correct me Bro. XXXX. I can
only write what I see in your posts. I think I understand your beliefs,
but I disagree with them.)

He believes Acts 2:38 to be the fullness of salvation. He is not really
sure whether you have to obey Acts 2:38 in order to be saved from hell.(
Or, maybe he is sure that you don't.) 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. He calls them brothers and other
Christians because of their experiences with God. He thinks we might
receive further revelation if we open up our hearts and minds to receive
truth from them. Who knows? They might save us. 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.

My theology is less open to change. (Yes, Bro. XXXX himself said
that.) Bro. XXXX thinks that is bad. I think it is good. That makes
me go one direction and Bro. XXXX the other. Whereas my theology
encompasses the scriptural warnings against false prophets and false
doctrines, Bro. XXXX's theology seems to gloss over these warnings.
Whereas I believe that
we must have a form of self preservation given the scriptural warnings,
Bro. XXXX doesn't seem to like self preservation too much and says it
is "unwillingness to dialogue". Whereas I dialogue and leave my heart
open to God for further revelation if he were to reveal it to me, Bro.
XXXX says unless we accept his form of theology, further revelation
is not possible, even though Paul was converted under these very
circumstances.

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

>Salvation is not only a salvation "from sin", but
>a salvation unto a new way of life. This is the way of life >mandated
by
>the King of the Kingdom of God. Salvation is participation in the
>Kingdom of God, living life even now as the King desires.

Bro. XXXXs 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.

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

"Bro. XXXX, 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.

A theological difference.

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

An old Higher Fire post between myself and a "liberal". LOL!! The "liberals" posts are prefaced with > and mine are not.

----------------------------------------------------

Post summary: I gather from Bro. XXXXs posts that he believes we
must shed our "preconceived notions" or we will never be able to receive
more truth if God wishes to reveal more to us. I refute this using Paul
as an example of one who had many "preconceived notions" but because he
was sincere, God revealed Himself to him.

>I also believe that the full salvation experience is encapsulated in
>Acts 2:38.

So what is "full salvation" versus "partial salvation"? Do you believe
like Bro. Urshan who I quoted in my post "New Birth in the Apostolic
Church" that some are in the womb and not yet born?

>Isolated from other Christians, and understanding only one
>Apostolic culture, these Apostolics are unprepared for serious
>challenges to their underlying presuppositions.

Really, if you eventually expect others to receive Acts 2:38 and that is
your goal, I doubt it if too many would have a problem with that.

If you call others as Christian simply to identify that they are trying
to live for God and yet you intend to lead them into Acts 2:38, not many
would have a problem with that either.

You asked me to read Vatican 2. Is there biblical talk in there? Of
course. The pharisees also quoted scripture. Were the pharisees against
God? As a general rule, Jesus called them hypocrites. Jesus never
hindered one of the pharisees from following him but instead embraced any
who would follow. At the same time he revealed the error of their
doctrine so people would not be deceived by it.

It would seem to me, if we do what Jesus did, we would denounce the
doctrines that are wrong but at the same time accept and love those who
want more truth.

You have a truth in your writings, Bro. XXXX, in that, yes,
Apostolics are not perfect. We can be better than we are. The thing is,
if we are in tune with the Spirit, He will lead and guide us into all
truth. To the angel of the church of Sardis, Jesus said "Remember
therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent."
It would seem that you believe we cannot "hold fast" and receive more
truth at the same time. That's not true. We can hold fast to what we
have and believe it. Did not you yourself say that in the early
Apostolic movement that they shed preconceived notions? That means they
had some but were able to shed them. You seem emphatic that we must shed believing that we are the only Christians or we can never receive more
truth. If God leads me to do what you say, so be it. So far, I have
felt God leading me the other direction, to "hold fast". If you insist
that we must shed these notions when we must hold fast, you yourself may
miss any new truth that comes along.

>The essential meanings and values which define this culture are as
>follows: 1) Apostolics are uniquely Christians, not the only
>Christians;

If by this you mean, others are in the womb and will eventually be born,
and you are calling them Christians, I can understand your thinking.

2) While the Bible is uncompromisingly true, its human
>understanding and expression in doctrine is imperfect;

I think all Apostolics agree with this statement, but you are insisting
that your interpretation of "There are more Christians than us" is right.
Well, you also are believing in an understanding and expression in
doctrine that can be equally imperfect.

>By Christians I mean they
>considered themselves saved and in fellowship with God. Because they
>were Christians they were led by the Holy Spirit to a new spiritual
>experience, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, to a new understanding of
>baptism, in Jesus name, and to a revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Do you consider them saved *before* they received Acts 2:38?

> They still believed that others
>were
>Christians.

Please quote from some sources on this.

> Doctrines which they
>once
>"uncompromisingly" held were abandoned as the Spirit of God guided
>them
>into more truth. Because of this experience they are skeptical of any
>claims to "perfect doctrines" which would preclude the possibility of
>the Holy Spirit speaking again and "bind" the Spirit by human
>understanding.

The Spirit was not bound by human understanding here because they
received more truth.

>You see, this was the very attitude
>and
>system of beliefs which those who resisted the Apostolic experience of
>Jesus and associated truths possessed. They believed that they
>possessed "uncompromisingly" true doctrines and were therefore
>resistant
>to the moving of the Holy Spirit.

This is simply not true. Jesus called those who resisted and were not
sincere "hypocrites". Saul(Paul) himself resisted but because he was
sincere God broke his strong stand.

> The Spirit will not be bound
>by your understanding of the Word or mine..

This is absolutely true.

> This is why they SHOCK.

What is shocking is that you do not believe that God can get ahold of
sincere hearts if we believe something solidly. Scripturally,Paul's
experience proves this theory to be false.

>As I examine your Apostolic culture I
>find
>much that for me is not intellectually credible.

As I examine our culture, I find some saying one thing and doing another,
but I find it is intellectually credible.

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

You were practically a nazi back then, ILG. Not!

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

Are you saying I was a kind conservative? ;)

Actually, I was somewhat impressed with my own attitude as an extreme conservative. Must be why I am so backslid now. I was just too nice and thought too much. :bliss

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

I've read through some of my old posts. There was a lot of head shaking going on while doing so. :)

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

Will you PM me your username? :)

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

I used to be part of the higherfire in the late 1990's, I look back now and am surprized that they tolerated me!

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

H-F was pretty conservative when I look back on it. I think it was more conservative than AFF is now. BUt it was so liberal to me at the time. I was SO SHOCKED that they would even consider allowing someone to question the new birth!! LOL!!

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

when you see an author in the archives as park4864, that was me. I was one of the annoying kids back then!

Re: Old Higher Fire Posts
 

Yeah... it's interesting to look back that far. A lot of people who were on HF were also IRCers.