Apostolic Friends Forum

I think we WILL turn this into a "lib vs. con" thing.

Epley would like to do otherwise but he has no choice.

Elder Epley likes to start threads like this. That's certainly his privilege. I couldn't help but respond to this one because SOMEONE has to point out the utter stupidity and futility of a radical, far right pentecostal like Epley starting a thread like this and attempting to be inclusive as to whom is "apostolic."

Now I can take some liberties here. Epley is a friend and an old debater with a thick skin. He knows I'm NOT calling HIM stupid - he's anything but. BUT: he has definitely not thought his post through to its logical conclusion and as I'm going to point out, it's got him in a WHOLE heap of trouble.

Of course, radicals like to try to define once-for-all the term "apostolic." Fine, if you can make it stick.

But Friend Epley decides to be magnanimous here. He'll forget about tv-watchin', short-sleeve shirt wearin' etc. for a minute and define "apostolic" as he says, anyone who believes in Holy Ghost Baptism with speaking in tongues and water baptism in Jesus name.

So Epley will be generous and magnanimous.

But what the heck is this about? Is there some kind of great virtue, according to Epley, in being called "apostolic" if you're STILL going to split hell wide open and are lost as a goose - in accord with Epley's radical theology?

Elder Epley, let me ask you this: is a woman who spoke in tongues, was baptised with immersion with "in the name of Jesus" audibly spoken by the baptizer over her, dresses in dresses over the knee and does EVERYTHING your laundry list requires BUT: she regularly and consciously trims her hair because she sees nothing wrong with it -

Remember now Epley - you've accepted her as "apostolic" on this forum.

Now I want you to answer "yes" or "no" and don't hem-haw and try to embellish - no embellishment needed.

IS THAT LADY AS I'VE DEFINED HER - IS SHE SAVED?

All I need is a yes or no. Nothing else required.

Now if you're going to be frank like you usually are and not cop out with this "God is the judge" like the golf-playing mainliners - you're going to answer "no."

So - the lady is "apostolic" according to what Steve Epley wants on this forum - BUT WHAT THE HECK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

According to Epley, she'll be just as lost and burn in hell for the same eternity as the guy who has sex with horses, with Hitler, with the mass murderers, etc.

But glory be! She's "apostolic" on this forum, according to him. I guess she and those others you think are lost that post here can sure take comfort in that.

Now we don't need another example but I'll give one. Once again, all I need here is a "yes" or "no" answer.

Let's take CH Yadon. He was baptised in Jesus name but did not believe water baptism was part of the new birth. He spoke in tongues and received the baptism of the Holy Ghost but believed you were saved at repentance.

All right Elder Epley.

Was Yadon saved? "Yes" or "No" will suffice.

So again - WHAT DOES IT MATTER IF EPLEY DEFINES THESE FOLK AS "APOSTOLIC"? According to him, they are just as lost as the rapist or Charles Manson - no difference in degree of eternal punishment.

My point - how STUPID is it for him to define "apostolic" as anything more than what HE believes one must do to be saved? And believe me, he has a laundry list. So why even bring up the question?

Again, I'm not saying he's stupid. He just hasn't thought through the absurdity of his post.

Incidentally Brother Epley, speaking of that particular aspect of radical oneness pentecostal legalism that says a woman who snips her hair is going to hell:

I notice you're getting liberal in your old age.

Now, I'm not going to take time and find the post, but you were extrapolating on the "hair" scriptures and said "the SAFEST interpretation is uncut hair."

Hmm ... this is momentous. Is your group joining the mainliners - realizing that trying to prove "uncut hair or hell" is futile and saying it's "safe"? Or did you misspeak?

So is a woman who trims her hair saved? Yes or No. It's either simple and I challenge you to answer without embellishment or trying to soften the blow.

But bottom line: what's the point of Epley drawing an arbitrary line ANYWHERE to define "apostolic"?

What's the point in him bemoaning that atheists, agnostics, Unitarians or ANYONE ELSE is not apostolic and they post here?

If you speak in tongues and are baptised like he thinks is right, but don't follow right down the line of his laundry list of dozens of "holiness standards" - you're just as lost and will burn just as long and hot as the atheist.

Sam? Manofword?

All you other folks that he defines as "apostolic" on this board?

You're as lost as a child molester according to Epley.

But dontcha FEEL GOOD?

He's magnanimous enough to call you "apostolic"!

Now Elder Epley ... your work is cut out for you.

You probably haven't debated in awhile.

It will do you good to get roughed up a bit.