Addressing Bro Epley's Thread "An Apology"

[Margies3]

Sure wish Miss Cindy was still here. After the last couple of days, I could tell you exactly what she would be posting..........

[Ferd]

Brother Epley's issue had nothing to do with the backsliders on AFF. If that was the case he would never have joined FaithChild back in the day. That place had plenty too... even though it did have far more actual Apostolics....


I went back and read the thread that led to the disafection. Sadly I get what happened and it seems far too few do.

Didnt anyone see where there were accusations of sexual perversion? That right there is a very big deal and it was treated flippantly.

i am all for talking about situations brought up in the thread. It is something entirely different to project things that are utterly unrelated... and of a sexual perversion nature.

Thats why the Elder got away. And I dont blame him.

[Esaias]

I thought that was brought up by someone speaking in general terms about 'cults', and it was promptly dismissed as not applicable in regards to the people under discussion????

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I thought that was brought up by someone speaking in general terms about 'cults', and it was promptly dismissed as not applicable in regards to the people under discussion????

it was brought up, Brother Epley quickly distanced. then left.

Now I would have to go back to see, but it seemed more of a question or a projection of the "end result" of that kind of thinking.


the guy who brought it up is a friend and I certainly am not taking anyone to task.... but seriously that has to be the reason the Elder has departed. it was so eaisly accepted and no one thought "maybe this isnt the right place for that"....

I wasnt here or I would have said something. I didnt see any of this until after the Elder appologized and asked for his posts to be deleted.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Brother Epley's issue had nothing to do with the backsliders on AFF. If that was the case he would never have joined FaithChild back in the day. That place had plenty too... even though it did have far more actual Apostolics....


I went back and read the thread that led to the disafection. Sadly I get what happened and it seems far too few do.

Didnt anyone see where there were accusations of sexual perversion? That right there is a very big deal and it was treated flippantly.

i am all for talking about situations brought up in the thread. It is something entirely different to project things that are utterly unrelated... and of a sexual perversion nature.

Thats why the Elder got away. And I dont blame him.

I didn't see that. Nobody reported it

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't see that. Nobody reported it

and that is likely part of the problem. No one around here even thinks in terms of what should or shouldnt be said.

we just let it all hang out.

lets not foget the attak Elder Epley took just a week or two ago. Its all good. No one really cares.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

and that is likely part of the problem. No one around here even thinks in terms of what should or shouldnt be said.

we just let it all hang out.

lets not foget the attak Elder Epley took just a week or two ago. Its all good. No one really cares.

was it reported?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

was it reported?

Thats my point Prax. I didnt report it because i didnt see anything until it was too late.

NOBODY EVEN THOUGHT TO REPORT IT.

[Originalist]

I really don't get why Epley is leaving. Does one have to be a cookie cutter copy of him in order for this to be considered a true Apostolic sight? There is some extremist out there that would consider Epley to be a backslid liberal. He comes across as insecure by leaving.

I never have had this notion that everyone has to pass my litmus test to be a true Apostolic. To some I'm considered liberal, to others I'm a conservative. I am indeed what some refer to as a "three stepper", but I differ significantly from other three steppers. For instance, I do not feel that John 3:5's reference to being "born of water" is speaking of water baptism. Furthermore, I believe that one can receive the Acts 2:38 benefits (forgiveness of sin and regeneration by the Spirit) at times even when the Acts 2:38 formula was not followed by the letter of the law.

I believe that one can be considered "baptized in the name of Jesus" (or "unto Christ Jesus") without the baptizer actually invoking the name of Jesus (though they should, certainly), I also believe that the name of Jesus can be invoked in baptism and the baptismal candidate still truly not have been baptized in Jesus' name.

I believe we don't emphasize the regenerative aspects of Holy Ghost baptism enough. I believe we treat water baptism as a "life giving event" when the scripture clearly teaches it is a baptism unto death and thus not regenerative in nature.

I believe that everything that happens figuratively in water baptism happens literally in Spirit baptism.

So, if the fact that I think for myself on these matters and refuse to submit to someone's cookie cutter views, i'm sorry. I'm just as Apostolic as they are.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

If AFF went UC membership around here would be about like it is in UC churches.....

Easy there my friend......you must not have been to some of the "uc" churches I have seen. Many are large churches and growing. Many above 500 in membership and several above 1000. (even the UC church mentioned on AFF in JC is 600+)

just saying.......are there small ones....sure, just as there are hundreds of thousands of churches in all groups under 100. In fact according to Hartford Institute for Religion Research 59% of all churches have less than 100 in attendance and only 35% are in the 100-499 range....that means that 94% of all churches are under 500.