Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Suggestion (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24506)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 758023)

So, you guys value "open-mindedness", tolerance and free discussion over Biblical mandates?

Okey-dokey then.

It's great to see such a politically correct group.

C'mon EA, this isn't a church - it's a discussion forum. If we don't discuss major issues, what shall we discuss? And during those discussions, should we not treat each other with respect? Is that too "tolerant"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by timlan2057 (Post 758029)

Let's see Newman ... I'm not sure what this post has to do with the whole subject of the thread or with my post.

No one that I know of is saying that Epley is not a nice fellow, kind to dogs and all that.

If you and your little amen corner want to go start a thread on how nice a fellow Epley is then I promise you I will post on it in agreement.

Umm.... I never said he wasn't a "nice fellow." I talked about love and respect. Bro. Epley doesn't mince words about what he thinks one needs to do to be saved. I don't hold that against him. In fact, I believe it is actually kinder to tell it like one see's it, rather than just agreeing to get along when someone's soul could be at jepardy.

But I don't think my post went to the "niceness" of Bro. Epley as much as to talk about the core of Bro. Epley; a far more meaty issue. I object to your post marginalizing a minister such as Bro. Epley as a "radical, far right Pentecostal" [whose viewpoint is so tainted that there is nothing one might learn from him on a thread such as this one].

Quote:

Sigh. In a nutshell, it is ABSURD for someone with Epley's perspective to try and be magnanimous and INCLUSIVE in defining "apostolic" since 99 percent of what he believes is "apostolic" as far as purposes of this forum is going to burn in hell for eternity just like the serial rapist or mass murderer - ACCORDING TO HIM.

(Of course if he now preaches degrees of punishment a' la Dante, and he believes Charles Manson will be in a deeper bodega of hell than C. H. Yadon - well, he can tell us that himself.)

Now that's the point I isolated and the one he needs to address.

Well, Bro. Epley is certainly able to speak for himself and does so without hiding his viewpoint which is why you are able address it. HOWEVER, standards were not the basis of the origination of this thread and he said so on more than one occasion. So why bring up his viewpoint concerning women's hair?

Perhaps CH Yadon is more relevant to the discussion because it brings in a variable that isn't standard based and yet would have been discussed on Jim Yohe's Forum which Bro. Epley seemed to consider (at least somewhat) a forum of Apostolics.

Quote:

So what in the world is the point of him defining "apostolic" as anyone who doesn't accept his entire laundry list of things he adds to salvation? The ultimate point is they're lost as goose but hey, they're "apostolic" according to him.

How ridiculous for you people to be agonizing over the definition of "apostolic" from Epley's point of view.

Wow. Isn't this a discussion board? And isn't it an interesting question to figure out if Apostolic means anything more or less than Acts 2:38 and some version of standards?

:D

Newman bickering with Timlan. This makes life (on the AFF) worth living. :bliss

I see both sides, frankly. It is somewhat incongruous for Bro. Epley to try to be inclusive to anyone who believes the core doctrine, when in fact, even if they do, he still puts them in the lost category.

However, for the sake of discussion, it's a valid and worthy question: Who is Apostolic, defined as believing in the basic Apostolic doctrines sans the standards debates?

Maybe the situation is confused by the idea that people who don't hold certain dress standards also nix the core doctrines. So, when a lot of discussions surround standards, that line of thought leads to the generalization: "No one believes the doctrine anymore." :coffee2

Quote:

Originally Posted by timlan2057 (Post 757963)

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.

My friend(and I mean that) have you been reading any of the threads of late?
So for the purpose of the ORIGINAL clarity and purpose of the forum was for Apostolics as defined by the forum itself to discuss. Thus the definition I gave.
You know as well as I Apostolic to me is very narrow as you have defined however I was using the definition as the original posters and administration of the forum.
I have become weary of every strange and foreign doctrine espoused and defended on a "Apostolic" forum.
All those charges you level to the most part are so but everyone knows that I have been posting and very pointed through the years. I did not want to get in the standards issues because I was not meaning those issues but basic Apostolic teachings even including the difference between the PCI and Bible doctrine of the new birth.
I hope this makes the reason for this thread clearer if not I will give it another try. And NO I am not offended.

The name of the forum is Apostolic Friends Forum. I did not name the forum the owners did. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought they meant Apostolic to be those who baptize by immersion in Jesus Name and HGB evidenced by speaking in tongues. Some of the owners are of the PCI persuasion we have been fussing about it for years nothing new.
Some very vocal posters are everything but Apostolic according to te definition believed by the owners of the forum.

I have not called MOW Mr. he is a brother an erring brother but a brother.

I do believe standards of separation make a distinction between geniune Apostolics and contemporary Apostolics which have lost their way and direction that have more of a desire to be like the world and the church.

Thank you Newman for your kind words. Newman is what she is and we have butted heads from FCF vehemently yet I respect her for she is what she is.

I hope this helps. Guys I got Timlan to post!:thumbsup

The only issue I have with MOW is his membership in a dangerous cult called Apple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZGIn...eature=related

Apostolic could mean a lot of things however in the context Elder Epley used yes I am Apostolic even though I do not like the word Apostolic over the church door because it means something far different in Brazil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear (Post 758086)

That is truth Sis, there are some places you just don't call yourself Apostolic!

Even here in the States, you better know the local customs!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Epley (Post 758073)

Careful Epley, those old roots of ACI are showing through the dirt!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin (Post 757458)

I do believe this place has changed.

The coversations are stale.

That, and the constant jabs at Christianity, authority, submission and Pentecostalism get very, very old.

AFF has turned into an instant messaging tool where people talk about silly, inconsequential, feminine things instead of the religious site it was intended to be.

The level of intelligent discourse has descended into the abyss.

All of this is not to say I don't enjoy a good laugh.

But when the entire premise of the forum is utter idiocy, and every substantial thread ends in either extramarital flirting and/or atheistic and/or agnostic posters tearing down Christianity as a whole, I think the original purpose of this forum is perverted.

I love the owners and admin here, but the site is failing.

That's why I rarely post.

And friends, I am nowhere close to an ultracon.

It is a cycle. One can only go in circles so many times before it just get tired and boring. Personally I have given up on doctrinal discussion period. Waste of time and effort. People don't change their views much as a result of discussion. I can't say I have. I am what some here would call a three-stepper with a conservative bent, tither, believer in being in church every time the door opens, and I am not moving off of that, no amount of discussion is going to sway me from a position that I believe God placed me on.

And discussion of my platform has never moved anyone on these forums from their position. So, from where I sit doctrinal discussion is an exercise in futility with the exception of everyone letting everyone else know where they are.

But, I like an occasional laugh myself...

I can say that these forums, not necessarily AFF, but others as well have helped me to be a little more tolerant. I used to have a very narrow view of what constitutes an "Apostolic" and was once very harsh and critical about some things as relates to standards. I have broadened my horizons some and no longer get all worked up over some things, accepting people even if I don't accept their doctrine.