[Newman]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

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].

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.

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?