Who Grimaced?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 98-05-27 23:52:37 EDT, you write:

<< Bro. Starcher was not disputing the view equating Acts 2:38 with the new
 birth as a valid and widely-held position. Instead, I believe, he was
 challenging the statement that *all* Apostolics have come to accept this
 interpretation. The statement is not factual, for there are many
 individuals as well as entire Apostolic organizations that believe otherwis
>>

Personally I don't view Apostolics in any other way except that they believe
the Apostles Doctrine.  If they differ in doctrine from the Apostles than they
disqualify themselves from being Apostolic.

Example:  Many call themselves Christians, but by definiation it means to be
Christ Like. So to call your self a christian and to actually be a christian
are two different things.

I am acquainted with a church that calls its self the  "New Apostolic Church"
and it does not teach any of the basic doctrines of the New Testiment Church
that I am aware of and is Apostolic in name only, and does not teach the
Apostle's doctrine so plainly spelled out in our Bible.

Pastor Fitzgerel