This has been hashed and rehashed, I realize that.
This thread is for each to lay out their definition,belief,doctrine of what makes them "Apostolic".
Rules:
You are only allowed to post your definition of Apostolic ! Your not to comment on or question anyone elses post. This is not a debate thread. It is ONLY to lay out YOUR own opinion of what "Apostolic" is. If you want to debate someone on their views then call them out on another thread.
__________________ You can't reach the world with your talents. People are sick and tired of religious talents. People need a Holy Ghost annointed church with real fruits to reach out and touch their lives. ~ Pastor Burrell Crabtree
In fact I think that the insinuation of "hateful" Pentecostals is coming mostly from the fertile imaginations of bitter, backslidden ex Apostolics who are constantly trying to find a way to justify their actions. ~ strait shooter
Those who continue in the tradition and praxis of the Early Church, as led by its Apostles, carrying out the teachings of Jesus via the commission: teaching, baptizing, discipling.
Apostolics will be open to charismatic signs, encourage spiritual gifts, take care of poor and needy, in all things point to Jesus Christ. They will reflect and exemplify the teachings of the early Church, not contending for division, but contending for unity.
They will have churches after the apostolic model (admittedly a very loose, informal model) that included plural leadership of elders, the understanding that all are ministering brothers to one another, house-to-house, assembly-to-assembly. They are hospitable.
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 02-02-2011 at 05:53 PM.
I'll submit an additional note, concerning being Pentecostal.
I am convinced of the infilling of the Holy Ghost (John 20:19-23) and the empowering of that same Spirit (Acts 1:8) for good works and the edification of the body of Christ. As a consequence, each disciple shall receive his/her calling and gifting as the Spirit wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-14, Romans 11:29), and this out powering of the Spirit with its included power (from even the creation of the world) began on the feast of Shavu'ot (Pentecost), in celebration of the day when God verbally addressed the entire nation of Israel and gave them The Law of the Covenant (Exodus 20). On this latter day, He made available to all of mankind His Spirit in a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-40; Joel 2:27-32; Acts 2:16-21).
Having access to the power of the Spirit, being given the authority of the name of Jesus, is not to be used in or for some religious hype. But to be exercised in a thoughtful, spiritually mature and responsible manner, even as Jesus and His disciples exercised that same spiritual authority and focused the power of God's Spirit for the glory of the Father, even His son Jesus, according to will and purpose of God. (Reference: See any or all of the examples of divine spiritual workings in the New Testament.)
__________________
It makes no difference whether you study in the holy language, or in Arabic, or Aramaic [or in Greek or even in English]; it matters only whether it is done with understanding. - Moshe Maimonides.
Last edited by A.W. Bowman; 02-02-2011 at 10:15 PM.
Following the Apostles doctrine. It includes but is not limited to the Oneness and Acts 2:38 message. It is the full gospel being lived out among such believers.
Following the Apostles doctrine. It includes but is not limited to the Oneness and Acts 2:38 message. It is the full gospel being lived out among such believers.
Before we close the hatch absolutely on confirming what the Apostles believed, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that it's written? For example, we know in that God is one. What we never hear from witnesses in Scripture is words like "hypostatic union," "dual nature," etc. So, while those are certainly absolutes of the Church (Jesus was fully God, and fully man), going too far beyond that with absoluteness and dubbing that "Apostolic" seems irresponsible.
Before we close the hatch absolutely on confirming what the Apostles believed, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that it's written? For example, we know in that God is one. What we never hear from witnesses in Scripture is words like "hypostatic union," "dual nature," etc. So, while those are certainly absolutes of the Church (Jesus was fully God, and fully man), going too far beyond that with absoluteness and dubbing that "Apostolic" seems irresponsible.
then call them out on another thread.
Hybrid Mode
