Where are all the Acts 2:38 folks (3-steppers)??

[Sam]

Originally Posted by scotty

discussion is fine, but if you are going to name a forum and state a doctrine of belief then the forum should stick to that.

We don't hold a "view" we hold the "Truth" as written in the Word of God which is God and revealed by the Spirit to those who are filled with the Spirit. Period. There is no "views", interpretations, etc. Everytime someone make that statement "what that means is"........ewwww I just cringe and want to crawl under something so the lightening thats coming don't singe me. It means what it says, and says what it means. Period.

A while back we were given some words as to what this forum was to be like. These are the words that were given to us:

The Admins have been in a discussion on the subject of making a clearer definition of what we mean on AFF when we say Apostolic. If we were a ministry, we would need a clearer definition of where we stand. But this is a fellowship, a discussion board - it is not a ministry - it is a place where people can come and have good clean fellowship. We want to allow for discussion within the broader range of what it means to be Apostolic. Therefore we have put this together with the approval of the Owners and Admin Team.

Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum, Apostolic being defined as follows:

Apostolic is defined on AFF as those that believe that every sinner must repent of their sins, and that Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism. That the Holy Ghost is for today, and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life pleasing to God.

When we created this Forum, we had a few set guidelines we were looking for.

* * We want a place that generates fellowship and discussion, even sometimes heated discussion.
* We want a place where ministry is not being belittled or degraded.
* We want a place where the members on this forum are not insulted or degraded.
* Knowing that many members frequent several forums and belong to various organizations, we want a place where we are not "enemies" to other Apostolic forums or organizations, but are able to work peaceably with each other, knowing that many members frequent several forums.

While we have probably been too lax on some of these in the past, please do not be surprised if you are warned, given an infraction, or banned for doing any of the above. Our goal is to provide a place that generates open and honest discussion, not a war zone to kill each other. Disagree with doctrine. Get as heated as you want concerning doctrine and beliefs, and what you see as error. But learn to not attack the person.

[PastorD]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

How much "diversity" does the Lord want on the fundamental question of "what is salvation" ?

I hear ya.....I guess the difference for me that is I am not on AFF to find out what I believe. I know what I believe. It is obvious some take this forum bizz pretty serious.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I'm left with the impression that you and StMatthew are ashamed of your roots. You side step every mention of them and treat great men and women of God as if they were a hair lip cousin that you have to hide in the barn whenever company visits.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Why do you demand that I accept those that did not lay the foundation of the Apostolic doctrine?? I do not ignore the fathers of the Apostolic movement. The foundation was not laid by Haywood, Goss, or Ewart. It was laid by the Apostles, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Why would I look elsewhere to find truth. If we compare ourselves with anything other than the Word, then we are destined to get off coarse.

Okay, that's good- if I've understood you. Do you believe that "Haywood, Goss [and] Ewart" and company, were "off course?" Or perhaps that they were just "getting on course" and that your exclusivism provides the final missing component to a real apostolic restoration?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

A while back we were given some words as to what this forum was to be like. These are the words that were given to us:

The Admins have been in a discussion on the subject of making a clearer definition of what we mean on AFF when we say Apostolic. If we were a ministry, we would need a clearer definition of where we stand. But this is a fellowship, a discussion board - it is not a ministry - it is a place where people can come and have good clean fellowship. We want to allow for discussion within the broader range of what it means to be Apostolic. Therefore we have put this together with the approval of the Owners and Admin Team.

Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum, Apostolic being defined as follows:

Apostolic is defined on AFF as those that believe that every sinner must repent of their sins, and that Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism. That the Holy Ghost is for today, and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life pleasing to God.

When we created this Forum, we had a few set guidelines we were looking for.

* * We want a place that generates fellowship and discussion, even sometimes heated discussion.
* We want a place where ministry is not being belittled or degraded.
* We want a place where the members on this forum are not insulted or degraded.
* Knowing that many members frequent several forums and belong to various organizations, we want a place where we are not "enemies" to other Apostolic forums or organizations, but are able to work peaceably with each other, knowing that many members frequent several forums.

While we have probably been too lax on some of these in the past, please do not be surprised if you are warned, given an infraction, or banned for doing any of the above. Our goal is to provide a place that generates open and honest discussion, not a war zone to kill each other. Disagree with doctrine. Get as heated as you want concerning doctrine and beliefs, and what you see as error. But learn to not attack the person.

Notice the words that I bolded. The term "Apostolic" as used in this forum means that we believe in repentance, we believe in baptism in Jesus' name and we believe in the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) but there is room under the heading of "Apostolic" to include those who believe that justification/salvation/regeneration takes place before water and/or Spirit baptism and also those who believe that water and Spirit baptism are required before justification/salvation/regeneration. This is the same basis that the UPC was formed upon in 1945 and was defined by the "fundamental doctrine" statement.

At least that is my understanding of what the Administrators meant to say. If I am wrong, an Administrator should correct me.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your apparent refrence to Azusa Street as being a "street revival in San Francisco" sheds a lot of light on your understanding of your own heritage.

But no, I am speaking about the teachings of the founders of the PCI and the PAJC and PAW. Howard Goss, John Dearing, WT Witherspoon, A.D. Urshan, G.T. Haywood, S.G. Norris, and a host of others.

Why don't you follow their beiliefs? I'm just asking... I'm sure you've got good reasons for splintering away from the movement. But why?


To insist upon such a subjective standard as "by the Spirit" leads inevitably to chaos. What you have stated here is identical to the teachings of the Mormon church. Also, the Roman Catholic Church makes the same claim about itself. About the only group that doesn't make this same claim is when you hear a Baptist say they were "founded by John the Baptist and so they're older than the apostles!"

It's great to be truly led by the Spirit. But you have a paper trail that you can follow as well that will give you important insights into your own heritage.

I'm left with the impression that you and StMatthew are ashamed of your roots. You side step every mention of them and treat great men and women of God as if they were a hair lip cousin that you have to hide in the barn whenever company visits.

I am amazed that you keep drawing me into this fray, as I do not remember discussing this with you prior to now.

I have no doubt that "Howard Goss, John Dearing, WT Witherspoon, A.D. Urshan, G.T. Haywood, S.G. Norris, and a host of others" were good men. But that does not make them right in their doctrinal views. (BTW, if my memory serves me (and it may not) I believe that Haywood DID embrace the Acts 2:38 message as being the only way to be saved.) And again, I have been independent my whole life. My dad was an independent minister. So my "heritage" is not tied to an org, or a group of men. My heritage is tied to the teachings of the Apostles.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by PastorD

I hear ya.....I guess the difference for me that is I am not on AFF to find out what I believe. I know what I believe. It is obvious some take this forum bizz pretty serious.

I think the frustration some traditional Oneness folk are having is that they feel like they are constantly being harangued by PCI folk on their beliefs. Especially galling is the implication that we are preaching a distortion of the true and original gospel. *hogwash*

Originally Posted by PastorD

It is obvious some take this forum bizz pretty serious.

Indeed, some more so than others. :O)

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Okay, that's good- if I've understood you. Do you believe that "Haywood, Goss [and] Ewart" and company, were "off course?" Or perhaps that they were just "getting on course" and that your exclusivism provides the final missing component to a real apostolic restoration?

I do not believe the PCI version of salvational doctrine is correct. You are welcome to label the above however you please.

But my question is, WHY do you demand that I acknowledge them as some great one. They were men that were fallible.

And also, I do not see doctrine as exclusive, but inclusive. Anyone that will simply obey in faith is included.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Sam

Notice the words that I bolded. The term "Apostolic" as used in this forum means that we believe in repentance, we believe in baptism in Jesus' name and we believe in the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism) but there is room under the heading of "Apostolic" to include those who believe that justification/salvation/regeneration takes place before water and/or Spirit baptism and also those who believe that water and Spirit baptism are required before justification/salvation/regeneration. This is the same basis that the UPC was formed upon in 1945 and was defined by the "fundamental doctrine" statement.

At least that is my understanding of what the Administrators meant to say. If I am wrong, an Administrator should correct me.

Sam, you are correct. Our "statement" was made specifically so that there was room for both the PCI and the PAJC views to be discussed. But I recently dialogged with one poster that stated that even repentance wasn't necessary for salvation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I do not believe the PCI version of salvational doctrine is correct. You are welcome to label the above however you please.

So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?

Originally Posted by stmatthew

But my question is, WHY do you demand that I acknowledge them as some great one. They were men that were fallible.

I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.

Originally Posted by stmatthew

And also, I do not see doctrine as exclusive, but inclusive. Anyone that will simply obey in faith is included.

The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.

I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion.