AFF apostolic or not?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by StMark

Sis no one is trying to sit on the Judgment council (not me)
BUT after being on the forum for over 5 years, it is clear that
many here DO baptize in Jesus name BUT it's not mandatory
it can be done AoG method and you'll still make it just the
same.

Just stating what is - that's all

This is the key, and why the some would label the forum non-apostolic.

While everyone here says they believe Jesus name baptism is the biblically right way to do it, it is not essential that baptism be done the biblically right way to be saved. Thus it is opened up that if titles are ok, probably any way is ok, as it is not a salvation issue. And if any way is ok, since you can be saved without the biblical way, someone can be saved even if they use the BAM!!! method.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

I prefer to place more focus on the second word in our title....

FRIENDS!

Heaven forbid!!!! Well, it is obvious there is NO hope for you!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

Because the Bible teaches that a man should not wear that which pertaineth to a woman. Bad argument my friend.

Do you even listen to yourself, friend? LOL.

"Short pants" - pertain to a woman? Then you advocate (as StMark appeared to do) that our ladies are fine wearing "short pants." What about long pants, then?

If short pants "pertain to a woman" - as you just said - then she should also be allowed to wear the more modest long pants.

Honestly, do you guys read what you've posted? Do you listen to yourselves at all?

Narrow Is The Way advocates women wearing pants. He says men should not wear pants because they "pertain to a woman"!!!!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Barb

In thinking about this thread, it seems that Mother Alvear has stated it best. Can we not build on those things we have in common and leave the last word to God?!

Jesus prayed that we might be one...it might be profitable if those called by His Name would do the same.

That would be nice Sis. Barb - but one keeps running into folks that lack your wisdom and spiritual maturity.

How can I build with a man who says it's a sin for me to wear my baggy cargo shorts while I'm working in the yard - because my short pants "pertain to a woman." And then... following his instructions I give up the cargo shorts and give them to my daughter to wear while horseback ridding because they're more modest than a skirt on horseback.

But then Narrow Is The Way (and guys like him) come back shreeking about my sin in allowing my daughter to wear "that which pertaineth to a man..."

I lived my entire life riding that yo-yo up and down at the whims of people that I trusted. I saw families torn apart and good Christian folks driven from the churches they helped to build because of people who talked like Narrow Is The Way does.

So what's the "word" today, NITW? Do short pants pertain to woman today? Or do they pertain to a man today? Millions of us are standing in our bedrooms waiting to get dressed according to your ever changing whims.

Wouldn't it be better if these people either grew up or stopped turning the communities where we labor against the Apostolic message with the contradictory and hypocrtical pronouncements? I for one am holding out hope that they might educate themselves in the Word of God and grow up.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by Narrow Is The Way

It does not bother me if someone does not hold to the same standard that I hold. What is troubling to me is the attitude that comes with it.

To answer your question Hometown guy. AFF in my opinion is not Apostolic.
Triumphant1, I give you permission to go first.

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Now my question to you is, if this is called Apostolic Friends Forum, what is apostolic about it. Most of you on here think it’s a free trip to heaven so live how yow want ...

I hope we can discuss this without anyone getting a bad spirit and we can all still be

Well, it seems to bother your friend. And then the hilarious part is after he says that he basically thinks everyone on this forum is splitting hell wide open, he hopes we can all be friends...

So you fellowship with people who don't preach it exactly like you do?

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I must confess that I am still completely baffled by those who won't even take a look at the last 100 years of our history. They seem to be so wrapped up in whatever mood that possesses them at the moment. There is no wisdom where one will not learn from the past.

And then to deny that the past ever even occurred at all is astounding to me.

Maybe if ReformedDave would post a pic of his grandparents again they would see what I mean. RD's grandparents help to found our movement and his parents were giants within it.

But this divisiveness is a big part of our heritage as well. Ike Terry used to boast that he was "the first one to preach this message in the valley" after he moved out to California in the 1950's. He said that just to get his digs at the "liberal" Clyde Haney who had been laboring in that field for decades before Ike showed up with his crude jokes about the women he pastored.

Cough, cough... Would that be AFTER he split off of the other Jesus name church in the valley that he was attending before he started his church??

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

This is the key, and why the some would label the forum non-apostolic.

While everyone here says they believe Jesus name baptism is the biblically right way to do it, it is not essential that baptism be done the biblically right way to be saved. Thus it is opened up that if titles are ok, probably any way is ok, as it is not a salvation issue. And if any way is ok, since you can be saved without the biblical way, someone can be saved even if they use the BAM!!! method.

You must know by now Matt, that those who get sorted into the "One Stepper" category see salvation as occurring at conversion or repentance. But our lives don't stop there, and the Bible gives us guidance on how to continue on in our walk.

Once you were saved - did you stop loving your family? Or is it even necessary to love your family after you're saved? If Acts 2:38 is all it takes to be saved, and you've done that, then ditch the old lady and kids and start dating super-models.

Or, upon receiving salvation do you feel certain obligations and commitments to a particular way of life? A way of life that precludes the super-models?

If so, then you're really a "One Stepper" at heart.

[Brad Murphy]

I just posted this on another thread, but thought it would be appropriate here...

I still wonder if I lived in the past as one of my ancestors, and I spoke only Gaelic, would it be okay for me to get baptized in the name of Iosa? Or would I have to learn Greek or English and then get baptized in the name of Jesus...

[Coffee99]

Originally Posted by LadyCoonskinner

I don't know that it's a sin, but I think if we preach that men need to wear pants, then I believe that causes confusion in the minds of people.

How could that possibly cause confusion in the mind of any reasonable person?

[Narrow Is The Way]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Do you even listen to yourself, friend? LOL.

"Short pants" - pertain to a woman? Then you advocate (as StMark appeared to do) that our ladies are fine wearing "short pants." What about long pants, then?

If short pants "pertain to a woman" - as you just said - then she should also be allowed to wear the more modest long pants.

Honestly, do you guys read what you've posted? Do you listen to yourselves at all?

Narrow Is The Way advocates women wearing pants. He says men should not wear pants because they "pertain to a woman"!!!!

Hello. Well I thought I was talking to grown adults and not children. I guess I better be very very specific because the interpretation IQ's are very low around here. Somebody (i think prax.) first made the argument that a man should be able to wear short pants because a woman wears dresses or skirts that are shorter than a regular pair of mans pants. This was his argument, not mine. HE WAS REFERRING TO THE LENGTH WHEN HE MADE HIS ARGUMENT, not the fact that it had a breach like a mans garment. Are you really that naive pelathais? I was referring here to length. If a man wears short pants the length is more like a womans garment. Key word here. LENGTH. YOU NEED TO POINT YOUR CRITICISM AT PRAX BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONE MAKING THE SILLY COMPARISON. I am sorry that you were confused. Not surprised, but sorry you were confused. I will try, next time to remember.