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

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by scotty

Really? I would be curious to know what post that would be?

Here:

Originally Posted by scotty

With the uttmost respect , I don't see how you can back any of that with scripture?

And, in response to a post by CH where he says:

Down through history there have been outbreaks and revivals of this truth in various times and places throughout Christendom. And the Trinitarian church has waged all out war against it. One God Christians have been burned at the stake for refusing to believe in the Trinity or the triune baptismal formula. This isn't the time to back off the message....this is a time to get with the message.

Muslims love their Allah enough to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up....yet we water down the original teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles he called. Would it be fair to say that the Apostolics we're seeing here don't love the full application of the gospel as much as Muslims love Islam?

Shake yourselves and awaken from your slumber my brethren. This is no time to retreat into the "average" Christian faith and practice of traditional Christian religion. This is a time to stand up and be counted...to prepare for war. To storm the very gates of Hell.

The idea that Acts 2:38 isn't essential is a lie from Hell and smells like smoke.

(I bolded and underlined the part that strays from Apostolic teaching)

You said:

Originally Posted by scotty

This sentiment of exclusivism against other Christians is new to the Apostolic movement. I dare say if A. D. Urshan were alive today, he wouldn't last a week on this board. The same with S.G. Norris, W.T. Witherspoon, John Dearing and many others.

I personally sat in a ministerial ethics class/seminar that was being taught be Stanley Chambers (back before the Internet was anything other than a Defense Department project). Brother Chambers shared his heart and was reviled for being a "compromiser."

We don't treat our elders very well. If they were alive and on this board, they would have probably been ridiculed and driven off within the first couple of days. There teachings are edited or thrown out entirely so that this new movement of exclusivism can be allowed to dominate.

[scotty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty
With the uttmost respect , I don't see how you can back any of that with scripture?


This is simply me asking someone to back what they are saying with the Word of God. All of us have the right to ask one for that.

Quote:
Down through history there have been outbreaks and revivals of this truth in various times and places throughout Christendom. And the Trinitarian church has waged all out war against it. One God Christians have been burned at the stake for refusing to believe in the Trinity or the triune baptismal formula. This isn't the time to back off the message....this is a time to get with the message.

Muslims love their Allah enough to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up....yet we water down the original teachings of our Lord Jesus and the Apostles he called. Would it be fair to say that the Apostolics we're seeing here don't love the full application of the gospel as much as Muslims love Islam?

Shake yourselves and awaken from your slumber my brethren. This is no time to retreat into the "average" Christian faith and practice of traditional Christian religion. This is a time to stand up and be counted...to prepare for war. To storm the very gates of Hell.

The idea that Acts 2:38 isn't essential is a lie from Hell and smells like smoke.

I really don't understand your point with this one, first off he is asking a question not making a statement and he is refering to "some" not "all" Apostolics along with making the observation that the word "apostolic" has become as watered down as the word "christian".

I will stand behind these post, I just don't see the "anti" apostolic in them. Sorry.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by scotty

Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty
This is simply me asking someone to back what they are saying with the Word of God. All of us have the right to ask one for that.

I will stand behind these post, I just don't see the "anti" apostolic in them. Sorry.

Again, from the top...

I said:

Originally Posted by pelathais

..
From reading your posts over just the last few days, Scotty, my impression is that you don 't really line up with any of our Apostolic pioneers. Should I mount a campaign to get you banned?

I don't think I will. But, for the admin team; How do I answer Scotty when he asks me "What are you talking about- not lining up?" To be fair to Scotty I would have to give a good accounting of myself, and in the end, brethren, you know I'm right. The policy of exclusivism was never Apostolic until just recently.

I said "you don't really line up with any of our Apostolic pioneers."

You responded with:

Originally Posted by scotty

Really? I would be curious to know what post that would be?

I responded by providing a couple of posts where your expressed opinions don't really line up with any of our Apostolic pioneers." Those posts are here:

Example #1: JTULLOCK expresses an opinion very much in line with the historic teachings of the Apostolic Faith movement to which you responded with a challenge.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I think baptisim is a work, but only by faith does it make it true. Otherwise is a glorified bath. I guess I should have put it like this, "Yes faith without works is dead, but works does not mean it ALL is salvational, IMO."

I believe that a person is saved at repentance, but I do believe it is more of a journey than anything. Starts at repentance and goes on the baptisim and then to HGB. I believe that God will take genuine people to heaven if they have accepted Him into their life. But God knows the heart and we do not. He is the only one that can put people in heaven or keep them out.

Originally Posted by scotty

With the uttmost respect , I don't see how you can back any of that with scripture?

Your response here indicates that you do not hold the same opinion as JTULLOCK and that of the early Apostolic pioneers.

You asked for an example, this is one example. No one questions your "right" to challenge the assertions of another poster. It's just that you asked for an example where you expressed an opinion that was contrary to the teachings of our Apostolic pioneers, well here ya go!

I provided another example as well. Rather than saying something like, "Nuh-uh! The Apostolic pioneers all taught that 'Trinnies' were all going to hell..." (a point that would be easily proven wrong); you wiggled over into a new position where you asserted your right to challenge another poster.

Nice wiggle, but let's come back to the original issue that I raised. You Scotty - YOU - do not hold the same beliefs as our early Apostolic pioneers.

Now, you may be correct in doing so. It could be that the pioneers were all wrong and you have found the more correct teaching. You can try to make that case- but that might be another thread. On this thread the discussion involves the charge that there are some people on AFF who are promoting teachings that are not "Apostolic."

My only point here is that you Scotty - YOU - are promoting a teaching that is not ORIGINALLY a part of the Apostolic teachings and doctrines. And so I present my question to the admin team and for whomsoever else wishes to ponder it:

Do I report Scotty (or anyone else) who promotes the teaching of "exclusivism" - that is, that all other Christians are lost who have not experienced the "full package" of the Acts 2:38 message?

Anyone who endorses this "exclusivism" violates some of the fundamental teachings of A. D. Urshan, John H. Dearing, Howard A. Goss, A. T. Morgan, Stanley Chambers, Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, S. G. Norris and a host of other Apostolics.

That's my only question, Scotty. We can run through some of the other stuff that you bring up, it's all very interesting to me. But I was needing some guidance here. My understanding is that people get banned for promoting things that our Apostolic pioneers promoted. That's okay, but why call it "Apostolic Friends" if we're going to throw Apostolics and their long held beliefs out the door?

[scotty]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Nice wiggle, but let's come back to the original issue that I raised. You Scotty - YOU - do not hold the same beliefs as our early Apostolic pioneers.

Boy wish I would have caught you before you typed all that.

Sorry Some where back at the beginning I must have missed the word "pioneers"


No arguments here with your post, My fault Brother.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by scotty

Boy wish I would have caught you before you typed all that.

Sorry Some where back at the beginning I must have missed the word "pioneers"


No arguments here with your post, My fault Brother.

No prob. I thought that it was a good opportunity to question this point from the angle of our pioneers.

I remember hearing NA Urshan say a lot of things about his dad's beliefs. He wasn't disrespectful of his father in the least, but he did feel like he had to "push" the movement away from his father's position (and many other people's position) on the issue of exclusivism.

Remember that famous (infamous?) televised debate where Walter Martin ask N A Urshan, "Do you consider me your brother?" If A D Urshan had been there instead, the whole complexion of the debate would have been different. The elder Urshan (going by his writings) would not have hesitated or stammered and try to dodge the question.

Walter Martin was a rascal at times, and his soul in in God's hands now. But we hurt only ourselves when we are met with a genuine offer of friendship by other Bible believing Christians and we turn them away. We don't compromise our distinctives by sharing a burden with other Christians. In the end we may even help them to gain some very essential things.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No prob. I thought that it was a good opportunity to question this point from the angle of our pioneers.

I remember hearing NA Urshan say a lot of things about his dad's beliefs. He wasn't disrespectful of his father in the least, but he did feel like he had to "push" the movement away from his father's position (and many other people's position) on the issue of exclusivism.

Remember that famous (infamous?) televised debate where Walter Martin ask N A Urshan, "Do you consider me your brother?" If A D Urshan had been there instead, the whole complexion of the debate would have been different. The elder Urshan (going by his writings) would not have hesitated or stammered and try to dodge the question.

Walter Martin was a rascal at times, and his soul in in God's hands now. But we hurt only ourselves when we are met with a genuine offer of friendship by other Bible believing Christians and we turn them away. We don't compromise our distinctives by sharing a burden with other Christians. In the end we may even help them to gain some very essential things.

Martin was probably a nice guy he just wasn't saved. NOT ONE person is saved since Pentecost that has not obeyed Acts 2:38 including Martin and the other two false teachers that were with him.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Martin was probably a nice guy he just wasn't saved. NOT ONE person is saved since Pentecost that has not obeyed Acts 2:38 including Martin and the other two false teachers that were with him.

Again, we hurt only ourselves...

[scotty]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This sentiment of exclusivism against other Christians is new to the Apostolic movement. I dare say if A. D. Urshan were alive today, he wouldn't last a week on this board. The same with S.G. Norris, W.T. Witherspoon, John Dearing and many others.

I personally sat in a ministerial ethics class/seminar that was being taught be Stanley Chambers (back before the Internet was anything other than a Defense Department project). Brother Chambers shared his heart and was reviled for being a "compromiser."

We don't treat our elders very well. If they were alive and on this board, they would have probably been ridiculed and driven off within the first couple of days. There teachings are edited or thrown out entirely so that this new movement of exclusivism can be allowed to dominate.

The following is simply my opinion,


I think we sometimes lose sight of the one thing that our forum was founded on, as well as our faith. I have heard my pastor as well as other evangelist preach and with a single line make me go “huh?” It is times like that I turn my eyes toward God. I have been told that my 37 years in the faith has a 2 year old innocents to it. I hold that to be a compliment. Like a 37 year old child who still holds on to his mothers hand, I still hold to Gods hand often fearing what I hear from man.
Yes there are anointed leaders in our faith, but how ever anointed they may be they are human none the less. They are men, not to be held up or worshiped. I see many names posted on this forum as leaders, founders, anointed ones of God. 95% of them I have never heard of, yet when I research after seeing the names here, I recognize some of their messages from recordings, video, quotes, articles, etc. The anointing of these men is just that, the message.
I see post on this forum from most all members that could equate to a beautiful message, some have brought a tear to my eye, a stir in my heart or even a laugh of spiritual rejoicing, all of which is derived from the Spirit of God. Do I hold them in high esteem? Not at all. Their message and/or their works are of Holy Ghost, from God.
How many times have great leaders of God in the bible stumbled or even fell? Yet does that lessen the message they preached? Maybe I am too simplistic, but thats just the way I see it.
I don't think the messenger's actions matter much whether he stumbles or is anointed, but if his message be from God then thats what I hold dear. After all His Word will endurath all, even unto the end

Just my opinion.