Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (1-steppers)??: Members only
 

I'm seeing less and less of the traditional Acts 2:38 and rest of the Word of God, believers posting here. Who is left that still believes that it takes obeying Acts 2:38 and the rest the Word of God in its completion to be saved ... as expressed through faith in Jesus Christ??


Is this the beginning of the end for this forum being an Apostolic forum?? Have we gone ... gasp....?? Is the fat lady singing??


Woot ... any hyenas up in here???

You are back, Dan. Enjoy your forum... I am out!

Have a nice day! :D

Dan I don't believe anyone has suggested that they don't believe the rest of the Bible, do you?

I don't think so either ...

but somehow there seems to be an impression that those of us w/ divergent views don't believe, practice, live, teach or preach Acts 2:38.

I am still clearly Acts 2:38, and that will not change. I simply believe the translation of a single word is different that their's is.

Ooooo My Loooooowwwwwd Here comes TRrrrrrrrrouble !!!!!! :tease:tattle:tease:tattle








.

LOL :jolly

Are you saying this is his Houz?

HHmmmmmmm, we will leave you to ponder that, since your his boy.

Still looking for a stepper dictionary here.

Were Is Brother Steve Epley??????

I'm telling Brother Epley about this !!!!!!!





.

The fat lady is not singing.

Too many are far too focused on Acts 2:38 exclusively. They should pause to consider that oen scripture, is neither the beginning nor the conclusion to salvation.

I've known too many people that have obeyed Acts 2:38 30 years ago but have been backslid 29 years and 11 mths, still carrying on their same old form, sitting on the same old benches, acting religious, fooling themselves and others too.

Stool Pigeon! :jolly

Reporting for duty! :preach

Hi Scotty... I dont believe we've met. :tiphat

How do you know that he and I are boyz from da hood?

tsk ... tsk ...tsk ... we're only down to 7 one-steppers ....


Wooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I'm a Life Stepper.

:)

Still a half stepper in my book.



:christmoose

I refuse to allow Fudge to define me. An Anglican is NOT going to define me or what I believe. Fudge is a NO stepper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:newyear

Fudge converted to anglican??? Whaaaaat!! that's the first i heard of that one!!!!

and you folks been defending Fudge who is now on par with a catholic?? WOW

Glad to see you around here Elder.

Old news Thad. he was before the book.

He teaches at an Anglican school. He told me he was Anglican. So he really impresses me greatly.:christmoose

I do not defend Fudge, to my knowledge. I just speak what I see. Nothing else.

I dont get it

now that is a shock- of course i never got into all this fuss over Fudge like you all did but I am also shocked that so many people defend him to the death KNOWING that he is Anglican!!! Is that what leaving Pentecost brings you to ??? that is a serious question.

I don't mind that he is Anglican. I cannot see how that would effect his research in the least. Do Anglicans have a better or worse track record than Old Time Pentecostals in producing scholarly works?

Going from Pentecostal to Anglican doesn't sound like digressing to you??
come on steve you ought to know better.
and anglicans now marry men with men one of their priest is that Robinson guy,he's from Vermont I believe

If I could disrupt the thread to ask this question again:

Do we know for a fact that Fudge is an "Anglican." I believe that you referred to him as an "Anglican priest" once before. Is this an accurate way to refer to the guy- do we have any "proof."

For me, I don't so much care what denomination he holds to, if any. I'm just interested in being accurate. He is accurately an "Anglican?"

*** Note: I just saw your post "He told me..." Can you elaborate?

It doesn't help the guy when his research shows a not so positive light on the more conservative element and refutes their claims...

It's the whole "It ain't smoke unless it's from our chimney" syndrome (pun intended just for you, bro!). :)

Digressing? Noone said anything about Fudge's spiritual condition. I simply would ask, Does current membership in any particular denomination discredit a scholarly work?

I would defend his book, but "to the death?" It might not be that important.

Still, the only error that really sticks out was his failure to pick up on the nuances of S.G. Norris' theology. Other than that, it was a pretty fair telling of UPC history from the perspective of his protagonists. That's what he set out to do, and he did it.

The book does show the authors personal opinion a bit - but I expect no less. The point concerning the bulk of the books info remains though. It is a valueable asset to any Pentecostal library.



Old Chimney Sweeps never die... they just "go up in smoke".

I spoke with him on the phone about his book and also I emailed him and that is what he told me.

Concerning what? the "light doctrines" he embraced?

It certainly is I bought over 25 of them and gave them to preachers. I have read it more than once and enjoyed it. However I refuse to allow an Anglican to label me. That was my point.

Yes. Fudge had Norris in what Fudge called the "Water & Spirit" pidgeon hole. He quoted Norris's "greasy grace" statement several times.

Yet, Norris' most famous contribution to the OP movement outside of his classroom work was his "Where are the Dead?" chart. This chart clearly shows a "Light Doctrine" point of view. Fudge seems to have missed that aspect of Norris's theology entirely.

This is an admittedly minor point on my part. Just a small criticism. Other than that the book was pretty good. Just read how complimentary he is toward Leonard Westberg; and Westberg is supposed to be the "bad guy!"

I'd love to see that...

I did notice that too. At first I thought me info may be wrong, but I went back and checked some quotes from a symposium... It did not make sense to me since I ended up with several sources for SG's quotes. I wonder has anyone pointed this out to Fudge??