Talk:Old Apostolic Church

Off-topic discussions

Off-topic chat

Earlier chat There is a lack and uncorrectness in history. In 1913 Klibbe founded the Apostolic Church of South Africa. In 1925 he ordained H. Velde as Apostle who died in 1956, when his communities gathered with the newly established Erasmus-Group which took the name of Apostolic Church of South Africa - Apostle Unity. Taurus65 12:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC) It is my belief that Klibbe was not especially sent to South Africa by the church, but came here as a prospector to seek his fortune.Today other Old Apostolics choose to go abroad as job seekers in foreign countries for the same reasons, to try and find a better life. The churches would like to coin the Phrase that they are sent to another country whereas the truth of the matter is that they went seeking their fortune in a foreign land, just like Klibbe did. user:randbaby20.00,4 march 2007 Without people notifying the doctrine of the apostle they rely on the speculations made by peole which is not fare towards the discrimination of the church and there believe in GOD. In that sense of authority we as the people cannot say that the apostle klibbe only came to find great fortune. do not judge others as they do not judge you. Hi, I have been a member of the Old Apostolic Church in South Africa, and preached from their pulpits before I ACCEPTED THE LORD JESUS CHRIST as my personal Saviour and King. Many things can be said about the doctrines of the OAC, but I will only talk about the most important issues and this is relevant to all churches under the sun anyway. In the OAC and many other churches, a person becomes a member of that church when they make a decision to accept the doctrines of that church. This make you a church member, not A CHILD OF GOD. And in the case of the OAC, the most important doctrines is about them having Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers – the last two not being called as such, but Elders, Priests and Under Deacons. The Apostle has a VERY authoritive position and his word is as good as God’s word and seen as such. The OAC says, according to John 1:1 that the spoken word of the Apostles is God – God is the word and the word is God! The truth is that John 1:1 talks about Jesus and not about the spoken words of men, no matter what their position. The next very important doctrine of the OAC is the spirit versus flesh, scenario. From this they take the Bible as spiritual and not literal – water in the Bible will then ALWAYS be interpreted as the gospel and consequently the recorded history in the Bible will be ignored and spiritualized to fit and proof their doctrines. The worst doctrine is: Working for salvation. They really believe that they will go to eternal life because 1. They have been sealed with the Holy Spirit by the Apostle (every person has to receive this physically) and 2. They earn it by or through their doctrinal deeds. My friend, the Bible is very clear about salvation. You have to be BORN FROM ABOVE. John 1:12&13 says that every person who accepts Jesus (of Nazareth) as their personal Saviour will be born from above. This is what John 3 describes as RE-BIRTH. The OAC does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the alive today – they believe the body (church) is Jesus. We are not the literal hands, feet etc. of Christ - we are a body of people that belong to Christ and a body that Christ controls. Please feel free to email me. pmoller@lantic.net One should guard against reading fact into statements or opinions intended to harm or discredit any doctrine or individuals belonging to such a doctrine. Math 13:24-30 The only way to truly experience and understand this doctrine, and any other, for that matter, is to actively participate and become part of it. Jesus said so himself (Joh 6:51-63). It is not always easy to do, it wasn't easy for even the Apostles at the time (read Joh 6:66). Even more so today with the demands on our personal time and space. It is a lifelong commitment. If you truly want to know the OAC and what it represents, come ... follow me ... every day (Luk 9:23) ... but understand this - by grace we are saved, not through our works (Eff 2:8-9) HH 41.242.115.179 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Some more FACTS instead of personal belief and bible citations would be much more helpful for an encyclopedia! This is not a forum of discussion of belief, pro and contra of any religion or denomination but a meaning of discussion of the ARTICLE! Would be nice if the insiders contribute to the (missing) FACTS of the article. Taurus65 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Interesting similarities between the Old Apostolic Church (Africa) and Old Apostolic Lutheran Church By reading the pages on www.oldapostoliclutheran.com I was amazed by the similarities between the two denominations: Old Apostolic Church (Africa) and Old Apostolic Lutheran Church. As far as I can establish, they have no ties with each other. This proves the point that churches / denominations are spirit driven or spirit influenced -the question is: Which spirit? A visit to this website may be an eye opener to people trying to find out more about the Old Apostolic Church. Peet Moller —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.207.47.60 (talk) 14:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC) I am sick and tierd of people running the Old Apostolic Church down through ignorance. I am an under deacon in the church and can confidently say- through experience, that this is the only way to truely know God which according to John 17: 3 is very importent.people who run us down should rather come and see first hand what it is we practice and what we believe before making any comments. We do not run any other faiths down because all faiths do good work. stop running us down! all we wish to do is serve God in spirit and in truth... if we believe this to be the apostolic way, so be it. Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.74.64 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC) moller comments Mr moller you are obviously a very confused individual... John 17 v 3 clearly states that in order to have life eternal we should know God and his only begotten son whom he 'has sent' tell me my friend- where is your God and how well do you know him? Do not run us down if you are not sure of your facts... i am an under deacon in the old apostolic faith and can honestly say- for me, this is the only way to salvation. don't critisize what you don't know, come see for yourself and experience God for the first time in your life. you may e- mail me, i look forward to your corrispondence. under deacon Esterhuizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.74.64 (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Old Apostolic Church This page should be used only for fact based information on the Old Apostolic Church. I have added some information and sources. It would be best to keep the discussion to the facts. There is other places on the Internet to vent frustration about religious groups. Wikipedia is not such a place for venting frustration or propaganda destribution. Slandering should also be kept from this site. If you do not have anything good to state, do not state it. Thanx SaneSerenity —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaneSerenity (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Old Apostolic Church - Clearing up Assumptions The Old Apostolic Church deals in facts. If you are a member, then this would be evident. We have no ill intent nor do we wish harm towards anyone, but due to misunderstanding and assumptions, the facts are twisted and the truth is misconstrude. We are not as visible as other churches, nor do we misuse our doctrine in anyway for personal gain. The History part of this page regarding Apostle Klibbe sounds right to me, and it's more or less truthful to what I was taught by my parents. Apostle Klibbe was the founder of our physical Church, though the Word and Gospel was founded through the Ages by God and Christ. We have a long history. We believe in God, the Holy Trinity (the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). We believe in God Emannuelle, "God in Man" (Luke 17). We also believe that God is a Spirit, and that we should Serve Him in Spirit and in Truth (John 4). We believe God is Love. We believe in the Gifts placed in man by God as mentioned in Ephesians 4, which are the Apostle, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastors, Teachers and we also believe the church is the body of Christ. We believe that Christ is the head of our church, and that the Christ is placed in the Apostle who is the physical head of our church. We believe in Dreams, Visions and Prophesies as the means with which God speaks to us ..Job 33. We have never forced our doctrine onto anyone, and soul salvation is a personal matter. Our Priests, and other "Clergy" are not paid salaries, but serve the communities freely and voluntarily. Our Apostles, Prophets, Evangelist, Pastors & Teachers are not placed in their offices by man, but by God. i.e We do not have elections; our Officers are elected via dreams, visions and prophesies. Our doctrine is based on The Word/The Gospel of the Bible. We believe in the Covenant Christ made, love thy neighbour as thy self, and God above all. We also believe that you may receive the Holy Spirit only by the laying of the hands of the Apostle as it's demonstrated in Acts. We believe that God is our Lord and saviour, and that we may all have everlasting life by his Grace and Mercy alone. We are guarenteed everlasting life, only if we live our lives as God commands it, and by testifying the knowledge we have gained to everyone. This must be done rightiously, soberly, with truth and spirit, honestly, with a renewed mind of understanding of the spirit(Rom 12), with Diligence, virtue, faith, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, charity and with Love.2Peter 1. I hope this makes things a bit more clear. I would however suggest, if anyone has any futher questions about the doctrine or faith of the OAC, then to please visit http://www.oldapostolic.com to find a representative near you for further information. With love and greetings, and wishes of blessings to all who read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroovyWoodpecker (talk • contribs) 10:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (ant321ares@hotmail.com) I am a former member of the OAC who served as a priest, and whose father is still a fourfold officer in the OAC. The Offices of the OAC in Montana, Pretoria, contain a wealth of documentary and photographic information regarding the recorded history of the OAC as an organisation - there need be no dispute with regards to the earthly history of the OAC in South Africa. However, using this forum in order to debate the ecumenical aspects of the OAC or as a propaganda platform is senseless as those who are converts do not need convincing and those who are only interested in the historical and factual aspects of the OAC as an organisation will find these postings more irritating than helpful.196.212.99.98 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have updated some of the information and sources. SaneSerenity (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Apostolic Church - Sources

Please, when making changes, place the relevant sources. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool.

SaneSerenity (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Seosenyeng Booi Maritsi I am one of The Old Apostolic Church Priest,our Church members believe in Jesus Christ,the Son of man,and we believe in trinity.Every Church have ITs own rules and regulation,some us are taking part in the politcs and all members are allowed to vote and we obey the constitution of South Africa and we pray for our world and people.I am not saisfied about some of the comments but there is nothing I can do except praying God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.82.10.65 (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please note: There has been a lot of vandalism on this page by some disgruntled people who have placed comments on the article page. SaneSerenity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

Sources from the church about the church, its doctrines, founders, etc. are primary sources. Sources from outside of the church that have met and interviewed individuals associated with the search, read the church's documents, etc. are secondary sources. Sources which are based on secondary sources are tertiary sources.

For most purposes, Wikipedia prefers tertiary sources. Many secondary sources are acceptable, with due care. Primary sources should only be used for undisputed basic facts: an address, an undisputed founding date, etc.

For this article, we need clear citations to reliable sources which are independent of the church. At present, we have two major problems:

• Unclear, partial cites. Bare links are subject to link rot: If the page they refer to is moved or deleted, we have no way to recover the source. Vague descriptions ("Martin, Harry. I Tell You The Truth") make it difficult for readers to verify that the material comes from an independent reliable source.

• Primary and dependent sources. Yes, the church has a lot to say about itself. As with most organizations, everything it says about itself is either positive or neutral. For any notable topic, there are likely to be negative aspects which are notable. Additionally, interpretation of primary sources is generally problematic: selecting what to present in the article and how to present it is heavily influenced by the editor working on the article. Imagine, for example, if we were writing an article about an actor. We certainly might use that actor's website for their birth date (if no one is disputing it), where they went to school and similar basic facts. We would not, however, use their website and press releases to discuss much else. They would (understandably) spend far more time discussing their successful/popular films (blockbusters, award winners, etc.), charity work, good relationships and such than their notable failures (Razzie award for "Worst Actor"), ugly divorces, arrests, etc.

I will begin to do some basic research on the church: founding, broad characterization of its basic teachings, relationship with the rest of the world, etc. Much of what is here now, however, is of little use. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As an example, "Church History of the Old Apostolic Church for the Sunday School" is not a useful citation. For openers, it sure seems to be a primary source: one published by the church itself. I say it "seems to be" because of the second problem here: The cite does not provide enough information for anyone to verify the claim.

Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on reliable published tertiary and secondary sources. Other than very basic, uncontested facts (date founded, perhaps), primary sources -- those published by the church and those close to the church -- are not usable as sources here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in possesion of the document Church History of the OAC for Sunday School and will make it available to Administrators for arbitration. SaneSerenity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

SaneSerenity: Thank you for coming to the talk page. Who is the author of this document? When was it published and by whom? - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The relevant document was published within the Old Apostolic Church as an official Sunday School document. In internal publications a specific author is not mentioned and the Church itself is seen as the author and publisher. Date of publication is unknown.

SaneSerenity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly a primary source. Please see WP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT. Our article on Donald Trump is not based primarily on sources written by Trump. Similarly, an article on the Old Apostolic Church cannot be based on sources written by the church. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential sources

• Welfare, Religion and Gender in Post-apartheid South Africa, edited by Ignatius Swart, et al., pp 43-ff., African Sun Media, 2012[1]
• Rule, S.P. (2002) Spirituality in South Africa: Christian beliefs. In: Human Sciences Research Council, Public attitudes in contemporary SA: insights from an HSRC survey. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council. 87-96.
• Kuligan, Victor. "The New Apostolic Church", Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 24.1 2005, pp 63-ff.[2]
• Turner, H. W., "Review: New Studies of New Movements. Some Publications on African Independent Churches Since 1973", Journal of Religion in Africa, Vol. 11, Fasc. 2, 1980.[3]
• Connell, A. et al., "Religious Delusions in a Xhosa Schizophrenia Population", J Relig Health (2015) 54: 1555. doi:10.1007/s10943-014-9860-0[4]

Unsourced verbal gymnastics

"An overseer is responsible for overseeing the overall operations of the overseer-ship."[5] What is an "overseer-ship"? I'm going to step out on a limb here and guess that it what an overseer oversees. The Evangelist, however, is -- thankfully -- not evangelizing an evangel-ship. This is circular wording. What does the Qwertyizer do? The Qwertyizer qwertyizes the qwerty-ship, of course

Instead, the Evangelist in charge of "people who are still being ruled by an old Adam i.e desires of the flesh, are not being ruled by the holy spirit", "saving souls, as many as possible" and "to keep them with Godly love." This is all in-universe. To a member of this faith, it might all make perfect sense. Wikipedia, however, is aimed at the general reader. Someone with no previous knowledge of this particular faith -- perhaps with minimal knowledge of Christianity in general -- should be able to read and understand the article.

Further, the article should state objective truths. "Saving souls" is a belief. No one on Wikipedia saves souls any more than they achieve Nirvana or submits to Allah. A follower of this faith believes that it is not possible to submit to Allah. A Muslim believes that -- it is an in-universe statement.

It is very difficult -- and against Wikipedia's policies -- to take primary sources (such as the teachings and publications of a religion and its followers) and produce objective statements about that religion. Believers who try to do so inevitably become evangelists and apologists. Members of other religions who try to do so tend to emphasize differences from their faith, rather than discussing the essential facts. If you discuss ketchup with an unspoken devotion to tomato paste, you end up discussing vinegar and spices, neglecting to mention that ketchup is mostly tomatoes.

The solution here, is to summarize independent reliable sources. "Independent" here refers to objective writers from outside the religion and its opponents. We want sources that are trying to describe the religion, neither building it up nor tearing it down. By "reliable sources", we mean published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as explained in more detail at WP:IRS.

Please note that it is unlikely that independent reliable sources will say everything you might want to say and are likely to say things that you feel are best omitted.

The more strongly you feel about this topic, the less likely you are to be able to write an objective article about it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Forging ahead

This article has several major problems. To the extent that no one else is addressing them, I will try to take them on one at a time.

The first problem is unsourced, in-universe writing. A clear-ish example of this is one I just cleaned up.[6]

"...the symbolic laying on of the hands of the Apostle is representative of the true laying on of the hands which has already occurred in the heart and mind of the member..."

Yes, a "symbolic" act is "representative". That's merely redundant. A "true laying on of the hands" in the heart would require cutting open the chest cavity. A true laying on of the hands in the mind is, strictly speaking, impossible as there is no physical mind for hands to actually touch. What is actually meant by a "true laying on of hands" is something a member of this faith likely understands. It is not, however, explained here and is likely not discussed much in any independent reliable sources. Yes, the members of the faith believe that this is discussed at several places in various biblical texts. Other faiths have different interpretations of those same passages. Unless independent scholarly sources directly state that this faith's interpretation is what those texts meant (which they don't), we have nothing to say on the subject.

I tried to clean up this particular paragraph a bit, trying to recast it as an objective observer looking in might see the practices described. It's likely imperfect at best. Moving forward, the entire section is unsourced. I've marked it as such and will be removing it wholesale in the next few days. More unsourced material will follow.

Next up will be the primary sources. When they are gone, the material built on them will have to go. Then we'll take a look at the independent sources. Those of dubious quality (and the material based on them) will go after that.

Finally, we'll be in the position to rebuild this as a proper encyclopedia article: NPOV and sourced to independent reliable sources.

It is my hope that others will join in on this work as it is likely to be slow moving. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've removed all of the unsourced sections.

Now it's a question of the sources that are here. Virtually everything here is untraceable, primary or both. This brings us to the next section. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

As I have repeatedly tried to discuss above, all Wikipedia articles must be based on independent reliable sources, per our policies.

Sources from the church itself, its members, its officers, etc. are not independent. Please see WP:PST. Other than for the most basic, uncontroversial material, primary sources cannot be used and will be removed.

Sources that are not from publishers with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are not reliable. Please see WP:IRS. Unreliable sources will be removed.

Sources which are not published, are vaguely cited or are otherwise unavailable might as well not exist -- they are not verifiable and will be removed.

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. This article should not try to present a detailed account of the history and beliefs of the church. If independent reliable sources do not discuss an aspect of the church, its history and beliefs, Wikipedia should not cover it either.

Other sources have other problems, that I will note as I go along. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Related

Another article, Apostolic Church of South Africa – Apostle Unity, cites one of the primary sources cited here. I'll get to that one next. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)