{"id":1642,"date":"2025-04-22T14:01:19","date_gmt":"2025-04-22T12:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/?p=1642"},"modified":"2025-04-22T14:01:19","modified_gmt":"2025-04-22T12:01:19","slug":"old-apostolic-church-and-new-apostolic-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/archives\/1642","title":{"rendered":"Old Apostolic Church and New Apostolic Church"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This information about the \u201cOld Apostolic Church\u201d and “New Apostolic Church” in South Africa left the internet a few years ago. It is reproduced here in one very long page, with (likely broken) links to web.archive.org. Content belongs to the original authors. Layout and formatting errors are mine<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apostolic corner<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

2 Corinthians 11:12-15\u00a0<\/strong>–\u00a0But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

1 John 4:1-3 <\/strong>– Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Welcome to my humble site. Back in 2011, I wrote an article exposing the Old Apostolic Church for some rather ungodly and unbiblical beliefs and practices. It was only ever my intention to do one expos\u00e9 and then continue to write sermons. But after loads of visits, responses (good and bad), I just kept getting feedback – more information and resarch – various testimonies – that it started to get a bit much to keep under the “Exposed” section. So here is a dedicated corner – to keep it all neat and tidy, but also for you as the reader to have everything in one place. Important to make clear is that this is not about having a go at people for the sake of it; it is never about merely taking aim at anyone. But if you’re a saved believer of Jesus Christ, and you see any <\/em>church teaching a false gospel and – by doing that – leads its followers into Hell with them – then that should make you angry enough to do something about it; and that’s what I intend to do. Time is short and we need to share the Good News with as many as we can, that by the grace of God others may get saved!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Before The Index – This Is How To Get Saved!<\/strong>English<\/a> – Afrikaans<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“EXPOSED!” SERIES<\/strong>
First Article: Old Apostolic Church – Exposed!<\/a> (2011 – extra paragraphs added in 2015)
Second Article: Old Apostolic Church – Exposed! Part Two<\/a> (2012)
Third Article: Old Apostolic Church – Exposed! Part Three<\/a> (2014)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTERVIEW<\/strong>
In-Depth Interview: Interview With A Former Old Apostolic<\/a> (2013)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MISC
<\/strong>Beware Of False Gospel!<\/a> (2015)
Explained: Genesis One<\/a> (2014)
Questions To Old Apostolics<\/a> (2015)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TESTIMONIES<\/strong>
Allison<\/a> (detailed testimony from a former OAC witness)
Anonymous<\/a> (a short testimony)
Anonymous Two<\/a> (another testimony)
Anne’s Testimony<\/a> (verification that people are <\/em>threatened with curses by the OAC if they want to leave!)
Johan Nel’s Testimony<\/a> (a former OAC Elder!)
Mark’s Testimony<\/a> (a former OAC, who also mainly authored “OAC Exposed Part 3”!)
Njabulo’s Testimony<\/a> (verifying that the OAC is not <\/em>Christian!)
Victor’s Testimony<\/a> (a former OAC officer!)
Sizwe Amos’s Testimony<\/a> (AWESOME <\/strong>63-page testimony – 9mb PDF download)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EXTERNAL LINKS<\/strong>
Behold, a whole list of links. People who research the Apostolic churches (old, new and otherwise) have to search here, there and everywhere. On this page, I’ve tried to gather as many as one can find and put them into one place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apostolic Church – Church Unity
<\/strong>
History (Wikipedia) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Neutral)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Catholic Apostolic Church
<\/strong>
History (Wikipedia) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Neutral)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Apostolic Church
<\/strong>
NAC Doctrine (German Site) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (English) \/ LINK<\/a> (Deutsch) (Pro-NAC)
NAC History, according to NAC\u2019s main site \u2013LINK<\/a> (Pro-NAC)
NAC History (NAC\u2019s Zambian site) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Pro-NAC)
NAC History (Wikipedia) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Neutral)
NAC Exposed! (\u201cJesus Is Savior\u201d Site) – LINK<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Old Apostolic Church
<\/strong>
OAC History (by \u201cOld Apostolic Reveiled\u201d, sic) – LINK<\/a> (Pro-OAC)
OAC History (by \u201cPigeon Project\u201d) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Neutral, but has the option to post comments)
OAC Revised (by Renette Vermeulen; delves into anti-Christian, Masonic and Occultic roots in the OAC!) \u2013 LINK<\/a> – Original LINK<\/a> (to which the first article refers)
OAC \u2013 What Everyone Should Know About The Old Apostolic Church (Denzel Dick) \u2013 LINK<\/a>
(Sadly this site doesn’t host files, so I had to add it to an external provider)
OAK \u2013 Wat Elkeen Van Die Ou-Apostel Kerk Moet Weet (Denzel Dick, Afrikaans-only document) – LINK<\/a>
OAC Catechism – DOWNLOAD<\/a> (3.5mb, PDF) (Sadly this site doesn’t host files, so I had to add it to an external provider)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Old Apostolic Forum
<\/strong>(A website run by Old Apostolics, but with concerns about their own church!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Home page<\/a>
“Legal”<\/a>
OAC And The Media<\/a>
“The Klibbe Principle”<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both Old\/New Apostolic Church
<\/strong>
OAC and NAC History (Afrikaans-only document) \u2013 LINK<\/a> (Objective, but see the conclusion)
OAC and NAC (from “Reformed Truth”; Afrikaans-only document) – LINK<\/a>
The actual court case papers of the schism between the OAC and NAC – LINK<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Members Of Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There seems to be a new “movement” which is tying to sell OAC under a new name called “The Members Of Christ” (website<\/a>). I was alerted to this man Nicky Verster and his “new movement”, as well as his apparent former OAC links. Indeed I understand the term “Members of Christ” is a term OACs use to refer to themselves. When I visited his website, I was amazed at the amount of disgusting heresy and blasphemy I found there! He also operates on Youtube as “777godsmedium<\/a>“. So if you know anybody who is even remotely interested in this wicked movement, tell them to avoid it like the plague! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, in the following article on News24, he is defending the OAC as the “only church”. The article, by the way, actually paints a really<\/em> bad picture of OAC churches and doctrine. (article<\/a>) To quote the most shocking piece of the article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The OACSA  has a philosophy others can only wish for. There is no heaven and God dwells in the heads of mankind. Mortal human beings can gain the power to lock or unlock the portals of heaven when empowered to do so by the high officials of the church.<\/em>“<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Video about Literal \/ Figurative Bible Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steven Anderson – Literal vs Figurative – HERE<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Old Apostolic Church EXPOSED<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

One church that is fairly popular in South Africa is the Old Apostolic Church (OAC). My father-in-law used to belong to it and I\u2019ve known people who are practising members. On the outside it appears Christian enough, but one should never go by the feeling in life! Once I was told by a follower: \u201cI\u2019m Old Apostolic, and no we are not a cult!\u201d without my ever having mentioned the c-word. So let us look at what the church is about, and see why, in my view, they most definitely are!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First though, I will explain their origins, hierarchy and initial values. I\u2019ll do my best to make it as simple as possible; you will see how this is a church born out of disagreement and still plagued by schisms (splits).

CHURCH ORIGINS
<\/strong>
The OAC has its roots in the Catholic Apostolic Church (formed around 1831, but after its last \u201capostle\u201d died in 1901 it went into decline) which followed the Nicene Creed of 325AD (Catholic) and, like the OAC, is not an offshoot of the Reformation (or, Protestantism) but of Irvingism.

There was such a movement too in Europe; notably Germany and The Netherlands. After 3 Catholic Apostolic \u201capostles\u201d died in 1855, the apostolate declared there was no reason to call new ones. They called 2 substitutes (coadjutors) in 1860. But in 1862 another \u201capostle\u201d was called in Germany by the \u201cprophet\u201d Heinrich Geyer. The \u201capostles\u201d did not agree with this, so the largest part of the Hamburg congregation, along with their Bishop F.W. Schwartz, were excommunicated. From this came the Allgemeine Christliche Apostolische Mission<\/em> (ACAM) in 1863. In The Netherlands it led to the Apostolische Zending<\/em>, later called Hersteld Apostolische Zendingkerk<\/em> (HAZK). This later became the New Apostolic Church.

In 1899, Carl George Klibbe came to South Africa to do mission work for the New Apostolic Church. He was ordained by \u201capostle\u201d H.F. Niemeyer of Australia as an apostle. Due to the personality cult (when someone uses propaganda to elevate themselves) of \u201cchief apostle\u201d Hermann Niehaus, Niemeyer separated himself from the German branch and formed the Apostolic Church of Queensland. The South African branch also separated from the German branch, and henceforth became the New Apostolic Church (NAC). The reasons they did this:

1) Niehaus’ ban on prophetic gifts (visions, dreams and prophecies),
2) Niehaus’ refusal to appoint Prophets,
3) Niehaus’ acceptance of the literal interpretation of the Bible,
4) Establishment of the office of Chief Apostle, and
5) Personality cult that formed around the Chief Apostle.

Hermann Niehaus tried to remove Carl George Klibbe and appointed Wilhelm Schlaphoff as \u201capostle\u201d instead. Klibbe was excommunicated in 1913. So, for a while there were two NACs in South Africa. Eventually they came to an agreement in 1926. Carl Klibbe\u2019s church would be called Old Apostolic Church (OAC), Schlaphoff\u2019s would become the New Apostolic Church (NAC). Today the OAC has around 2 million followers in Africa (South Africa, Swaziland, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi) and 30,000 in Europe; branches are in USA, Canada, UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates.

CHURCH STRUCTURE
<\/strong>
The OAC\u2019s leadership is a body called the Conference of apostles. It consists of all active and retired \u201capostles\u201d, led by a chairman who is appointed for a term of two years; he may only serve two terms.

The OAC is divided into nine districts covering Southern Africa and Germany. Each district is run by the District Office, where the \u201capostles\u201d work from. Each \u201capostle\u201d has an Apostleship which includes a few Overseerships. Such an Overseership is led by an Overseer, Evangelist and Prophet. It is divided into many Elderships.

An Eldership will cover one or many congregations and has many Priests and Underdeacons. The Priest is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the followers, and assisted by the Underdeacon who does Bible study and testimony.

Ministers are appointed and ordained by an \u201capostle\u201d by having hands laid on them. They get no theological training; but they believe that by breaking bread within the church, they will get all their doctrine and scriptures from that. While I do not believe that a church minister \u201cneeds\u201d a theology degree, and I have known people who have a degree but still lack simple knowledge, surely a person, who is responsible for the development and growth of a congregation, should at least have some<\/em> understanding? Understanding is something the Bible holds paramount! If only it were so easy to just break bread and instantly get all the knowledge you needed!

OAC VALUES
<\/strong>
The OAC rejects ecumenism<\/strong>, or the compromise of the Word of God with other churches. Now, this is a good thing \u2013 many churches are compromising the Word to appease the wicked world, or even to create unity with the Roman Catholic Church. However, the followers are taught that the OAC is the only<\/em> true church<\/em> \u2013 this is where it gets tricky. Officially they will say that they do not consider believers to be unsaved if they are outside of the OAC; but at the same time, \u201cit is the only true church\u201d, so by implication alone it does just that. Just to re-iterate who can be saved:

Romans 10:13<\/strong> – For whosoever<\/u> shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

<\/em>Note how the verse says \u201cwhosoever\u201d \u2013 an old word meaning \u201cwhoever\u201d. Anybody<\/em> who calls upon the name of Jesus shall<\/em> be saved. If the OAC or any other church were the \u201conly true church\u201d and salvation were only within it, the Bible would say this. But it does not! Also worth noting is that clergy and followers are often hostile towards other churches and ministers. They believe that only the members of the OAC will go to heaven (Catechism Question 2 & 3).

As for politics<\/strong>, followers of the OAC are forbidden from partaking in politics. They are allowed to vote (because forbidding them would violate the law), but they are not allowed to join a political party or stand for election. This is similar to Jehovah\u2019s Witness teaching. There were two further schisms (separations) in 1972 and 1968, leading to the Reformed Old Apostolic Church and Twelve Apostles Church of South Africa, simply because some people wanted to get involved in politics.

The Old Apostolic Church’s view on non-participation in politics has led to two schisms. In 1972 several coloured members formed the Reformed Old Apostolic Church, and in 1968 several black members formed the Twelve Apostles Church of Africa.

Regarding Bible Versions<\/strong>, the OAC only uses the KJV in English (I agree with that!); or Afrikaans 1933\/53, or the German 1912 version of the Luther Bible. The early OAC used the Dutch Statenbijbel until 1933, when the first Afrikaans Bible translation came out.

What Do They Believe?<\/strong>

Okay, so now you know who they are and where they came from. But what about the OAC’s beliefs, which make them a false church – and dare I say, a cult? Well, read on.

WORKS-BASED SALVATION<\/strong>

I just want to briefly touch upon this; more details can be found in Part Three<\/a>. The OAC blatantly teaches works-based salvation. That is, you need to believe ABC according to their teachings, but also you need to do something as well to maintain salvation – and to have a glimmer of hope of maybe<\/em> one day going somewhere good. “Church Activities” is a great example of this, whereby church attendance – as well as (in some cases) daily church visits are made a part of one’s chances of getting to Heaven.

Dear reader, this is NOT the teaching of the Bible. Virtually every single religion on earth teaches works-based salvation; whether you’re a Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal, NG or an OAC. And they are wrong<\/em>! There is only one way to get saved, and that is to call upon the name of the Lord. Believe <\/em>on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved! Put your faith 100% in Jesus, for there is nothing you can do <\/em>to get to Heaven by yourself. Nothing!

Acts 16:30-31 <\/strong>– And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.<\/em>

Romans 10:8-13 <\/strong>– But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.<\/em>

Ephesians 2:8-9 <\/strong>– For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

Now, a works-based false gospel is not unique to the Old Apostolics. So many other religions and movements teach the same junk. And to each of those I quote the following:

Galatians 1:8-9<\/strong> – But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.<\/em>

So as far as I am concerned, this alone is enough to condemn the Old Apostolic Church. False gospel = false church. Period!<\/em> 

But there are some teachings in the OAC which are unique, and rather dodgy too. So, without further ado, enter the cult status…

SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION<\/strong>

The core difference between the OAC and other churches is that it reads the Bible \u201cspiritually\u201d, rather than literally<\/strong>. In other words, you as a believer cannot simply buy a Bible and start reading it. You see, every word that is written in the Bible is inspired by God, and for them this means it is deemed too holy to be read in the normal way. So whatever is written in the Bible, there has<\/em> to be a hidden \u201cspiritual\u201d meaning for every word.

Let me give you an example of a follower\u2019s problem that I was faced with:

Genesis 1:14-19<\/strong> – And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.<\/em>

What you just read now is the part of Genesis 1, which describes the creation on the fourth day. If you simply read it as it is written, it is clear that on the Fourth Day, God created light; the sun and the moon.

So what did the OAC follower in question believe it said? Well, that on the Fourth Day, God created good and evil, because good is symbolised as light and evil is symbolised as darkness. Problems:

1)    This assumes that what the Bible says is different from what it actually means;
2)    Putting the presence of evil on the Fourth Day, when God said after the six-day creation that everything was \u201cvery good\u201d, that would make God a liar;
3)    There was no death until Adam sinned. By evil, death came into the world. So if evil is present on the Fourth Day, this will lead to death before sin (just like the Gap Theory) and this is heresy.
4)    How would that follower possibly understand the creation account by looking for hidden meanings?

This aside, I explain the issue of light on Day One and Day Four on Part Two<\/a>; although reading Genesis 1 as it’s written should make it obvious what the difference is between light on both days; it’s a question I would get asked a lot by OAC members writing in. Also, to address Genesis One in general, I wrote Genesis 1 Explained<\/a>

To show further how reading the Bible \u201cspiritually\u201d is not only wrong, but in some cases impossible, here is an exercise. Try to interpret the following verses in any way you wish, except for what is written:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Genesis 1:1<\/strong> – In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 20:13<\/strong> – Thou shalt not kill.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 20:14<\/strong> – Thou shalt not commit adultery.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exodus 20:15<\/strong> – Thou shalt not steal.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

John 11:35<\/strong> – Jesus wept.<\/em>

These are just simple verses; but how can you possibly interpret these in any other way? It is impossible. But to do so would require reading literally. Some people have written in to tell me that the OAC can cater for some literal verses. But remember that the OAC and NAC split, partly because the one wanted to read the Bible literally! So, by the OAC\u2019s own rules, if the Bible says \u201cthou shalt not kill\u201d, they are not allowed to understand this as \u201cthou shalt not kill\u201d.

Furthermore, they consider the stories in the Bible to be historical events, but have to be interpreted in the same way as the parables in the Gospels \u2013 in other words, the Bible cannot just give a factual account of something, even factual accounts are considered just to be metaphorical stories to try and make some point! If you have access to watch Youtube, you may wish to look at this video<\/a>, documenting certain archaeological finds which show that stories such as the Ark, the Exodus and Sodom and Gomorrah really did happen. Also, for a great sermon on the issue of literal\/figurative Bible interpretation, click here<\/a>.

Another example of this would be a common attitude of either believing in Evolution, yea even trying to disprove Creation. You see, if Evolution is true then Genesis 1 has to be allegorical at best; but if Creation is true, Genesis 1 is then the only literal <\/em>account in existence – which also just happens to be inspired Scripture. That would put a huge spanner in the works for the OAC movement. And many <\/em>OAC members leave their church once seeing that Creation is indeed the only possible explanation! So behold, a link where you can get the brilliant <\/em>Creation Seminars, among other material – link<\/a> – a good way to start is to download the 7-part (8 files) seminars. One interesting thing I’ve seen among Old Apostolic followers is a desperate need to cling to Atheistic Evolution (hello people, Atheistic = no God!) and a desire to try and disprove or deny what the Bible says, just to maintain their OAC beliefs.

Now, I must stress that the basic concept does <\/em>exist, whereby you need to be saved in order to understand parts of the Bible; there are some parts which an unsaved person simply cannot understand without being saved.

1 Corinthians 2:14<\/strong> – But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.<\/em>

However, that is not <\/em>the case with “spiritual interpretation”. Here, it is a case of either the congregants having no way to understand what’s written in the Bible, so the clergy must interpret it for them (cult alert!), or the congregants try to “spiritually interpret” it for themselves and the result is confusion. Unsurprisingly, this leads to different people getting different interpretations of the same text – supposedly with the Holy Spirit on their side. Well, the Holy Spirit is God too, part of the Trinity – and God cannot lie. So if two people get different interpretations from a spirit, it cannot be the Holy Spirit. Thus, what spirit is it…

Titus 1:2 <\/strong>– In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;<\/em>

1 Corinthians 14:33<\/strong> – For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.<\/em>

2 Peter 1:20<\/strong> – Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.<\/em>

IT HAS A CATECHISM!<\/strong>

The OAC also does not consider the Bible to be the only source of authority<\/strong>, but must go hand in hand with the Holy Spirit to interpret it. The OAC also has its own Catechism. This is a definite cult alert!

Over the few years of this article being online, I’ve had some OAC members write in to tell me that they do not <\/em>have a Catechism. If this were true, then indeed the next paragraphs would be false. Praise God though, somebody who owns one scanned the entire Catechism. So if you want a copy, please download it from here<\/a>.

This concept of \u201cBible plus something else\u201d is a common trait in cults. You will see in known cults that they have a Bible, but then come out with their own literature to confess their own strange ideas, then adapt the Bible to fit the literature accordingly. The Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses have a Bible (New World Translation, edited to fit their beliefs) but they really follow the Watchtower. Catholics have a Bible (Catholic Bible, includes seven other books and some extra chapters), with some slight editing to fit their beliefs \u2013 the Catechisms, Canons, doctrines of the Vatican are what they really follow. Enter the OAC. They have the Bible \u2013 to their credit, unedited \u2013 but instead, its followers are forbidden from reading the Scriptures as they were written. The \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d is paramount for them, but what is their \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d? The spirit which allows them to magically see what the Bible \u201creally\u201d says. So although the Bible is their holy book, the elders\u2019 interpretation \u201cvia the Holy spirit\u201d supersedes it. This is begging for cult status!

But why, I hear you asking. Well put it this way. Suppose you are just a follower of the OAC. You\u2019ll have a Bible. But you may not read it just as it\u2019s written. If you do read it, you cannot understand \u201cproperly\u201d what is written. In order to understand the writing \u201cspiritually\u201d, you must let the church elder read and interpret it for you.

This is wrong! The Bible is clear enough for even a youngster to read and understand. What the OAC is doing is akin to \u201cguru-ism\u201d. In other words, the Bible is too difficult for the average person to read, and you need a guru to read it for you. And you just have to trust that they\u2019re correct. This is exactly how cults get started!

SACRAMENTS<\/strong>

Also, the OAC has Sacraments<\/strong>. This is an inheritance from the Catholic Church. Actually, quite a few churches have Sacraments. But it matters not how many churches have them; this is wrong! To explain, a Sacrament is a ritual that is required<\/em> for your salvation. The Bible is very clear that it is faith<\/em> that saves you and nothing else! Yet, the OAC have three Sacraments; Holy Communion, Holy Baptism and Holy Sealing. The Holy Sealing is the administration of the Holy Spirit and considered to be part of your spiritual rebirth. They believe that a man becomes a Child of God this way. I am by no means against Communion or Baptism, but they are not<\/em> requirements for salvation. If someone accepts Jesus Christ and then dies, they are saved \u2013 because faith alone saves you!

The OAC also believes that they can give these Sacraments to dead people! An \u201capostle\u201d will give them to two substitute people (usually a Fourfold Officer and his wife). They don\u2019t believe the dead person will be in those two people, but somehow they can accept Sacraments for dead people who, according to the Bible, are already in Heaven or Hell.

APOSTLES’ AUTHORITY<\/strong>

As for the \u201capostles\u201d; consider the roles of an OAC \u201capostle\u201d and decide if this is vaguely Biblical. The points, as well as the pieces in red, come from a source.

1)    The authority of the Bible is subordinate to the authority of the Apostle. \u2013 WHAT?!

Question 37 of the catechism asks, “Can we receive salvation and everlasting life through the scriptures?” Answer: “No…” The apostles have been set “to be a light of the Gentiles, that they should be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” (Catechism Question 11b). Question 35 asks, “Who has been sent to preach the Gospel?” Answer: “The apostles, as clearly shown in 1 Thess 2:13…”<\/em>

2)    The apostle controls the entrance to heaven. \u2013 WHAT?!

Salvation is possible only through the apostle; for those who believe in Christ through<\/u> the apostles (Catechism Question 36 & 49). To the apostles only has been given knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven (Catechism Question 5 & 50, e & f). People can only come to faith through the words spoken by an apostle: without the apostles no-one can become a believer. The church interprets Mt 10:40 to mean that no-one can see the Father or Christ if they do not accept the apostle, for, “Whoever welcomes you, welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me, welcomes the one who sent me.” The apostles are the only people with whom God speaks directly (Catechism Question 25), who understand the Scriptures (Catechism Question 38), who know God (Catechism Question 24), who speak the wisdom of God (Catechism Question 50c), are able to forgive sins (Catechism Question 47), and who are going to judge the earth (Catechism Question 41).<\/em>

3)    The apostles are Christ’s substitutes on earth. \u2013 WHAT?!

Yes, apparently the only begotten Son of God needs a substitute. Not only this, but \u201capostles\u201d have the power to forgive sins. Does this not reek of Catholicism?

4)    The apostles are the only people who may curse. \u2013 NO!!!

Fear not! They cannot curse you at all, nobody can. But apparently, many OAC members remain in the church because they fear being cursed. Undoubtedly this is why some followers have pressure to go to church at least three times a week.

(Source<\/a>) (24 September 2012 – the source link is broken! However, the same info is available on PDF <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>)<\/em>

I really recommend you visit the source, and extra sources listed at the bottom of the article, as it has more information on the OAC. As you delve into their church, it is blatant how anti-Christian it really is.

CURSES!
<\/strong>
This does not come from research, but from testimonies. Early in 2012 I received a troubling message via the website from a Methodist lady; she visited the OAC once – just once – and was told upon exit that if she didn’t return, she would be cursed! Now, Christians cannot be cursed, for we are protected by the blood of Jesus Christ. So why would the OAC in this case make such a threat? Well, I since have received a bit of stick for previously mentioning this on the article (I had it noted as additional feedback, in orange). And then I received a second confirmation that the OAC does indeed make these threats – see here<\/a>.

Friends, the only thing which matters in life is this \u2013 do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour? This is the one and only way you can get to Heaven. I’ve written a one-page document here<\/a> to show you how (or here<\/a> in Afrikaans). Know (I mean, know<\/em>!) you\u2019re a sinner; know you\u2019re deserving of Hell, know Jesus died for your sins and call on Him to save you. That\u2019s all!<\/strong> Then get hold of a Bible (KJV is best for many reasons, it\u2019s about the only thing this OAC got right!). But not only is the Bible the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, it will also help you to know exactly when those who profess Christianity are indeed OK, or are cults and heretics. And here we have a clear-cut cult. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Timothy 4:1<\/strong> – Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits<\/u>, and doctrines of devils;<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

South Africa, we have another wolf in our midst.

Information Used (among others)<\/strong>

Wikipedia<\/a> – I only used this for details on the foundation of the OAC. I loathe Wikipedia for its bias, and a lot of the article is clearly written by an OAC follower)
Denzel Dick’s Tract<\/a> – for more detailed, technical stuff.
Extra: <\/strong>Information was used from (initially) four witness accounts; dicussing with and questioning people I have known who are practising OAC members. If four is not enough for you, consider:
2 Corinthians 13:1<\/strong> – This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
<\/em>Since then, countless others have written in to either tell me how bad I am, but also to give testimonies and to add extra information. In a country where information on (primarily) local churches is minimal, input is of great value!

If you now think I’m the most evil thing out there, there are, at the current count, two anti-me blogs out there for you to rant and rave on. If you’re wondering how a Christian can be so “hateful”, click here<\/a>.

Update, 3 September 2012<\/strong> – A reader of this article added the following, which I have now had verified by an ex-OAC member: “Something you don’t know is that the OAC believes in 7 heavens: 1) for children; 2) for brothers and sisters; 3) for the underdeacons; 4) for priests; 5) for elders; 6) fourfold officers and 7) apostles. (since 2014: this is further evidenced in “Part Three<\/a>“)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Old Apostolic Church EXPOSED Part Two<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Well readers, it has been about a year (it’s now December 2012) since I wrote the expos\u00e9 on the Old Apostolic Church<\/a>. It\u2019s been quite a ride! In the process, plenty of people have read it and learned from it. Many have also sent in messages to either ask more, engage in friendly debate, or just get plain nasty. There is even a blog, which lifted the entire article with the sole purpose of having Old Apostolics trash it, and me. All I can say to that is: Amen!

Still, possibly one really frustrating thing about writing an article to expose stuff is when people read it and give you even more information. I can add it to the original, or I can do what I\u2019m about to do \u2013 write another! In this case, I will leave it up to other people to have their say.

Dream, Dream, Dreeeeeam!
<\/strong>
Probably a week after publishing the first expos\u00e9, I spoke with a friend about it. She is a Christian, who happens to have a nearly-entire Old Apostolic family. Not only did she confirm what I wrote is correct, but she added more information to this from her own experiences. Besides confirming my statements on the presence of divination within the OAC, which God calls an abomination:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 <\/strong>– There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.<\/em>

She also told me about the importance of dreams within the OAC. Allegedly, dreams are so vital, that if a believer has a dream one night, they are to write it down as soon as they wake up, and tell the church elder \u2013 in case it contains a vision, command or prophecy. In some cases, the elder would tell the believer to act according to whatever he interpreted of the dream. She told me of church members who would virtually plan their lives, even their vacations, around whatever their church elder told them to.

On the topic of spiritual abomination; I had a disturbing message from a Methodist woman last year. She had visited the OAC once, and was told upon leaving that if she didn\u2019t return, they would put a curse on her! She wrote to me in fear because she was scared about being cursed! Thankfully, Christians cannot be cursed.

Proverbs 26:2 <\/strong>– As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.<\/em>
(another stunning resource on curses and Christianity \u2013 from a former Satanic High Priest and divinator, is here<\/a>)

Seven Heavens?

<\/strong>One day, out of the blue, I received a message from someone known as \u201cTraders Arcade\u201d. Alas I tried to get more information but did not. What it said was:

Something you don\u2019t know is that the OAC believes in 7 heavens:<\/em>

1) For children<\/em>
2) For brothers and sisters<\/em>
3) For Underdeacons<\/em>
4) For Priests<\/em>
5) For Elders<\/em>
6) For Fourfold Officers<\/em>
7) For the Apostles<\/em>

Now, I find this interesting, but will not just report anything that comes in. So I asked my good friend Johan van Wyk \u2013 whom his local OAC branch has banned its congregants from ever speaking to because he once debated an OAC follower and they eventually had 15 congregants asking him questions \u2013 to verify this. Johan was raised Old Apostolic and he said:

Yeah, as I a child I remember my mom telling me about it. They get it from Paul being pulled up into the third heaven, says he couldn\u2019t go to the seventh heaven where God is manifested in all his glory.<\/em>

I don\u2019t have more information on this belief (Since 2014: more information did <\/em>come, which is given in Part Three<\/a>), but it is not something that comes from the Bible.

Curses!
<\/strong>
I have had some stick before because I wrote regarding the issue of curses, and some people being threatened with a curse if they quite the OAC. And then I got this testimony from “Anne”, on 3 January 2013:

Fantastic article. I used to be a member of the OAC, born and baptised and raised and married it it!! Luckily I married a “NG outsider” and he opened my eyes! Thank God. I could write a book about the OAC-cult, my dad was a “high ranking” member. A very good person, but caught in the wrong religion. Seeing that I still have family caught in this cult, I would prefer to stay anonymous. But please keep up your good work and maybe more people could be saved from this non-Christian “church”…. I know, I’ve been there, for 24 years, its very difficult to get out because of the “curse” threats. But it can be done! Its total brainwashing. … You can use my message, anytime… Keep well.<\/em>

“Njabulo”
<\/em><\/strong>
This is a message I received on 15 September 2012 from Njabulo, after having read my expos\u00e9 on the Old Apostolic Church. For ages, all I was receiving was messages of disagreement, even insult, and although Jesus tells us that Christians will be hated, insulted, lied about and what-not:<\/em>

Matthew 5:11-12 <\/strong>– Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.<\/em>

As a human being, it is still not very nice, or encouraging when it\u2019s a large stream of negativity flowing in. And then I got this testimony, making it all worthwhile to expose heresies. Amen! Now, over to Njabulo (I put a very interesting sentence in bold, you will see why):

It was nice to finally get this confirmation about this OAC church. I grew up in it, but left it in 2010 when I was in my Matric. It wasn’t easy since to this day my mom loves it! There was guilt but I couldn’t stay there anymore. This OAC I was in is in KZN-Durban, in a place called Adams Mission. <\/em>They strictly don’t believe in Jesus as coming in flesh let alone the second coming they dispute that.<\/strong> <\/em>I first got my eyes opened when I watched a series of DVDs; one by Mark Woodman (God’s Final Call) and the other by G. Craig Lewis(The Truth Behind Hip Hop). Ever since I have gotten a desire to really know God, and am thankful to you about your site. It’s really informative, keep on doing this. I know it’s hard these days when you reprove sin people just pass you off as judgemental but those very same people call themselves Christians. I am bookmarking this page thank you again now I have a place where I can get equipped with information.

Kind Regards
Njabulo

*I just realised in your article about those catechism books. They teach those to kids while they are still young. I remember in Sunday School we were made to memorise those books.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is someone, raised Old Apostolic, claiming that they believe Jesus wasn\u2019t in the flesh, and will not return \u2013 I think that any honest, God fearing Christian who gives the OAC credit as a \u201cChristian\u201d church should take serious note of this.

<\/em>(Just a side note about the testimony; Mark Woodman truly loved the Lord, but he was a Seventh Day Adventist, so if you watch his stuff, just block your ears when it comes to Ellen G White)<\/em>

2014: I’ve even been attacked because the OAC allegedly no longer prints their Catechism for the last 20 years, although Njabulo was under 20 and his branch still used them. On my new main-page “Apostolics Corner<\/a>” you can download the Catechism in question!

Teaching the OAC?
<\/strong>
I received this message on 27 August 2012, name withheld:

I am an OAC member and a wife of an Underdeacon in the church. When I got your article I was just looking for the church’s information, actually wanted to know more about the church. Then got to your article I like it because myself I only now that Klibbe can from Germany with the church and introduced it to South Africa years back. What I can share with all of you is that if you read a Bible the way it is to me it does not have a meaning, but spiritually it does. Looking at the verses quoted they have a meaning for me because I don\u2019t only look at them “ngeliso lenyama” but spiritually. You see I won\u2019t say OAC is the only good church but I would like you to tell me which other church is mentioned in the Bible and please advise me which one the OAC is trying to imitate. Yes the OAC has its own issues because its leaders are human and humans can only be humans at times, they would be greedy, selfish and even fight each other forgetting the main reason we are going to church. Please help me as well because growing up I’ve been to different churches but I was never spiritually certified.<\/em>

I just find this interesting. The wife of an OAC Underdeacon had to come to an anti-OAC source to get information on their own church? Also interesting is the admission about in-fighting within the OAC. Honestly, there are many church denominations with in-fighting, but this page is about the OAC in particular. The OAC has had a fair few schisms in its time as I\u2019ve documented in the first article.

Heaven, Hell and Sin!
<\/strong>
I received this testimony from \u201cSuzette\u201d, in two parts, on 8 and 10 October 2012.

The OAC does not believe in heaven and hell! My Father-in-Law is an OAC believer. They believe that heaven is in your head, and one day – when you die – your soul is going to float somewhere in the same state you were living in the flesh forever. How many times in the Word of God does He refer to heaven and hell?! My husband was in the OAC as well, but through prayers and a very difficult stage in his life, the OAC turned their backs on to him – even his own dad! And through Children of God and their prayers he gave his heart to God in February 2007, and still does not want anything to do with the OAC!! Praise the Lord!!<\/em>

OAC members also believe you can sin during the week as much as you like; on Sunday your sins are forgiven. That is the impression that I got from them, and they use the Lord’s name in vain (cussing) utterly in every sentence, but when you confront them about that, they say we do not know what we talking about – at one stage I just could not stand it any longer, so every time they used the Lord’s name in vain I yelled Hallelujah, Praise the Lord and Amen, at the end they were so <\/em>uncomfortable they could not wait to leave.<\/em>

An ex-priest of the OAC was at our home through my father in law’s doing to convince us to go back to OAC. While he was talking about the Word of the Lord, he took out scriptures but never read it from the Bible itself. He also confessed that he is<\/em> a chosen child of the Lord, and therefore the Lord will forgive him for his weakness for beautiful women, whom he flirts with as he pleases.<\/em>

Seth is God! Cain and Abel never existed! Adam and Eve were one person!
<\/strong>
This is from a very long debate I had with a believer. Though I enjoy debates and keep it between the other person and me; this I just have to expose, for it troubles me! We were debating where Cain and Abel got their wives from (a valid question by the way, for which I do have an answer \u2013 Abel never had a wife, but Cain did, and he knew her (consummated the marriage) in the land of Nod). Hence, the following is from a present-day OAC member. The most worrying bit, I have put in bold.

And just to recap. As I mentioned to you before, Cain and Abel to us are thoughts. Good and Evil. Evil ruled as it killed the good. Now God himself comes in the form of Seth.<\/strong> Good and Evil and the one who will rule, God – righteousness. So now being natural gives us a different way of looking for answers. I do not have to get frustrated with science any more. I do not get mad as it is each one\u2019s own way of thinking.<\/em>

I have no words for this. Imagine what this means \u2013 when Genesis 4:25 says that Eve bore a son named Seth, does that mean Eve was the mother of God?! From the same debate, the claim was made that Adam and Eve were one-and-the-same person. Not male and female, two individuals \u2013 nope, the same<\/em> person (Which makes one wonder, why use two names then?)! That was based upon a skewed (\u201cspiritual\u201d) reading of Genesis 5. As for Seth, well Genesis says that he was born, and that he died. So where did all the other junk come from?!

This shows that reading the Bible with a hidden meaning to every verse (which they call \u201cspiritual interpretation\u201d) is a terrible hindrance to the Old Apostolic. Instead of reading what is written, and being ready to answer\/research\/ask when somebody doesn\u2019t understand \u2013 the Word of God is turned into something absolutely crazy, which nobody would ever get out of the Bible unless they were trained to do this.

What also concerns me is this; I know<\/em> there are also Old Apostolics who do not believe Seth was God in the flesh, or other such ideas. Well, if there is one OAC believer who has idea A, and another believer has idea B, both are reading the same verses spiritually and the meaning comes to them, so that would entail the Holy Spirit being involved in both cases. So, which believer got misled by the Holy Spirit? Can the real Holy Spirit, part of the Trinity, deceive someone?

Just a side-note, I have to explain as well that reading the Bible \u201cliterally\u201d means that you read what is written; the Bible does have many different writing styles, which become obvious as you read. It does not mean that when the Bible says something about a spirit, you can\u2019t read what\u2019s written. Yes, I have had that accusation too. Interpreting the Bible \u201cspiritually\u201d because it refers to the spirit, otherwise you can\u2019t read about spirits. That would be like saying that because the Bible often refers to murder and killing, I can interpret the Word of God with murderous intentions! Fortunately, nobody does that, although when driving on the selfish and hate-filled roads of Johannesburg, I do wonder\u2026

A great way of showing how reading the Bible \u201cliterally as it\u2019s written\u201d is creation science, and the best of the best is here<\/a>. The amount of logic and science shown from reading as-is is so overwhelming, there is no way you could discount the \u201cliteral\u201d way of reading the Bible. Speaking of creation\u2026 (note, the creation seminars are in 7 parts \/ 8 files, and total about 2.5gb in size. Bear that in mind if you’re stuck on a monthly data cap like me!)

Genesis 1 Explained
<\/strong>
This is something I wish to elaborate on, as it is one of the most common questions I get asked by Old Apostolics. The argument is that Genesis 1 \u2013 the creation \u2013 cannot be read literally, because it doesn\u2019t make sense. So let me explain why it does.

Genesis 1:2<\/strong> – And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<\/em>

So the earth was \u201cwithout form, and void\u201d. In the 33\/53 Afrikaans Bible \u2013 commonly used by Old Apostolics \u2013 it says:

Genesis 1:2 <\/strong>– En die aarde was woes en leeg, en duisternis was op die w\u00eareldvloed, en die Gees van God het gesweef op die waters.<\/em>

This is where the confusion sets in. The Afrikaans translation says \u201cwoes en leeg\u201d. It\u2019s funny, I read in an SA encyclopaedia that the Afrikaans Bible was translated directly from the Textus Receptus, rather than a mere update from the Dutch Statenbijbel, yet it seems to make the same mistakes and uses similar language. In Dutch, the term used is \u201cwoest en ledig\u201d. The charge made is, how can the earth be \u201cwoes en leeg\u201d at the same time? Well, looking at the words; \u201cleeg\u201d means empty. The word \u201cwoes\u201d today means \u201cangry\u201d. However, it can also <\/em>mean \u201cdesolate\u201d (hence a desert is a \u201cwoestyn\u201d). Still, \u201cdesolate and empty\u201d doesn\u2019t make much sense either. Anyway, the Hebrew phrase used in Genesis 1:2 is \u201ctobu wa bohu\u201d which means \u201cunformed and unfilled\u201d. So the KJB translation \u201cwithout form and void\u201d is correct. As to what that means; suppose you\u2019re building a house; you\u2019ve dug the hole for the foundation, you\u2019ve got the wood and bricks stored somewhere, maybe laid the foundation already \u2013 but that\u2019s it. That would be \u201cunformed and unfilled\u201d.

The next charge is, how could God create light on Day One and again on Day Four?

Genesis 1:3-4 <\/strong>– And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

<\/em>Genesis 1:14 <\/strong>– And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:<\/em>

Well, reading the whole chapter, it would seem logical to me, but again let\u2019s check the Hebrew for this one. The English language, also the Afrikaans and Dutch languages, have only one word for \u201clight\u201d. Hebrew has two words \u2013 \u201cor\u201d and \u201cmaor\u201d. \u201cOr\u201d means \u201clight\u201d and \u201cmaor\u201d means \u201csource of light\u201d. So on Day One, God created light (or) and on Day Four He created the source of light (sun, moon, stars) (maor).

To understand \u2013 suppose you were busy building that house. Now it\u2019s finished, you go to the municipality to have the electricity connected; you now have light (or). But you haven\u2019t fitted the lights yet, so the next day you pop down to the supermarket and buy bulbs, so now you can fit the main room\u2019s light as well, maybe a lamp or two, switch the power on and now you have greater and smaller lights (maor).

As from 3 May 2014, I’ve published an article explaining Genesis 1 to Old Apostolics in great detail; the article is found here<\/a>.

In Closing
<\/strong>
Friends, it\u2019s been a rough year since I wrote the original article; quite a few people got upset with me for publishing it. Some were kind enough though to respectfully ask questions, to debate, and the result is that there is now even more strange doctrine to bring to the light. It\u2019s tough; South Africa is not like other countries. One can type in \u201cCatholicism exposed\u201d and find thousands of people exposing heresy, because overseas people are more informed and more at liberty to do so. Here in SA though, information is very scarce and rarely put on the Internet. So thanks to those who contributed and let it be known that God, creator of everything, created you too; yet we are all wicked sinners who deserve to burn in the pits of hell. We deserve that! Even the \u201cbest\u201d of us commit sin. But it is by God\u2019s love for us that He came to earth in the flesh, His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who took our sins upon Him on that cross and died so that we may live! Acknowledge your sins, call upon Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Saviour and you shall<\/em> be saved! Just know that there are many false teachers, false prophets, false Bible versions, all of which are out to lead people astray. Be on your guard!

Also, here is one I received today, hey I’m just quoting a website visitor here, I couldn’t make this up if I tried… not the kind of spiritual advice your average pastor would give!

“I work a lot with OAC guys. I was once told that this specific guy and his wife could not have children. The elderly told him to put his bed on bricks and have sex a specific time of the night. She must stay in bed until the next morning. She fell pregnant – but I believe all life comes from our Father, not the elderly. You are further correct by stating they are very hostile – they get cross when you question them. It is almost for me as they put the elderly, priests etc before Jesus.”<\/em>

Testimonies:<\/strong>
<\/strong>
If you have a testimony about your experience with the Old Apostolic Church, do please share it with me and also let me know if I may use it (named or anonymous). I have already published quite a few.

Since April 2014<\/strong>: Please check out much more OAC info on my new Apostolics Corner<\/a>. This includes links to all the OAC articles, the interview, all the testimonies, as well as a whole host of external information – and you can also download an OAC Catechism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Old Apostolic Church EXPOSED Part Three<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is an article compiled with lots of information, which I was given on 24-28 March 2014. Though it comes from one person and is, therefore, essentially an Old Apostolic testimony; there is just so much valuable information that it would be an injustice to merely call it a testimony. Therefore, behold the latest Old Apostolic expos\u00e9! And readers, none of what I write is intended to simply \u201ctrash\u201d people or to pick on a religion; but when you see over a million people in the country being members of a church which teaches false doctrine, engages in divination and is leading people to eternal doom via false doctrine, then as a Christian it would be a crime to just keep quiet, smile and watch!<\/em>

So, without further ado, let me hand you over to Mark<\/a> \u2013 who has shared the following information.<\/em>

I\u2019m grateful every day; fortunately I had a rebellious streak in me when I was a member and it wasn\u2019t uncommon for me to be \u201csitting in the long grass\u201d (sitting by the wayside, inactive, not attending church activities and maybe more commonly known as \u201cbacksliding\u201d to your readers<\/em>). When I met my wife I wasn\u2019t an active member, so I fell through the cracks so to speak.

And now, without further ado; here are numerous topics and bullet points for you to read, regarding what goes on in the Old Apostolic Church and why the doctrine is highly anti-Christian. (With additions from Matt in blue)

OAC Stories of Curses and Assassination
<\/strong>
I can share some stories and insights with you of my own experiences in the OAC.

One story I was made aware of goes as follows. Apparently, when the Church split, the Apostle Klibbe cursed the other Apostle. He apparently said something to the effect that the dogs will lick his blood and apparently that\u2019s how the other apostle died, in a car accident.

Consider the following paragraph, documented here<\/a>:

\u201cA break occurred between the young Niemeyer and Klibbe when, in 1925, Apostle Wilhelm Niemeyer appointed Hendrik Velde as Apostle for Africa, and Velde and his followers founded a separate Church from Klibbe, named The Apostolic Church of South Africa. On 27 September 1956 Velde died after a traffic accident in Wynberg, Cape Town.\u201d

This was told to me by my parents and some other members in the church. Another variation to this can be found here<\/a>, where one member states the following:

\u201cThe reason why Apostel (sic) Klibbe retained the name Old Apostolic was because something happened during the court case. One of the other members who was against Apostol (sic) Klibbe broke his leg after Apostol (sic) Klibbe told the court this would happen. See in our church if you dont (sic) listen you surely will see what attitude you should have.\u201d<\/em>

In the old days I understood that the OAC were very strict and if members did not attend church, the priest or elder would come and threaten the members by asking which of their children they wanted to go out the flesh (In OAC terms, that means to die). This was also told to me by my parents.

There was another story I heard from one Sister; though because it was only from one source, I cannot verify its veracity. When the African National Congress (ANC, South Africa\u2019s ruling political party<\/em>) were unbanned, two members of the ANC apparently went to the OAC head office to demand money. The Apostle politely refused and apparently as these two ANC members crossed the road they were knocked over and killed instantly.

Matt: Above has to be considered as hearsay\/allegation until further testified to\/proven.

Works-Based Salvation, Salvation by the Clergy and Hypocrisy – All In Just One Short Conversation!<\/strong>

Another friend of mine had the following to say about her reasons for wanting to go to another church:

Original Afrikaans:

\u201cDie Apostolies glo om saligheid vir jou siel te kry is om in die werke van God te bly.  Hulle werke is die aktiwiteite van die kerk, kragselle, koor, getuienis (nie dat ek ooit hoor van enige iemand wat uitgaan op getuienis nie, indien wel is dit na die lede in die kerk) ens.  Weereens het ek altyd die vraag gevra dat hoe kan mens sielsaligheid kry om die aktiwiteite by te woon?  Ons kan dit mos nie werklik werke noem nie\u2026.Die meeste van die tyd gaan almal maar net uit gewoonte en luister nie eers wat die Priester praat nie..Ek het al so baie vra gevrae, daar word net altyd Apostoliese antwoorde gegee wat nie vir my sin maak nie.  Wat my ook negatief maak is die feit dat ons einste Onderdiaken die kat in die donker knyp en dan Sondae voor in die kerk ewe heilig te sit. Hy spog by mense dat as hy weggaan vir werk gaan kuier hulle lekker ens.  Sy vrou skryf sulke mooi goed oor haar man op facebook maar weet nie naastenby van al sy manewales nie\u2026\u201d

English Translation:

The Apostolics believe that to get salvation for your soul, you must remain in the works of God. Their works are the activities of the church, cell groups (\u201cPowercells\u201d), choir, witnessing (not that I have ever heard of anyone going out to witness; if they do, it\u2019s to people within the church) and so on. Again I have always asked the question, how can one get salvation by attending events or activities? We cannot honestly call this works. Most of the time, they all just go out of habit and don\u2019t even listen to what the Priest says. I\u2019ve asked so many questions, but all I get are Apostolic answers which make no sense to me at all. What makes me negative is the fact that our own Underdeacon does all kinds of bad things, but on Sundays he stands in front of the church and acts all holy. He jokes with people that if he leaves for work, they have all kinds of fun. His wife writes all kinds of nice things about him on Facebook but she hasn\u2019t got a clue about all his shenanigans.

<\/em>Then she started attending another church, the AGS (Apostolic Faith Mission) and her Underdeacon (of the OAC, which she left) sent her the following message:

Original Afrikaans:

\u201cEk verstaan wat jy s\u00ea en miskien is dit my skuld omdat ek nie by die lede uitkom nie, ek is so vrek besig, kon nie eers gisteraand lering toe gaan nie. Onthou net ander kerke dien \u2018n God in verbeelding, ons dien \u2018n lewende God wat binne ons elkeen is, ons weet waar Hy is en ons ken Sy stem deur die Profeet. Die enigste manier hoe die Heilige Gees (Gees van God) in my kan wees is deur die hande oplegging van \u2018n gesalfde lewende Apostel.<\/em>

Die probleem is dat saligheid net kom deur deel te wees van die aktiwiteite van ons kerk en deur die bloed wat ek stort vir ander en om naby my owergestelde te lewe, want hy is die deur na my saligheid, want hy seen my werke(ware avondmaal). Daar is ongelukkig geen ander manier nie.<\/em>

As jy deur die kerk se geskiedenis gaan sal jy agterkom die OAK kom vanaf die Apostels se tyd af, hulle glo dalk so maar die Heilige Gees kan net in die mens kom deur die Apostel, as die tyd en geleentheid jou toelaat en jy kan na aktiwiteite gaan, is jy geseen, al kan jy nie by alles uitkom nie, dis hoekom ek gese het lewe naby jou oorgestelde, want as jy vir \u2018n goeie rede verskoning maak, bly jy in die saligheid, al is jy nie by die geleentheid nie..die doel van aktiwiteite is om my siel te reinig van die daaglikse dinge en om Hom te voed..die doel van dienste is om lering te ontvang vir die week wat voorl\u00ea, dit kom van die Apostelaat.<\/em>

Onthou die manier wat ons bid het baie krag, God plaas niks op my weg wat ek nie kan hanteer nie.\u201d<\/em>

English Translation:

I understand what you say and maybe it\u2019s my fault because I don\u2019t get to (visit) the members; I\u2019m so bloody busy that I couldn\u2019t even go to the teaching yesterday evening. Remember, in other churches they serve an imaginary God; we serve a living God which is within each one of us; we know where He is and we know His voice through the Prophet. The only way how the Holy Ghost (Spirit of God) can be within me is by having hands laid upon me by an anointed, living Apostle.<\/em>

The problem is that salvation only comes by being part of the activities of our church, and by blood which I pour for others, and to live nearby my \u201cOwergestelde\u201d (akin to \u201cappointed over you\u201d, known by Apostolics as a \u201cvessel of blessing\u201d); because he is the door to my salvation, because he blesses my works (true Communion). There is unfortunately no other way.<\/em>

If you go through the church\u2019s history, you will discover that the OAC comes from the time of the Apostles; they (other churches) may believe like that but the Holy Ghost can only come into man by the Apostle, when the time and opportunity permits you and you can go attend activities, then you are blessed, and even if you can\u2019t make all the events, this is why I say you must live close to your \u201cOwergestelde\u201d; because if you make an excuse for a good reason, you will stay saved even if you\u2019re not at the church activities. The goal of activities is to cleanse my soul of the daily things and to feed Him. The goal of the services is to receive instruction for the week ahead, which comes from the Apostolate.<\/em>

Remember, the way we pray has power. God doesn\u2019t give me anything I can\u2019t handle.<\/em>

Matt: I have<\/em> to step in here. This Underdeacon wrote complete and utter rubbish here; it was painful to translate this untrue, unbiblical nonsense! To condense the problems in a few points:

Works-Based Salvation<\/strong>. This Underdeacon (at worst, only him \u2013 at best, common teaching) stated that you can only<\/em> be saved by going to all the OAC\u2019s functions. Is this Biblical? Absolutely not . We are saved by faith, which is a free gift from God \u2013 not of works, lest any man boast. This is taught in Ephesians 2:8-9:

Ephesians 2:8-9 <\/strong>– For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

I have seen this before though; long ago I debated a member of the OAC on salvation by faith, and this person was absolutely staunch in their belief in salvation by works, because their Elder told them it\u2019s like that; the evidence presented was James 2:20, which says that faith without works is dead; but this gets twisted to mean that you have to do works to be saved, and not (as it is intended to mean) that if you have faith, you will want to do good works; compare this to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 which explains the role of works in addition to<\/em> salvation by faith alone.

Isaiah 64:6 <\/strong>– But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.<\/em>

But not only this; he wrote that you should live nearby your \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d (so that they know your every move) in order to stay saved<\/em>! This is salvation by works!

OAC Clergy Saves You!<\/strong>

Regarding this \u201cOwergestelde\u201d or \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d. If you\u2019re a Brother, then your Priest is your \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d; if you\u2019re a Priest, then the Elder is your \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d; if you\u2019re an Elder, then the Fourfold office (i.e. Evangelist, Prophet, Overseer) is your \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d; et cetera.

See in the example; it states that you can only<\/em> be filled with the Holy Ghost by having hands laid upon you! The Vessel of Blessing, which blesses his works and is the door to his salvation<\/em>?! Readers, is this not yet another example of the OAC being a cult? Absolutely! Especially in light of his comment that other churches serve an imaginary God (or, a god in their image); again, another sign of culthood is \u201ceveryone else is wrong and we\u2019re the only ones that are right\u201d.

They believe that they<\/em> are literally Jesus\u2019 body and therefore they<\/em> are the Way, the Truth and the Life.

John 14:6 <\/strong>– Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

<\/em>But this is evil in many ways! While this is tantamount to making oneself a god; the First Commandment states:

Exodus 20:3 <\/strong>– Thou shalt have no other gods before me<\/em>.

Plus, with the OAC belief that they are literally Jesus\u2019 body, and the idea that a church superior is the door to your salvation, it all goes back to that same old lie, the first lie ever recorded in the Bible, which is the foundation of nearly all world religions and worldviews:

Genesis 3:4-5<\/strong> – And the serpent<\/u> said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: <\/em>For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened<\/u>, and ye shall be as gods<\/u>, knowing good and evil.<\/em>

(Also, see my previous article \u201cThe Genesis 3 Test<\/a>\u201d regarding how this idea of \u201cye shall be as gods\u201d is the basis of most religions and worldviews)

As for the element of clergy hypocrisy, which the ex-OAC member wrote about; I am loathe to make this an issue because there are many churches where the clergy are hypocrites; I guess this is just a trait that \u201creligious\u201d churches have as even Jesus called the Pharisees, the clergy of His day, hypocrites. So I cannot in all conscience point the finger at only the OAC for having hypocritical clergymen, for I know this happens in other churches. I can say, however, that I have had quite a few ex-OAC members make this exact same claim of their former Elders.

Also notice how this Underdeacon tries to con this poor woman into believing that the Old Apostolic Church is the original church. The Catholic Church uses the same trick upon its faithful; they claim that their first Pope was the Apostle Peter, even though he lived 300 years before the Catholic Church formed and even Clement, second Bishop of Rome, admitted there is no evidence of Peter having even been to Rome, let alone the first Catholic leader. In this OAC example, the Underdeacon claims that the OAC derives from the Apostles; no sir, the OAC stems from Edward Irving, who lived not even 200 years ago. The Old Apostolic Church doesn\u2019t become Apostolic merely because that is its name, no less than the Zion Christian Church isn\u2019t Christian just because its headquarters is named after the Biblical place of Moria. And yes, one ZCC member actually used that logic to prove their church\u2019s Christianity to me…

Prayer<\/strong>

The OAC believe in opening prayer with \u201cIn the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, Amen\u201d which they believe to be the \u201ckey\u201d with which you open prayer. Then it\u2019s basically you praying to the Gift within you which they believe is Christ. The Gift is the Child, Brother, Sister, Underdeacon, Priest, Elder, Overseer, Prophet, Evangelist or Apostle within you. After praying you close it again with the same key. When you go see your \u201cOwergestelde\u201d or \u201cVessel of Blessing\u201d, you tell him your problems and that is also seen as praying to God.

Matt: First thought \u2013 that does sound rather similar to Confession in the Catholic Church.

Going to your Priest is definitely seen as praying to God. Before you go for a job interview, you first go to see your Priest. Then he\u2019ll basically give advice, share some Biblical insights from the latest teaching, say a prayer afterwards and basically say \u201cbe blessed my Brother\u201d and then you go for that interview. This you do also when you go away for the weekend, go on holiday (in which case you get a letter of introduction to the community you\u2019ll be visiting), going to the doctor, bringing your medicine to him to be blessed etc.

I wouldn\u2019t quite say it\u2019s the same as confession, but you definitely keep him in the loop with all major decisions. He becomes more like a spiritual father because you\u2019re consulting that gift of Christ within him. They believe there\u2019s seven heavens, thus when you go to him you consult the gift in a higher heaven.

Matt: So it\u2019s not the same as Confession then. Having a clergyman as a spiritual father is very Catholic though.

In the mornings, it\u2019s good practice to hold \u201cAandag\u201d (literally: \u201cAttention\u201d – there isn\u2019t an English term for it in the OAC<\/em>) which is when the family gather to pray before going their separate ways for the day. The wife always stands on the right hand side during prayers because she is her husband\u2019s \u201cHulpmaat\u201d (\u201cHelpmeet\u201d) or \u201cStaff\u201d. The husband is seen as the door and his wife as the handle. Or he is the petrol and she is the brake etc. (Something which I think most married couples could relate to) The male head of the home is also referred to as the \u201cHouse Priest\u201d.

During prayers it also isn\u2019t strange to see the clergy and everyone else with their eyes open because when they look around then they \u201csee\u201d God in the members and each other.

As for \u201cAvondmaal\u201d (Holy Communion); symbolically the right hand is also placed below the left hand because it\u2019s the stronger hand. (Matt: that\u2019s not nice for someone like me who is left-handed!<\/em>) You\u2019re also supposed to look the Priest in the eye when he places the bread in your hand and you place the bread (Matzo) in your mouth after you\u2019ve said Amen because you mustn\u2019t see the faults of your fellow Brother, it\u2019s symbolic of the \u201cslay and eat\u201d principle and being the least. Avondmaal is seen as symbolic of the activities that took place during the month, the blood (deeds performed by the church community) shed to \u201ctestify\u201d to the \u201cworld\u201d (which is everyone that isn\u2019t OAC), the bread is your Brothers and Sisters with all their faults which you love unconditionally and the \u201cdeath\u201d of your own flesh by following the Spirit and not your flesh.

Church Activities And Behaviour<\/strong>

They\u2019re very strict on attendance to all the activities because that\u2019s the grace the Apostle has given you to work your salvation. Your tenth is not only the monthly tithes at the end of the month but also the hour each day to be found in the works of God. What you do before and after is your own time, as long as you gave your \u201ctenth\u201d to God. In some communities it\u2019s quite okay to go dancing and drinking and whatever after you\u2019ve given God what belongs to Him. You were on your place and you\u2019re accounted for\u2026 In other communities they\u2019re more conservative and try to maintain a constant good lifestyle. There\u2019s also a rule that the apostle closes the door after nine at night, then members should preferably be at home by nine every night otherwise the apostle can\u2019t account for what may happen to you if you\u2019re in a place where you shouldn\u2019t be.

Matt: It\u2019s this works-based, holier than thou attitude why many people \u2013 believers or unbelievers \u2013 leave <\/em>churches. So long as you are seen to be good in the community, or in the church, then you\u2019re OK. That is hypocrisy. As for having a curfew, after which the Apostle cannot account for what may happen to you \u2013 how can any human being be responsible for your welfare without being there in person? Unless that person is God of course… you know where this is heading.

All the women wear hats or at least encouraged to wear hats to church. You\u2019re getting dressed to have an encounter with God and it says somewhere in the Bible about women needing to have their heads covered. In the old days it was also forbidden for women to cut their hair.

Matt: 1 Corinthians 11 is at play here. It is correct that a woman covers her head at church; that would be in 11:5. It\u2019s not a custom set in stone though, for example if it goes against local custom, see 11:16. But as for women \u201chaving to have\u201d long hair, in 11:14 it says that a man having long hair is a shame unto nature (i.e. don\u2019t do it!), but a woman having long hair is a glory unto her (i.e. that would be great) in 11:15. In 11:6 there is even provision for a woman to have no hair at all!

Support of Evolution
<\/strong>
The OAC members don\u2019t have a problem with science and theories like evolution. In fact they seem to love using such arguments to break people down from other faith groups because it somehow supports their argument for not believing in the literal translation of the Bible. Another favourite one is that Noah\u2019s Ark never existed because there\u2019s no way Noah went all over the earth to collect animals to put them in the ark. One person even argued that just the insects alone would not have fit into the Ark. And then where would Noah have kept the food for all these hungry animals etc etc. I remember my mom once explaining to me that Adam and Eve were the first two spiritual people because how else did Cain find a wife etc. Scientific theories are their favourite arguments.

Matt: This is ironic as the OAC has no formal stance on how we all got here. I\u2019ve dealt with people who don\u2019t believe in evolution, however I have witnessed an all-round disdain for the very idea that God created everything like it says in Genesis 1. As for the flood, to keep it simple \u2013 the likelihood of God flooding the world and saving eight people plus animals is more likely than the alternative of \u201cit rained on the rocks for millions of years\u201d or even the latest idea that the water for the oceans came off meteorites striking the earth. Also, the game changes when one realises that the requirement for animals on the Ark were \u201ctwo of every sort\u201d aka \u201ckind\u201d aka \u201cgenus\u201d \u2013 not species, which is the commonly-made mistake.

I can relate to the above though; recently an anti-me blog declared that critics of the OAC are usually \u201ccreationist, conspiracy theories, crazy and anti-OAC\u201d. How kind. Though the opinions vary, I\u2019ve occasionally encountered members who don\u2019t know what to believe but believe evolution is impossible, though the trend thusfar is to believe in evolution.

OAC Members Often Go Atheist
<\/strong>
I have also found that when people leave the church they normally become Atheist. (But not always!) To my shame I also went through such a phase of doubt and I was open to believe that aliens were probably the salvation of mankind. Fortunately through God\u2019s grace I have found the Way, the Truth and the Life in Jesus Christ. Like you I am now also convinced of Divine Creation.

Matt: It wouldn\u2019t surprise me if people who leave the OAC become Atheist. I grew up in Holland, where there are two entire generations of people who were raised Catholic, saw through the lies and false doctrine, but upon leaving the church also rejected God as being yet one more of the church\u2019s lies.

Spiritual Interpretation
<\/strong>
One recent discussion I was asked sarcastically where have I ever seen a woman get pregnant by a word, it\u2019s impossible. I replied that with the Word of God anything is possible and how was God able to create Heaven and Earth out of nothing? Then they avoid giving answers by asking other questions\u2026 and so it goes on. Sometimes it\u2019s like trying to describe the colour blue to a blind person.

Regarding the various interpretations of the same verse, that\u2019s what they call the various \u201cfacets of the diamond\u201d because it depends from which angle you look at it. I must admit though, I\u2019ve never heard of Seth being God in flesh (Matt: see <\/em>Old Apostolic Church Exposed, Part Two<\/em><\/a>) but then again, they believe God is in man and that God Almighty is merely a Word dwelling in their minds. The mind is also commonly referred to as the \u201cheart of understanding\u201d. It\u2019s very difficult to pin them down because they think and interpret things completely different to what an \u201coutsider\u201d would expect.

OAC Witnesses
<\/strong>
You will also typically hear them refer to themselves as Apostolics rather than Christians. For some or other reason they don\u2019t really call themselves Christians and basically shun that title. They believe the OAC is the literal body of Christ and they get sent out with the full mandate of the Apostle (messengers of the Apostle). They believe that when they visit someone in the \u201cworld\u201d, they are the \u201ccloud of witnesses\u201d upon which Christ is seen and when the person in the \u201cworld\u201d becomes convinced and their \u201cspiritual eye\u201d is opened, they will see a \u201cnew heaven and a new earth\u201d. Some teachings which are easier to understand is considered \u201cmilk\u201d and they avoid sharing other controversial beliefs with new members because it is considered \u201cheavy meat\u201d and will cause the \u201cbaby\u201d (new prospect) to choke to death (lose interest in the church). Regarding the \u201ccloud of witnesses\u201d they incorrectly attribute this concept to the clouds upon which Jesus will return. The \u201ccloud of witnesses\u201d (Hebrews 12) actually being referred to in the Bible are actually the faithful servants of our faith in the Old Testament who gave us wonderful examples to live by (Hebrews 11) and yet we know only through Jesus will we enter the Promised Land.

Interestingly I found that when I was an active member in the OAC, I was ill equipped to deal with people who had non-Christian beliefs. When we went out on \u201ctestimony\u201d knocking on doors in the old days, it was easier to testify to someone from another church that didn\u2019t know the Bible very well. When we encountered people who were Hare Krishna (Hindu) or Buddhist, we experienced difficulty \u201ctestifying\u201d to them that our church was the only right church. However when you encountered someone who knew the Bible too well, they were considered a Goliath or \u201cSkrifgeleerde\u201d (scholar in Scripture); if they interpreted the Bible \u201cnaturally\u201d then they were considered \u201cfleshly minded\u201d.

Written Doctrine
<\/strong>
Part 1 of the OAC Catechism book consists of extracts from the Bible under selected group headings such as Blood (1 Cor 11v25, Joh 6v55, Joh 6v53, Mat 26v28, etc. Part 2 consists of questions and answers. Besides that, the only other official written documentation I\u2019ve seen is the \u201cConfession of Faith\u201d. The OAC believe their doctrine is too vast to be set out in writing which is why official documentation of any sort is so scarce. Priests and Underdeacons all have their favourite verses which they keep as trump cards. You\u2019ll find that they normally quote single verses out of context and they\u2019re able to hang their whole wardrobe on one single hanger without consideration for the rest of the wardrobe\u2019s structure, never mind the fact that the wardrobe couldn\u2019t exist without the house into which it\u2019s built!

The Old Apostolic Church Preaches Another Jesus!
<\/strong>
They don\u2019t believe the Jesus Christ that other Christians believe in, who physically ascended to heaven. It\u2019s spiritual you see, He actually ascended into the minds of His Apostles! God in the flesh, the Immanuel principle is what they\u2019re trying to convince people of. They want people to believe the Almighty God and Creator of Heaven and Earth actually resides in their minds and when they speak, then it\u2019s the Living Word of God (because the letter is dead). They mockingly ask which way is up because if you\u2019re in China, what about the people in America etc. How will every eye see Him at His return is another favourite with the Apostolics. If He arrives on the \u201cnatural\u201d clouds in Jerusalem, how will He be seen on the other side of the world. They use this manner of \u201ctestifying\u201d because they believe you first have to sow darkness before the person sees the light. Get people to doubt their own beliefs and faith and then they become the \u201csaviour\u201d by then revealing the \u201clight\u201d (spiritual interpretation).

All other churches and Christians are also considered by them as part of the world. If you believe in a physical Jesus of 2000 years ago who will return one day on the clouds, then you\u2019re considered as \u201cnaturally minded\u201d and you don\u2019t have the \u201cspiritual eye\u201d.

The OAC members are also very proud to say that they\u2019re the only church which doesn\u2019t wait for a physical Jesus to return on the \u201cnatural\u201d clouds one day.

Galatians 1:9<\/strong> – As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.<\/em>

God’s Hand (Rather, the OAC Clergy)
<\/strong>
They believe the hand of God has five fingers and the hand is made up as follows:

Apostle <\/strong>(Thumb because it\u2019s the strongest digit on the hand and completes the grip)
Prophet <\/strong>(Index finger because it points the way)
Evangelist <\/strong>(Middle finger because it goes the furthest into the \u201cworld\u201d)
Pastor and Teacher = Overseer <\/strong>(Ring finger and pinky because it shepherds the members and gently teaches them)

Three OAC Streams
<\/strong>
There are also three main \u201cstreams\u201d:

The Prophetic stream \u2013 this consists of \u201cgifts\u201d and ranges from dreams, visions and prophecies. You\u2019ll always find paper in the back of the hall where members can write down their visions during a service. Prophecies are like loud prayers during a service. Dreams that members get when asleep are also written down, put in an envelope and given to the priest. The Prophet is the one who may actually get all these \u201cgifts\u201d and there may be \u201cprophetic\u201d elders and priests that report to him depending on the contents of the \u201cgifts\u201d.

The Evangelist stream \u2013 in the old days this was called testimony and members gathered twice a week at the hall and then got sent out by the Underdeacon to different addresses or to do \u201ccold calling\u201d much the same way that the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses do. You didn\u2019t take a Bible with you though, you let the \u201cspirit\u201d lead you and believed that God would place the words in your mouth and on your tongue because alas, \u201cGod is inside you\u201d. The Underdeacon is believed to be the \u201ccleanest\u201d office because they\u2019re where the action is and the \u201cwater\u201d from the teaching rinses them clean. Nowadays, testimony has been replaced by what is called \u201cpower cells\u201d. Apparently this is less dangerous because the whole idea is to invite non-members to this gathering at a designated members\u2019 house and then the testimony can take place in a group event. I don\u2019t know the success of this concept because when I was still involved in that activity it ended up basically with members visiting each other and \u201cbreaking bread\u201d (to be explained below shortly). I can\u2019t remember anyone from the \u201cworld\u201d being in these \u201cpower cells\u201d.

The Shepherd stream \u2013 this is really just visiting \u201csitting members\u201d, those that don\u2019t attend the church activities and showing concern for their souls. This is usually an activity coordinated by the \u201cshepherd\u201d priest.

Interpreting Dreams
<\/strong>
The \u201cgifts\u201d go \u201cup\u201d to the apostle and the apostle dispenses teaching based on the contents of these \u201cgifts\u201d and his interpretation of them, this \u201cup\u201d and \u201cdown\u201d is also seen as \u201cJacob\u2019s Ladder\u201d. I remember how for months on end our teaching from the apostle was Philippians 4:4. The teaching dispensed by the apostle is the \u201cbread\u201d which has been put on your plate and \u201cbread breaking\u201d is when the members get together and discuss the verse(s) in great deal and detail. This is where all the interpretations come to the surface and shared amongst the members. It can get quite irritating. I remember once having a query on the meaning of some other verses in the Bible and the elder admonished me by asking why I was being disobedient. If the apostle put something on your plate then you didn\u2019t go eating something else that wasn\u2019t in or part of the latest teaching.

Life After Death
<\/strong>
When you die then you go \u201cout the flesh\u201d as a spirit being and enter the rest. But now it gets tricky, the rest isn\u2019t the rest one would think, no, you continue going to church but as a spirit. The idea is to start preparing yourself now already by always attending the church activities and that you find rest in the activities of the church. By the time you die it\u2019s already a habit. People who die without knowing the OAC are said to first fly out into space because they wrongfully believe heaven is up there somewhere. When they find nothing they apparently fly back to earth and bother the Apostolics, because the Apostolics are the only ones with the light. Almost like the movie \u201cGhost\u201d with Patrick Swayze and Whoopi Goldberg. Then the Underdeacons and Priests send these spirits to \u201cwork their salvation\u201d by attending church activities and visiting \u201cunsaved\u201d members and influence their thoughts. They\u2019re also sent as angels ahead to prepare a way, so to speak. This is quite a controversial topic and is considered as \u201cheavy meat\u201d.

Matt: Why are Underdeacons and Priests having any dealing with dead spirits? That is an abomination! (it also happens to be one of their sacraments! Check their confession of faith<\/a> or, in Afrikaans, geloofsbelydenis<\/a>)

Deuteronomy 18:10-12<\/strong> – There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination<\/u>, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits<\/u>, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD<\/u>: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.<\/em>

Seven Heavens
<\/strong>
The OAC believes there are seven heavens. Thus, when you go to a Priest for example, you consult the gift in a higher heaven.

1 – Apostle and his Sister
2 – Fourfold office (Evangelist\/Overseer\/Prophet) and his Sister
3 – Elder and his Sister
4 – Priest and his Sister
5 – Underdeacon and his Sister
6 – Brother (Housepriest if he has a family) and Sister
7 – Child

Matt: This vindicates an update to my original expos\u00e9<\/a> which I made in 2012, stating the exact same thing about the OAC believing in seven heavens. I had some members slate me for even suggesting it.

Helpful Tips For Debating Old Apostolics
<\/strong>
The OAC love taking a verse and then expounding on the hidden spiritual truths contained therein (completely out of context of course). You can always take them back to the first chapter of Matthew. Ask them to please expound verse for verse the genealogy of Jesus Christ. If they do give an answer which makes sense to them, you can do the same for Luke 3 and maybe ask them why do the two genealogies differ from David onwards. Chances are they will try and answer with a question or refer to another verse. I doubt they will know that the two genealogies refer to Jesus\u2019 maternal (Mary\u2019s) bloodline and \u201cpaternal\u201d (i.e. Joseph\u2019s) bloodline.

If they like the Old Testament, maybe you can ask them what the Spiritual meaning is of the tabernacle in Exodus 26, verse for verse seeing as they believe they are the tabernacle of the Living God.

The OAC believe you can\u2019t receive the Holy Ghost except through the laying on of hands of a Living Apostle. Even though they have no literature to support the notion that the continual succession of Apostles from Jesus continued uninterrupted until today, the OAC\u2019s only history shows it has its roots with Edward Irving and \u201cothers\u201d. How did Apostle Cardale and the other 11 Apostles receive the Holy Ghost then? You can\u2019t give something you don\u2019t have?

If they\u2019re the original church that Jesus built, why did the church break away so many times from other established churches (Irving was in the Church of Scotland, the newly ordained twelve apostles of that period were known as the Catholic Apostolic Church)? If they still contend that despite splitting away they\u2019re still the real deal, what makes the other churches that split away from them any different? I can understand if they didn\u2019t like the Afrikaans name \u201cKatolieke Apostoliese Kerk\u201d because then they\u2019d be KAK \"\". The New Apostolic Church broke away from the Catholic Apostolic Church and Apostle Klibbe broke away from the New Apostolic Church and only after a court case did he call himself and his followers the Old Apostolic Church.

Some verses that make them feel uncomfortable and they have difficulty explaining away because \u201chow does a \u201cflesh and bones man\u201d ascend as a spirit into your mind\u201d:

Luke 24:39<\/strong> – Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.<\/em>

Hebrews 10:12 <\/strong>– But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;<\/em>

1 Timothy 2:5-7<\/strong> – For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.<\/em>

They\u2019re quick to say that the \u201cworld\u201d serves a God of imagination because we think back to a Jesus who lived 2000 years ago who was literally conceived by a Word and later ascended physically into the air and the clouds. They think this is nonsense, it MUST be spiritual. I think it requires a lot more imagination to interpret individual verses \u201cas the spirit leads you\u201d and not read the Bible literally within the context in which it was written. I agree 100% with you, when reading the Bible there are other things to consider such as the writer, the audience, the circumstances etc. Revelation for example was a vision and the writer makes that clear from the beginning. Everyone (hopefully) in the Christian world also knows we can\u2019t eat Jesus\u2019 literal flesh or drink His literal blood, that was never what Jesus implied and he explained very clearly what He meant. His disciples were not cannibals and didn\u2019t eat Him for dinner after He was crucified. Members of the OAC sarcastically ask this question and imply this if a person says they read the Bible literally \u2013 duh!

In Closing from Mark
<\/strong>
I hope this helps you though and I believe the real Holy Spirit (not the imaginary one J) will guide you in your decision on how to use this info. The Confession of Faith is some \u201chard\u201d evidence, pay particular attention to the \u201cbaptising the living for the dead\u201d sacrament. Definitely not Kosher. It feels like I can write a book \"\"

Conclusion From Matt
<\/strong>
Thank you for reading this article, and for making it all the way to the end! If ever there was irony, it would be my involvement (as it were) with the topic of the Old Apostolic Church. I started the website to preach sermons to the world, but also did a couple of expos\u00e9s \u2013 which in turn are the most often read and commented upon. As more people come forward, and more information comes to light, I share it on here for you all to read. It\u2019s not about attacking you as the reader, it has never<\/em> been about that. I am only one man who has a fulltime job, but it is my desire to reach people all over the world to share the Good News. But what really makes me mad is to see how there are churches and groups out there, claiming to function in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet preach a false Gospel, cast believers into bondage via false doctrine, and insodoing are leading their followers into Hell via their false image of Jesus and their false doctrines. Jesus told us this would happen!

Matthew 7:15-23<\/strong> – Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.<\/em>

So then, what IS the path to salvation? That is where the Good News comes into the equation! Even though every single religion and worldview<\/em> teaches some sort of vague salvation, \u201cmaybe\u201d achievable by good works, the Bible says that good works will get us nowhere.

Isaiah 64:6 <\/strong>– But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.<\/em>

So then how can we get saved? How can we know<\/em> that we are going to Heaven?

Firstly<\/strong>, know you are a sinner; and feel the guilt and shame for your sins!

Secondly<\/strong>, know that God implements perfect justice. God shall punish every single sin. Every single one!<\/em> (for if God overlooked even one sin, His justice would not be perfect and then He would not be God) By that justice, every single one of us is guilty! And what is the punishment for sin? Hell!

Thirdly<\/strong>, know that God loves you. He loves you so much, He came down to be among us, Jesus Christ; who died upon the cross to pay for our sins! Your sins too! He overcame death and was resurrected.

Finally<\/strong>, call upon Jesus Christ, ask Him to forgive you, to be your Lord and Saviour. And that\u2019s it \u2013 you are saved, guaranteed your spot in Heaven!

Romans 10:9-13<\/strong> – That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved<\/u>. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.<\/em>

Ephesians 2:8-9<\/strong> – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

Yes friends, it is by your FAITH that you are saved, your faith that Jesus Christ is Lord and died to save you!

John 14:6<\/strong> – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
<\/em>
Testimonies:<\/strong>
<\/strong>
If you have a testimony about your experience with the Old Apostolic Church, do please share it with me and also let me know if I may use it (named or anonymous). I have already published quite a few.

Since April 2014<\/strong>: Please check out much more OAC info on my new Apostolics Corner<\/a>. This includes links to all the OAC articles, the interview, all the testimonies, as well as a whole host of external information – and you can also download an OAC Catechism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Interview With Former Old Apostolic<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is an interview conducted in February 2013 with a former member of the Old Apostolic Church. He wishes to remain unnamed, saying of himself:

I was born and raised in the OAC. My parents are high-ranking officers. I left the church after more than 40 years. I still have some family etc. Not keen to have my name mentioned. But I have a lot of knowledge and understanding of the doctrine of the church. Perhaps we can correspond. I could answer some questions if required.<\/em>

I would also ask that you do not use my name as my parents are well known in the Church. They have been a driving force for 50 years and are passionate about their work \u2013 I would hate to undermine them. I have no beef with them \u2013 they truly believe in the doctrine. My issue is with the chaps (apostles) who dream up this nonsense.<\/em>

Thus, here are my questions in bold<\/strong>, and his answers:

Regarding end-time prophecy; what does the OAC teach\/believe about the end times?

<\/strong>Old Apostolics do not believe that the world will end as accepted by other Christian Churches. According to doctrine we are all living in the end times \u2013 time will end for an individual when he dies. Earthly death is not a tragedy as it gives the soul the opportunity to be united with God forever (i.e. be in the heavenly condition). OAC do not believe that heaven is a specific place. Rather Heaven is a condition of  rest for the soul. It is possible for the soul to experience this heavenly condition while the person is still alive if he is found in his spiritual work every day. There are two services on Sundays (one morning and one evening), Monday and Thursday evenings are reserved for Testimony where the brothers and Underdeacons will go out and knock on door so start a spiritual discussion. Tuesday are usually reserved for Choir Practise or play practice or bread breaking (bread is \u201cspiritual food\u201d which is the teachings received from the higher office e.g. the Priests in a service Bread Breaking is when members gather together to discuss and understand the teaching as brought). Wednesday evening is usually a church service again. Friday evenings are choir practice again. Saturday evenings are free and members are encouraged to socialise on that evening. So when the soul is found in service (i.e. the member is attending a meeting or doing other spiritual work) then it is in heaven \u2013 in this way members are encouraged to gather together every evening of the week. If a member cannot attend a meeting (say for example he has to work) then he is expected to inform his Priest so that he can be remembered in the opening prayers and still be \u201cunder the blessing\u201d. Yes I know this sounds ridiculous.

Why are there so many inconsistencies between believers\/churches? For example, one person wrote to me saying they haven’t printed Catechisms in 20 years, but I also received a testimony from a youngster (under 20) who was raised on OAC Catechism.<\/strong>

My mother worked for the Cape Town Head Office for 25 years. In that time a few things changed rapidly in the Church. They changed the old hymn books to a specially edited and printed Old Apostolic Book. Also \u2013 the Sacred Songs and Solos (3) and the Alexander\u2019s hymns eventually are being phased out and other choir songs are being used. I was a member of the Cape Town Brass Band (this band existed for over 50 years until closed by Apostle Decree about 2 years ago) for over 10 years until December 2003 when I had to leave as my work transferred me to Johannesburg. I was also the Choir Master for three years (a coveted position in the Band), I was door keeper for 10 years and also an auditor) (i.e. I counted the tithes and offerings and made sure these were banked as required). There are a lot of Catechism Books. Perhaps it was not necessary to print as they usually have many of these books in stock. I still have my old book for sentimental reasons \u2013 for some reason I cannot bear to part with it.

Or another inconsistency, I doubt people would believe God came in the flesh as Seth, yet I had a member volunteer that belief in defence of the OAC, and a second random believer verified it.<\/strong>

OAC believes that God dwells in people (many texts from Paul are used to support this theory) so, for any member of the church God is his superior officer. So, for Brothers, Sisters, Underdeacons \u2013 God is the Priest. For Priests, God is the Elder. For Elders, God is the fourfold office (Overseers \u2013 who actually hold 2 offices; that of Pastor and Teacher, Evangelists \u2013 responsible for all evangelical work and testimony, Prophets \u2013 responsible for all Prophetic Gifts dreams and vision). So if Seth came in the \u201csupervisory role\u201d then he was God at that time. I know this sounds silly. However you must understand how OAC members are brainwashed to believe these things.

I’ve had someone write in to testify that an OAC priest came to their house, claiming that you should only read the OT (then how can he call himself Christian?), I’ve had two people write in that elders condoned their own fornication\/adultery because they’re clergy!<\/strong>

Unfortunately this sort of thing does occur. Different people interpret things differently and there are opportunistic people who believe for example that they can sin and get away with it by attending Holy Communion. However the Church recognises these human failings and actively preaches and teaches against them. I like to think of the army. Were you there? There were many corporals who were completely corrupted and abused their rank but there were some who understood the power they had over the troops and tried to be fair. As they say \u201cPower corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely\u201d

A friend of mine, as well as myself, have found that when an OAC believer starts a debate, they often end up having a number of people debating you at one time; I found myself that someone will start an e-mail debate with me, then eventually I see 2-3 different writing styles\/grammar – my friend’s record is 15-on-1 in his living room. Is this indeed a common trend, or are we just lucky <\/strong>\"\"

This will be a trend. If a member sees that he cannot win the debate then he will bring in re-enforcements. Remember that these people believe that they are the only ones who will go to heaven so they are very keen to change the opinions of others to get them to join the church. This is their mission.

I’ve also found that some people deny to me they are OAC, yet will defend the OAC tremendously; is this something they would practice, or just my luck?<\/strong>

I have also been guilty of this. When you are a member you are told that only the few OAC may be saved if their gift can give a good report when they die. The gift (Bother, sister, Underdeacon, Priest etc) is given by the Apostle by the laying on of hands. That gift is supposed to be a type of conscience that will keep you on the straight and narrow. When you die the gift will bear witness to the loyalty of the member. If there is any disloyalty then the soul will be in Hell which is a condition of everlasting separation from God. This is the worst thing imaginable for a soul.

Also \u2013 there is a very strong Us (the Church) and Them (the rest of the World) mentality. You feel part of a special bond and are reluctant to let others disrespect this bond even when you are out of the church. I must say that the church believes that I am lost forever and if I die before repenting (i.e. go back to the church) then my soul is damned forever.

The Good News speaks of salvation by faith (Romans 10:9-13, Ephesians 2:8-9 for example). I understand that the OAC promotes salvation by works (either via Sacraments, or just simply claiming salvation by good works). So, if an Old Apostolic were to speak to someone, who did not know God at all; how would they explain the need for salvation and how to get saved?<\/strong>

Yes – \u201cBy grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. Not of works lest any man should boast\u2026\u201d or something along those lines. Now the Apostolic definition of faith is also taken from Paul \u2013 \u201cFaith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen\u201d. The explanation will be: I have faith that I will do well in my exams. So I write the paper and fail \u2013 why did God not help me? The Apostolic way is to say \u201cI have faith that I will do well in my exams because I have studied hard and understand the work\u201d. So the faith is the \u201cwork\u201d that I have done as it is the evidence of things not yet seen. Then I would go to the Priest and ask for a blessing for my examination. The Priest will say \u201cBrother go write the exam, God will bless you\u201d. The blessing will be peace of mind for me so I will not worry and will be able to recall the work that I have done to be able to answer the questions. In a few weeks I get my results \u2013 I did well which proves the value of my effort. I go to the Priest and tell him the result and say thanks to God for the blessing. Remember that for a Brother in the church, God is his Priest. Grace and mercy are also defined differently. Grace is the golden opportunities I have to serve God. Mercy is the opportunities I use to follow grace (I know that sounds weird but think a little \u2013 it has a certain logic to it). So \u2013 the Old Apostolic\u2019s mission is to get the new person to eventually be sealed as member of the Church by the laying of hands on the Apostle at a sealing service. At that event the person is marked with the mark of the Lamb which no man can see but spirits and God can see. He will also receive the Holy Ghost (which can be defined as the ability to receive the unadulterated teachings of the Apostle). Now he can be saved. If the person died before he ever met an Old Apostolic (Clearly we are speaking about a heck of a lot of people here!) he will have an opportunity to be saved if his soul makes its way to a sealing service and he makes use of the opportunity that the Apostle makes for souls to enter the Kingdom when he opens the gate at the Sealing Service as I described before. Evidently it is very dark on the \u201cother side\u201d and the Sealing Service is this huge light (Light is understanding in the Apostolic Dictionary) that attracts lost souls like moths to a flame to coin a phrase. But God will decide who is actually admitted so the Sealing Service is only an opportunity. Any soul that turned their back on the one true God (i.e. rejected the Apostolic Doctrine) will be rejected. Devil Worshippers and atheists etc do not count as people who rejected God as they did not really reject God if they did not turn their back on the OAC.

For that matter; who IS the Jesus of the OAC? (In Christianity, He is the literal embodiment of God, His only begotten Son, who died on the cross for our sins, dead for 3 nights, resurrected and ascended into Heaven, to return for us at the Second Coming)<\/strong>

This is a little harder. Christ is the whole Apostolic Church united against the world and worldly corruptors. The second coming will not be an event \u2013 \u201clook here he is!!\u201d as Jesus will come personally to everyone who accepts the true word of God as spoken by the Apostle. The Apostles are seen as the representatives of Jesus on earth as evidenced by the text \u201cUnto you I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven\u2026.\u201d. Also \u2013the OAC believes that Jesus is present at each particular gathering as evidenced by the text \u201cwhere two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the midst”

Do you think the OAC has always been the way it is, or was there perhaps a corrupting factor? Would it be possible for someone, who went 30 years ago, to be completely unable to relate to my previous two articles?

<\/strong>Yes \u2013 people would be able to relate even though the Church is not as rigid as it used to be. I know many older people who are dismayed at the changes that are being made to accommodate the modern world and the feelings of younger people. You will not believe what I will say next: In the \u201870\u2019s we lived in Rhodesia. There were very few OAC members so we had no Overseer or Apostle. We fell under the jurisdiction of Apostle Dixon and Overseer du Toit from Natal. I was still very young then \u2013 I was 5 when I had to give the welcoming speech for the Apostle (that has subsequently been done away with as it can be seen as praising of the man and not the Gift of God in the man). We had to rent a restaurant as there was no Church Hall at the time and the people (probably 50) could not fit into a house. There was a TV (Rhodesia had black and white TV from 1959 \u2013 broadcasts started 17h30 every day) in the hall. Apostle asked \u201cwhat is this thing\u201d \u2013 my father explained that it is a television and gives pictures with sound. Apostle said that it must be a cured instrument and Apostolics should be discouraged from watching and wasting time that could be dedicated to the service of God. I kid you not!

I have had two people testify to me that they have either been threatened with curses, or witnessed the issuing of curses in the OAC towards people who wanted to leave. Is this true? Does this happen, either officially or in practice?

<\/strong>I do not think that the Church will officially issue a curse. Rather a member that decides to leave (like me) curses himself because he chose to leave the service of the Lord. However it would not surprise me to hear that threats of curses are made as that would be a way for a Priest or other officer in the Church to make someone too scared to leave.

You mentioned that there is an “us and them” mentality. Do Old Apostolics believe that Christians who don’t go to OAC are saved?

<\/strong>No \u2013 they are not saved as they do not know the one true God (only OAC have access to the true God you see?). However they do good work. There is a passage in Scripture where the disciples said to Jesus \u2013 look, there are others casting out demons and doing works in your name etc. but they are not part of us. Jesus said \u2013they are doing good work but make sure that your name is recorded in the book (or words to that effect).

This may differ by person; but on average, what is the OAC’s teaching, and the general belief, regarding creation and evolution? (I am a passionate Young Earth Creationist) One thing I experience a lot is that Old Apostolics battle terribly with Genesis 1 and almost seem to discourage belief in the creation account; generally because they aren’t allowed to read the text as it’s written and simply cannot understand it when looking for another meaning. So on a whole, would they be Young Earth Creationists (created by God in 6 days, around 6000 years ago), Old Earth Creationists (generally compromising creation and evolution) or Evolutionists? (or maybe something else completely different)<\/strong>

Ah \u2013 the Church has no position on the actual creation of the earth. The Bible is a spiritual book and needs to be interpreted spiritually. The creation in Genesis is actually the journey a person makes to become part of the church. In the Church all things in the bible actually happen in your mind. So in the beginning the earth was null and void and darkness ruled. The Apostolic will say that he has just met this person who he can speak to or testify to. In the beginning the earth (i.e. the mind of the other person) is dark etc as darkness is lack of understanding. God said let there be light. In this case the person stats to understand a little of what the Apostolic is saying \u2013 that is light. But soon the apostolic has to go home or leave for whatever reason so the light is gone \u2013 i.e. gets dark again. Next time there is a little more understanding. Now the spirit of God as revealed by the Apostolic can start to create a world in the mind of the new person \u2013 this will be a world where God can live. Apsotolics believe that God dwells in the \u201cheart of Understanding\u201d which is the mind. As time goes on the person understands more of the Apostolic Doctrine until full understanding at the brother or sister level is achieved. Then the creation is complete for that person and he \/ she is ready to be sealed. Then God (who is represented by the testifying Apostolic) can rest as the creation is complete. Then there will be another person to speak to and the cycle repeats over aging etc. Remember there is a rigorous logic at eh base of the Apostolic Teaching.

I have been told about the OAC doctrine of there being seven heavens, each a different level, for clergy and believers. Could you explain how that works?

<\/strong>Yes. There are indeed seven levels to heaven. There are seven gifts in the church: Child, Brother \/ Sister, Underdeacon and his wife if married, Priest and his wife (priests must be married \u2013 they may be widowers and priest-wives may be widows), Elder and his wife (same for widows etc), Fourfold Office and his wife (that is Overseer, Prophet, evangelist \u2013 same for the wives), and Apostle and his wife. Each heaven is a condition of rest for the soul. As the member accepts more responsibility then he ascends into a new heaven as his gift prescribes. This is a little technical but if you are exposed to this thinking for long enough it also makes sense.

Christianity as we know it today stems from the Reformation; though there are pre-Reformation evidences of “proper Christianity”, we are still influenced by the Reformation and eternally grateful that it happened. Yet, the Old Apostolic Church doesn’t come from the conventional sources, but “Irvingism”. Besides what I’ve written before, what differences can you tell me about between the OAC and conventional Christianity?<\/strong>

Yes- the Church seems to be unique in that respect. It uses the King James Bible (which is an old text yet made for the Church of England and not for the Catholic Church). Actually the Apostolic Church believes that it is the true church that Jesus left when he was a person and that it traces its roots right back to that time. From the OAC viewpoint the Catholic Church actually separated from the original church and became adulterated with other practises (e.g. Christmas time, Easter which is actually a pagan celebration of spring and coming fertility), the Pope and fancy robes. The OAC claims to be God\u2019s true church in earth. Now if that does not sound like the hallmark of a cult then I really do not know. They actually like being told that they are different as that means that they have someone to try to convert (or save in their opinion).

Regarding free will; this is surprisingly a hotly debated issue in Christianity. In short, Calvinist-based churches claim we have no free will, while others claim we do. Where does the OAC stand on free will?<\/strong>

We have our free will. The long answer is: God said I give you your will and I leave you mine (I have NO IDEA if that is in the Bible or is an OAC saying). I have explained the Apostolic Week to you. Every evening there is an activity. The member must decide whether to follow God\u2019s will or his own. The member is free to follow the teachings or not \u2013 but he may not reject the Church. The battle is in his mind between the forces of Good (i.e. the will of God) and the forces of Evil (i.e. the desires of the world). Perhaps I want to watch TV tonight. But I know I am supposed to be at the hall for a meeting. That type of thing.

OAC does not believe in pre-destiny. But they do believe that you do not know when life will end \u2013 only God has that knowledge. So they are afraid to be out of the order i.e. follow their own free will. My parents are prime examples of this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the schism between the Old Apostolic Church and the New Apostolic Church, as well as offshoots, what would you say are the major differences between them?<\/strong>

Yes that is an old question. I am not an expert on the NAC at all. I cannot really speak about differences. Sorry.

Is there anything else you would like to raise? <\/strong>Yes:

What happens to the soul at death:<\/strong>

The OAC believes that when a person dies his soul stays near his body until the funeral. At the funeral the presiding officer (that will depend on the status of the deceased \u2013 Brothers, Sisters and Underdeacons get buried by their Priest, Priests by Elders and so on) will say words to the effect of \u201cGo into the rest, faithful soul\u201d although God will decide if the soul actually goes into the rest or not. The officers of the Church have a small book that they read from at all official duties. These dictate the correct words to say when a person is confirmed (i.e. graduates from Sunday School to full-fledged member responsible for his own soul), baptism of a child, Sealing of a member. Correct process at Holy Communion etc. Words are very powerful in the OAC. After all there can be no real understanding without words. The basis of this is the text from John \u201cIn the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God. All things were made by him\u2026etc\u201d

A typical OAC church service:<\/strong>

A service will usually start with the choir singing for 15 minutes. Then the Presiding Officer will command the assembled congregation to go into silent prayer. Each member spends a few seconds in personal silent prayer. Then a congregational hymn will be sung ending with the word \u201cAmen\u201d Amen is a very important word in the OAC. The Presiding officer will then command the congregation to stand so he can open up in prayer by saying the words \u201cIn the name of God the Father. God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Amen\u201d The Congregation will respond loudly \u201cAmen\u201d The a few members or officers may be seized with the urge to Prophesy. This will be a short speech \u2013 after each prophecy the Presiding Officer will say \u201cAmen\u201d. After a few Prophesies (usually three or four) the Presiding officer will continue with his prayer ending with Amen. After a few more prophesies and one more hymn the congregation is told to sit and the sermon commences. Most Apostolic Officers are just ordinary people with the usual 9 to 5 jobs. Yet they can speak very engagingly. The sermon will begin with a reading of one or two texts (one of which will be the \u201cConference Text) and then teaching will be given. Usually one half of the sermon is in one of the official languages and the other half is in English. The sermons are basically spoken on the spot \u2013 the Officers do not prepare and read a message as for example the Catholic Church. After around 45 to 50 minutes the service is concluded with a hymn, perhaps a prophecy or two and the Benediction. In the case of a Fourth Sunday or other important occasion the Officers and Members will partake of Holy Communion. The congregation sings songs for the duration of the sacrament.

(end of interview)<\/strong>

He ended by saying:

I must add that I respect the beliefs of others. Personally I believe in Science and I have rejected the idea of a creator that wants to have a personal relationship with people. I believe that as a human I am part of a highly evolved species that has developed the power of the mind to such an extent that we have been able to take control of the entire earth. I believe that when we die we are dead and that is the end. I respect the fact that you are a young earth creationist. I see no reason why we cannot correspond and ask questions that have no easy answers.<\/em>

Well, I hope this gives you some more insight into the operation within the Old Apostolic Church, and exposes some of its doctrine to you; publically available information on the OAC is very scarce, so I am very grateful and appreciative of the interviewee for sharing all of this with me, and indeed with you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Genesis 1 Explained<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is something I had previously covered in \u201c<\/strong>OAC Exposed, Part Two<\/a>\u201d \u2013 there I had covered the basic questions posed to me by Old Apostolic members, if anything because I kept getting asked the same questions all the time. But this is a chapter of the Bible which is crucial to our faith. If you don\u2019t believe the first verse of Genesis 1, you may as well not bother to read the rest; but if you do believe it, it makes the rest a whole lot easier.<\/strong>

Therefore, this is something I wish to elaborate on, as it is one of the most common topics I get asked about by Old Apostolics. The argument is that Genesis 1 \u2013 the creation \u2013 cannot be read literally, because it doesn\u2019t make sense. So let me explain why it does.

I also want to point out that the explanations I will give pretty much apply to anyone else; but as it is the Old Apostolic believers who question me the most (by far) about Genesis, it is them I am appealing to with the following. I hope this covers all the main questions they have in this regard.

Created!<\/strong>

Genesis 1:1<\/strong> – In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.<\/em>

This is one of those verses where I cannot imagine any other interpretation possible, other than how it was written there and then. But also, it is good to take a firm view on how everything got here; how we<\/em> got here. It\u2019s great for OACs to dwell on what they think is the Spiritual, but the fact is that we are physically here. If you pinch my arm, it will physically hurt, not spiritually. So, with that in mind, there are only two possibilities \u2013 either God made everything, or (if there is no God) everything made itself. There can be no third option. Speaking of being \u201cspiritually created\u201d would get you nowhere in a debate with an Atheist, for example.

On a separate note though; knowing how the Trinity is something which cults often deny, you may find this interesting:

Beginning \u2013 this means time, which has a past, present and future \u2013 a trinity
God \u2013 which is Father, Son and Holy Ghost \u2013 the Trinity
Heaven \u2013 this means space, or the universe
Earth \u2013 this means matter, which is solid, liquid and gas \u2013 a trinity (one could mention plasma, which is merely liquified gas)

So we have time, space and matter \u2013 which makes up Einstein\u2019s time-space-matter continuum. A trinity of trinities in a sentence of just ten words. Such intelligence and it\u2019s only the first sentence of the Bible!

Woes En Leeg!

Genesis 1:2<\/strong> – And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.<\/em>

So the earth was \u201cwithout form, and void\u201d. In the 33\/53 Afrikaans Bible \u2013 commonly used by Old Apostolics \u2013 it says: 

Genesis 1:2<\/strong> – En die aarde was woes en leeg, en duisternis was op die w\u00eareldvloed, en die Gees van God het gesweef op die waters.<\/em>

This is where the confusion sets in. The Afrikaans translation says \u201cwoes en leeg\u201d. It\u2019s funny, I read in an SA encyclopaedia that the Afrikaans Bible was translated directly from the Textus Receptus, rather than a mere update from the Dutch Statenbijbel, yet it seems to make the same mistakes and uses similar language. In Dutch, the term used is \u201cwoest en ledig\u201d. The charge made is, how can the earth be \u201cwoes en leeg\u201d at the same time?

Well, look at the words; \u201cleeg\u201d means empty. The word \u201cwoes\u201d today typically means \u201cangry\u201d. However, it can also <\/em>mean \u201cdesolate\u201d (hence a desert is a \u201cwoestyn\u201d in Afrikaans).

The Hebrew phrase used in Genesis 1:2 is \u201ctobu wa bohu\u201d which means \u201cunformed and unfilled\u201d. A desert (Afrikaans: woestyn, i.e. of the word \u201cwoes\u201d) is full of sand, which doesn\u2019t sit still and take a fixed shape like a mountain \u2013 add wind and the form changes.

So the KJV translation \u201cwithout form and void\u201d is correct. As to what that means; suppose you\u2019re building a house; you\u2019ve dug the hole for the foundation, you\u2019ve got the wood and bricks stored somewhere, maybe laid the foundation already \u2013 but that\u2019s it. That would be \u201cunformed and unfilled\u201d. Or a glass of water, but without the glass \u2013 it has no shape or form, so would be \u201cunformed and unfilled\u201d.

Two Different Lights
<\/strong>
A common problem OAC followers have is with the following question: \u201cHow could God create light in Day One and Day Four?

It is true that God created \u201clight\u201d on Day One and Day Four. Does this mean there is a contradiction? No. Does this mean there has to be some special hidden meaning, as I\u2019ve witnessed from some Old Apostolics? No. Let the Bible speak for itself.

Creation of light on Day One:

Genesis 1:3-5<\/strong> – And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.  And the evening and the morning were the first day.<\/em>

Creation of light on Day Four: 

Genesis 1:14-19 – And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.<\/em><\/strong>

Well, reading the whole passage, it would seem logical to me. In Genesis 1:3-5 it speaks of \u201clight\u201d and in 1:14 it already speaks of \u201clights\u201d \u2013 clearly there is some difference if one is singular and one is plural. Also, the \u201clight\u201d of 1:3-5 divides day and night, whereas in 1:14-19 it also creates days, seasons and years. In 1:3-5 it merely has a division between day and night, but in 1:14-19 there are two lights to rule during the day and night; the greater light is the sun to rule during the day, while the lesser light is the moon \u2013 though it doesn\u2019t physically emit light, it reflects the sun\u2019s light.

But again let\u2019s check the Hebrew for this one. European languages, which include the English, Dutch and Afrikaans languages, have only one word for \u201clight\u201d. Hebrew has two words \u2013 \u201cor\u201d and \u201cmaor\u201d. \u201cOr\u201d means \u201clight\u201d and \u201cmaor\u201d means \u201csource of light\u201d. So on Day One, God created light (or) and on Day Four He created the source of light (sun, moon, stars) (maor).

So, here is an example to show you what I\u2019m trying to explain here. Imagine you buy a house (which, given South Africa\u2019s poor wages and high prices, really is an act of imagination!). You move into the house on Wednesday. You took a day\u2019s leave for this. You spend the whole day moving stuff, unpacking boxes and organising rooms; it\u2019s getting late and you just remembered to connect the electricity. So you go to the municipality to have the electricity connected. But you forget to go to the shops before they close \u2013 and that evening, you realise the house has no lightbulbs. So you spend the night in darkness. Thursday you go back to work, which means leaving home before the shops open and get home as the shops close. Another night in darkness. Friday, same thing. Saturday\u2019s weekend though, and you go to the shops first-thing to buy bulbs. So on Saturday night you have light!

Question<\/strong>: Which day did you get light?
Answer<\/strong>: If you answered Saturday, you\u2019re right. If you answered Wednesday, you\u2019re right as well. On Wednesday you got electricity, which \u2013 via wires and switches \u2013 channel the natural force of light. But you had no output; no place to contain the light; you only got that on Saturday when you bought the lightbulbs. So now you can see the light via the lightbulb.

Another point of interest; we see in Genesis 1:3-4 that God separated light and darkness. Later on in the Bible, it even speaks of the movement of light and the non-movement of light:

Job 38:19<\/strong> – Where is the way where light dwelleth?  and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,<\/em>

So according to that verse, light is in a \u201cway\u201d (which means that it is moving), whereas darkness has a place (which means it is not moving). That verse is 4,000 years old and yet it took intelligent man till 1676 (Ole Romer) to even theorise that light moves! Isn\u2019t the Bible just magnificent!

Different Waters

Genesis 1:6-8<\/strong> – And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.  And the evening and the morning were the second day.<\/em>

For sure, this is confusing. This means that land is in-between water; that is, water inside the planet, on the planet and above the planet. The word \u201cfirmament\u201d also refers to the expanse (sky, space). You also saw in verse 1:14, and also in 1:20, that \u201cfirmament\u201d refers to all that which is above us; with the sun and moon up there, as well as birds flying in it. In some languages \u2013 I know this from my youth in Holland \u2013 \u201cheaven\u201d can simply mean \u201csky\u201d.

This would also mean that the firmament is divided by water; that would mean water on the edge of the universe (wherever the edge is!) and water underneath, like on the planet. It can also mean there may have been a canopy of water or ice above the planet (which is quite possible, considering the pre-flood world appears to have had hyperbaric conditions, causing growth and longevity); and as for water underneath the earth, consider:

Genesis 7:11 <\/strong>– In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.<\/em>

So at the Flood, it didn\u2019t merely rain \u2013 water came from underneath!

Let\u2019s face it \u2013 we weren\u2019t there and it happened before the Flood. It makes for a very interesting debate though. So I\u2019ll leave it at that; I do believe there was a worldwide flood and that there is ample evidence of the aftermath. Some resources to consider:

Canopy Theory (water\/ice layer above the pre-flood earth) condensed \u2013 LINK<\/a>
Creation Seminars (an absolute<\/em> must-have!) on AVI for free \u2013 LINK<\/a>
Revealing God\u2019s Treasure \u2013 LINK<\/a> (full show, includes other Biblical finds) \/ LINK<\/a> (Ark Only)

Refuting the Gap Theory
<\/strong>
There is an unbiblical concept known as the Gap Theory. In 1770 there was a man named George Buffon, who wrote that the earth is older than the Bible suggests (if you add up the Bible dates, it would be about 6,000 years old give-or-take; for a cool date-chart, click here<\/a> \u2013 6mb, PDF). Instead of the churches simply rubbishing this one claim, in 1817 Thomas Chalmers (Church of Scotland) made up the Gap Theory, which holds that there is room a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and that there was a pre-Adamite civilisation before the creation of the earth, which lasted millions or billions of years, and then Satan fell, so God destroyed everything and started again. This is purely adding to the Bible, as the Bible never even hints at any of this. There are people though who swear by it, for it makes Genesis appear to be non-literal, and it tries to squeeze \u201cmillions of years\u201d into the Bible, thereby compromising with the non-believers who think their grandpa was a monkey. Problems:

Compromise<\/strong> – Why compromise in the first place? We know that God would rather have us hot or cold, but not lukewarm (i.e. on one side or the other, but never in-between; see Revelation 3:15-16). Even staunch defenders of Atheism don\u2019t understand why we\u2019d even bother to compromise our beliefs.

It Calls God a Liar<\/strong> – If Satan fell before the creation, there would already be sin before Days One thru Six \u2013 so what God created could not have been called \u201cvery good\u201d by God, so God would be a liar \u2013 and we know God cannot lie, see Titus 1:2.

Death Before Sin<\/strong> \u2013 1 Corinthians 15:22 says \u201cin Adam all die\u201d and Romans 5:14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses. Death came with Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden and was a punishment for Eve being tricked and Adam knowingly becoming sinful. But if there was a pre-Adamite civilisation, lasting millions of years, that would mean there was death before sin. But the Bible teaches sin before death. So this makes the Gap Theory heretical.

Refuting the Day-Age Theory
<\/strong>
The Day-Age Theory can be traced back to St Augustine in the 5th<\/sup> Century AD by his misunderstanding of light on Days One and Four. Arnold Guyot came up with the more modern idea in the 19th<\/sup> Century to reconcile Charles Lyell\u2019s theory of uniformitarianism. The theory is, that the days in Genesis are not literal days, but periods. So they could be ages of millions, billions of years. I\u2019ve even encountered with Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses that they believe that each day is a thousand years. The verses used to support this are:

Psalms 90:4 <\/strong>– For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.<\/em>

2 Peter 3:8 <\/strong>– But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.<\/em>

In both cases, \u201cthousand\u201d is used \u2013 not millions or billions. In both cases, it doesn\u2019t refer to creation \u2013 only that time is nothing to the Lord; a thousand years to us is nothing to Him.

In Hebrew, the word used for \u201cday\u201d is \u201cyom\u201d. In no context can this mean anything other than a literal 24-hour day \u2013 especially when you add a number, i.e. Day One or Day Two.

But also, consider Day Three, Day Four and Day Six:

Genesis 1:9-13 <\/strong>– And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.<\/em>

Genesis 1:16<\/strong> – And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.<\/em>

Genesis 1:25 <\/strong>– And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.<\/em>

Seeing how God made the plants on Day Three, the sun on Day Four and bugs on Day Six, we have a problem here. You see, plants need the sun to survive because of photosynthesis; and plants need to be pollinated to survive, but also for us all to survive in general. If you have plants, then sun one day later, and bees two days later, that\u2019s fine. If the Day-Age Theory were true, plants would have to go for thousands or millions of years without photosynthesis or pollination. Impossible!

So again, there was an example whereby the attempt to compromise the Bible to fit in with a worldy belief; and an attempt to show the Bible to be non-literal; can make no sense at all. If we read Genesis 1 in any way other than exactly how it\u2019s written, it fails.

Adam and Eve
<\/strong>
One belief I\u2019ve been confronted with by Old Apostolics is that, when the Bible refers to Adam and Eve, it\u2019s not actually referring to one man and one woman; but to a single entity. Or, it can refer to a collective, like Adam being mankind rather than the first man. So let us complete the look into Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:26-28 <\/strong>– And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.<\/em>

In this context, it could go either way. \u201cMan\u201d could <\/em>also refer to \u201cmankind\u201d. God created us male and female, that is clear \u2013 so the idea of Adam and Eve being one entity is out of the question already.

However, consider the exact wording used, this shows me that God created man in His image, not the woman. “God created man<\/u> in his own image, in the image of God created he him<\/u><\/em>” followed by “male and female created he them<\/em>“. It specifically says God created man in His own image; whereas God merely created “male and female”. This would fit, seeing how God created Eve from Adam’s rib after Adam had been created, whereas Adam was directly created the first time round. Also, if only man was created in God’s image, that fits since God is always referred to as a male throughout the Bible.

Either way you look at it though; Adam and Eve could not possibly have been “one entity”.

And then came Genesis 2:

Genesis 2:22<\/strong> – And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.<\/em>

So, from the one He made another. Notice how He \u201cmade a<\/u><\/em> woman\u201d. If Adam and Eve were mere collectives, God would have made \u201cwoman\u201d, not \u201ca<\/u><\/em> woman\u201d.

Genesis 2:25 <\/strong>– And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.<\/em>

\u201cBoth\u201d refers to two. The words \u201cthe man and his wife\u201d cannot be anything other than two people.

Genesis 3 shows this same concept \u2013 Adam was one man, Eve was one woman and together they were \u201cboth\u201d. We see in Genesis 3, verses 7 and 8 that they were two, as well as verse 20; in 1-7 it is clear that the serpent is dealing with one person (unless all of womankind was speaking and listening at once!); in verses 9-19 God is clearly speaking to one person at a time.

And the final death-knell in the \u201cAdam and Eve are collectives\u201d idea come in Genesis 4:1-2:

Genesis 4:1-2<\/strong> – And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.  And she again bare his brother Abel.  And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.<\/em>

For a person can have only one mother and one father; it would be biologically impossible otherwise!

What About Evolution?

<\/strong>I expect the Atheists to deny the account of Genesis and hold true to their belief in evolution, which requires more faith to believe in than creation (especially as it is unproven and unprovable, for it violates science on numerous occasions). They will even believe their ancestors were monkeys, which evolved from primordial soup, which came from a rock, which came from nothing. They will do anything to avoid acknowledging that there is a God, who created them and therefore can tell them what to do, or what not to do.

But It saddens me that there are many people who profess faith in an Almighty God, yet will not believe that the same Almighty God is capable of creating everything in six days, just as His Word tells us He did. It is even more saddening that there are people, for whom it seems convenient to sooner believe in the unbelievable \u2013 evolution and an old-age earth \u2013 because to believe in literal creation goes against their doctrine of reading the Bible just as it\u2019s written.

So, you may ask me (and OAC members often to), why must we hold to creation? Why must we believe Genesis 1 is a literal account? I will tell you why.

What kind of a weak, cruel, retarded god would use evolution in the first place? If the atheistic evolution model were even possible, it would mean trillions of deaths over billions of years, as well as the need to evolve via millions of still-missing links, for this god to eventually get it right. My God gets it right the first time!

In Genesis 1, when God created all manner of creatures and plants, it says they bring forth \u201cafter their kind\u201d. What this means is, their offspring is of the same kind. This matches the modern concept of \u201cmicro-evolution\u201d just fine. There is no debate that micro-evolution happens; this simply means a variation within the kind. Like, there are humans with different skin colours, or hair colours, but they\u2019re still humans \u2013 they will never give birth to a non-human. But the remaining five definitions of evolution are impossible and would violate what is written in Genesis 1; for if a kind evolved into another kind (called \u201cmacro-evolution\u201d), then Genesis 1 would be wrong. Thankfully, there is no evidence of macro-evolution even being possible, let alone examples.

The very credibility of the Bible is at stake. God\u2019s Word says how it happened in Genesis 1. The Bible also says that God cannot lie in Titus 1:2. Therefore, if it happened via the atheistic evolution model, rather than Genesis 1, God would be a liar, the Bible would contain falsehoods and you may as well throw it away. Jesus referred back to Genesis some 35 times; if Genesis were untrue, Jesus \u2013 who is God – would be referring back to falsehoods and therefore would not be God, for God cannot lie. The Bible is also the only book which claims itself to be infallible, and has the strict rule that if someone says something and it doesn\u2019t happen, it\u2019s not of God \u2013 so again, if the Bible is not 100% correct, it\u2019s not divine. So next time you want to start getting some strange interpretation from this first chapter, just remember all of this.

In Closing
<\/strong>
The book of Genesis, and particularly the accounts of the Creation and the Flood, are the most important accounts of the Bible other than the path to our salvation. The New Testament refers back to Genesis some 200 times, and Jesus referred to it some 35 times. So, understandably Genesis comes under huge fire. Atheist debaters know that if they can get you to doubt Genesis, it becomes much easier to destroy your faith from there. That\u2019s also why compromising on it is dangerous, for it erodes the faith of many. After all, if one compromises on one thing, why not compromise the rest?

But there are so many people who believe in God, who also believe in some weird doctrines. There are mainstream churches which openly reject Genesis as a fable; such would be the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican Church. There are mainstream churches where it\u2019s not formal, but the clergy reject Genesis in favour of atheistic evolution; I saw that in the Methodist Church. But I have also witnessed plenty of people from the Old Apostolic Church, of whom I would say they seem almost too ready to reject Genesis in favour of atheistic evolution; for if Genesis 1 were a literal, historic account, then what else in the Bible is?

So, hopefully I have covered the main questions you have regarding this first chapter of the Bible, which is among the most vital Scripture of the entire Bible. I know there are other elements, but those come later in Genesis and this article is intended to be about only the first chapter. I beseech you to look at the evidence of creation; the absolute best would be the Creation Seminars. There are seven parts, split into eight AVI files, 2.5GB in total size \u2013 they are quite simply life-changing. They are the shows which win souls to Christ by the bucketload. So once again, you can get them here<\/a>. They are copyright-free, so go mad.

All of this is intended to show you that God has given us His Word, to show us everything from beginning to end; but most importantly, so that we can get saved.

But what IS the path to salvation? That is where the Good News comes into the equation! Even though every single religion and worldview<\/em> teaches some sort of vague salvation, \u201cmaybe\u201d achievable by good works, the Bible says that good works will get us nowhere.

Isaiah 64:6 <\/strong>– But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.<\/em>

So then how can we get saved? How can we know<\/em> that we are going to Heaven?

Firstly<\/strong>, know you are a sinner; and feel the guilt and shame for your sins!

Secondly<\/strong>, know that God implements perfect justice. God shall punish every single sin. Every single one!<\/em> (for if God overlooked even one sin, His justice would not be perfect and then He would not be God) By that justice, every single one of us is guilty! And what is the punishment for sin? Hell!

Thirdly<\/strong>, know that God loves you. He loves you so much, He came down to be among us, Jesus Christ; who died upon the cross to pay for our sins! Your sins too! He overcame death and was resurrected.

Finally<\/strong>, call upon Jesus Christ, ask Him to forgive you, to be your Lord and Saviour. And that\u2019s it \u2013 you are saved, guaranteed your spot in Heaven!

Romans 10:9-13<\/strong> – That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved<\/u>. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.<\/em>

Ephesians 2:8-9<\/strong> – For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

Yes friends, it is by your FAITH that you are saved, your faith that Jesus Christ is Lord and died to save you!

John 14:6<\/strong> – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Questions To Old Apostolics<\/h1>\n\n\n\n


Hello dear reader. Over the years since my first article about the Old Apostolic Church, I have had many people write to me. Some were positive messages; some were to say I don\u2019t have a clue what I\u2019m talking about, but were at least respectful; some were not so nice and some were just plain rude. Then again, it goes with the territory.

Still, I know there are many people who will have read what I had to say and yet will still cling to the Old Apostolic Church. Maybe it is due to cognitive dissonance, and they will eventually wake up \u2013 maybe they will remain in the OAC until their dying day. I want you to know that I didn\u2019t write what I wrote, and what I may write in the future too, simply to insult or to cause upset \u2013 I write because I love others enough to care. Yes, that goes for Apostolics too. It bothers me that there are so many people who are being misled by false churches. In fact, it angers me! If a clergyman so desperately desires to cling to false teachings, and follow a false works-based gospel, then he can do it by all means; but he is dragging his congregants into the bowels of Hell with him, and that is what upsets me. That is why I write, and in the way I do \u2013 I would rather have 999 Old Apostolics curse my name but reach one person, than to have a thousand who don\u2019t hate me.

That said; if you have read my articles, and feel that you don\u2019t want to leave the OAC and get saved for real by faith alone in Jesus Christ; then I have some questions to pose to you. Or, if you are somebody who likes to engage in lengthy debates \u2013 and I know there are debate groups between Apostolics and others \u2013 then here are some more things for you to debate! Now, you don\u2019t need to write in to me to give me the answers \u2013 these are things I want you to answer for yourself; to decide if you are truly in \u201cthe one true church\u201d or if you are being led astray by, what appears to be, a cult. After all, if the OAC is verily a church of God, and even the<\/em> true church, then all of these questions should be easily answerable and of no concern to you whatsoever.

Okay, so let\u2019s go!

Church Origins<\/strong>

Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>The Apostolic Churches have their roots in Irvingism, derived from the preacher from the 1800s named Edward Irving. He is known as a terrible false preacher; the godfather of Pentecostal-Charismatic Churches; who made false predictions about the Rapture; who believed in divine healing and that sickness is caused by sin, yet three of his four children died from illness because he never sought help from doctors. Some \u2013 though not all \u2013 claim that he invented the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture (for more info, see my article \u201cThe Unholy Trinity<\/a>\u201d), which is ironic since the OAC denies the physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Now, as an Old Apostolic, how does it make you feel to know that this is where your church ultimately descended from?

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>The OAC\u2019s early roots were in the 1800s and Carl George Klibbe\u2019s formation of the OAC came in the 1900s. It is fair to say the OAC as we know it was created by one main man. Now, let us compare this to other movements created by one or two persons around the time of the 1800s and 1900s:

Christadelphians (John Thomas, 1864)
Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy, 1879)
Islam (Muhammad, 610)
Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell, 1876-79, reformed 1917)
Mormons aka Latter Day Saints (Joseph Smith, 1830)
Scientology (L. Ron Hubbard, 1954)
Seventh Day Adventists (Ellen G White, 21 May 1863)
St John\u2019s Apostolic Faith Mission (Christinah Nku, 1924)
Zion Christian Church (Engenas Lekganyane, 1910)

So when you consider that the OAC basically exists because of one man as well; how does it make you feel to see that your church\u2019s foundation closely resembles that of known cults and false religions?

Question 3:<\/strong> <\/strong>When we look at the high amount of false movements, cults and also false doctrines which have emerged \u2013 particularly in the 1800s \u2013 is it not reasonable to at least question whether the Old Apostolic Church may fall into the same category, since it has its origins in the 1800s? Especially since the OAC has highly unique doctrines which only<\/em> it teaches?

Question 4:<\/strong> <\/strong>The Old Apostolic Church in its present form has only existed since the 1900s, and its origins lay in the 1800s. Jesus Christ was crucified around 33AD. Why would Jesus wait over 1800 years to establish a true church? (After all, since the OAC has unique teachings, the teachings were not available until the OAC was formed!)

Question 5:<\/strong> <\/strong>Since the Old Apostolic Church has highly unique teachings regarding the eternal destiny of our souls, among other things; and since the OAC has only existed in recent times; what happened to every single person in the history of the world from 33AD till \u2013 at the very least \u2013 1831 when Edward Irving rebelliously started his own church, let alone 1926? Did they all go to everlasting Hell and damnation because they were born and died too early in history?

Church Structure
<\/strong>
Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>The Old Apostolic Church has high-up clergy called \u201cApostles\u201d. Yet according to the Bible, one requirement of being an Apostle is that you have personally, physically been in the presence of Jesus Christ. Since clearly nobody alive in the last 1950 years meets this requirement, then why are clergy in the OAC calling themselves Apostles?

1 Corinthians 9:1 <\/strong>– Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?<\/em>

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>Suppose the title \u201cApostle\u201d did not refer to somebody who has physically been in the presence of Jesus Christ, but instead referred to \u201cApostolic Succession\u201d as is believed by e.g. the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. This (false) belief entails the church tracing its church and clergy back to the days of Jesus. How would this work for a church lineage which didn\u2019t even exist 200 years ago?

Question 3:<\/strong> <\/strong>Another name for certain clergy in the Old Apostolic Church is the title of \u201cPriest\u201d. Well, this doesn\u2019t come from the Bible, since the Bible calls all saved people<\/em> priests (having previously been a title reserved for Jewish clergy). Yes, even those in the pews. Therefore, where does the name come from?

1 Peter 2:9 <\/strong>– But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:<\/em>

Revelation 1:5-6 <\/strong>– And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.<\/em>

Spiritual Interpretation
<\/strong>
Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>In the years since I wrote my first OAC-Exposed article, many members have written to me in the hope of convincing me that you have to read the Bible with their \u201cspiritual interpretation\u201d. Because after all, you may not read the Bible literally, as it\u2019s written. So then, why do you quote Scriptures literally as proof that non-literal \u201cspiritual interpretation\u201d is correct? That is self-defeating!

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>Since the Old Apostolic Church engages in \u201cspiritual interpretation\u201d; it can only be logical that a spirit is involved. Assuming it is a good spirit, then that would mean the Holy Spirit.

So, consider this example. There are two unrelated OAC members. Both read the same Scripture. Both are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scripture in question. But both people get entirely different interpretations.

Firstly, this would mean the \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d told one person one thing, and told the other person another thing. But the Bible says God is not the author of confusion. So, what gives?

1 Corinthians 14:33 <\/strong>– For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.<\/em>

Secondly, this \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d could instead just be deceiving, misleading or lying to one of the two people. Well, the Bible says God cannot lie. So it can\u2019t be that either, can it?

Titus 1:2 <\/strong>– In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;<\/em>

Therefore, it must be assumed that one person got one interpretation from the \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d, and the other person definitely got a false interpretation from a lying spirit. Since that is not the \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d, that person just got his\/her interpretation from a demonic spirit! So, how do you know which one got the right interpretation from the \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d, and how do you know which one got the wrong interpretation from the demonic spirit? Actually, how do you know that maybe both got the wrong interpretation from demonic spirits? Seriously, how do<\/em> you know?

1 John 4:1-3 <\/strong>– Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.<\/em>

(And since Old Apostolics do not believe Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, but rather the body of OAC believers, how does that<\/em> little passage of Scripture make you feel?)

Question 3:<\/strong> <\/strong>Old Apostolics are meant to interpret everything in the Bible as being non-literal, even allegorical. Indeed, there are some literal events which may have a deeper meaning. Yet throughout the Gospels, Jesus Christ spoke in parables \u2013 and then explained the meaning of them afterwards. In Galatians 4 we even see an example of an allegory \u2013 and straight afterwards it is made clear that it\u2019s an allegory. Even in the prophetic vision of Daniel, the meaning is given afterwards. So, why do Old Apostolics have to look for spiritual meanings and allegories when the Bible actually tells us when something is a parable or allegory?

Galatians 4:21-26 <\/strong>– Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory<\/u>: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.<\/em>

Validity Of The Bible
<\/strong>
Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>One common trait of a cult is that it claims to have a holy book (like, the Bible) but it also has its own unique literature. When the doctrines of the literature contradict the holy book, the doctrines of their own literature are believed above the holy book. In other words, the word of man is believed over the word of God. Examples of this would be:

Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses \u2013 The Watch Tower
Mormons \u2013 The Book of Mormon
Protestant Churches (misc) – Catechism
Roman Catholic Church – Catechism
Seventh Day Adventists \u2013 the writings of Ellen G White

So, since the Old Apostolic Church claims to use the Bible, yet has a Catechism \u2013 where the teachings differ wildly from the Bible \u2013 what makes this any different from the above mentioned cults?

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>The Bible clearly teaches that God created everything, in six literal days, around 6300 years ago (by adding up the dates). The same is repeated elsewhere in the Bible, for example in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11). Jesus Christ even refers to the creation account. Clearly the Bible intends this to be read as a literal account of history. So why, among OAC believers, does there appear for an almost desperate desire for Atheistic Evolution to be true, if it is a Biblical church? Why not simply accept that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth?

Question 3:<\/strong> <\/strong>The Bible also tells of God flooding the entire world, but saving Noah and his family by telling Noah to build an ark. We literally see archaeological evidence of this (although plenty of people try to deny this) at Nu\u2019hun Gemisi in Eastern Turkey. Separately, there are approximately three hundred separate flood legends from various cultures (present and ancient) around the world \u2013 all of which correspond with the Biblical account of Noah and the flood. So, why does the Old Apostolic Church deny the literal nature of the story when it is quite obviously a literal event in history?

Question 4:<\/strong> <\/strong>Likewise, when there are archaeological sites of Sodom and Gomorrah, complete with ash and even balls of sulphur (apparently with the highest concentrate of sulphur ever found!), why does the Old Apostolic Church reject this literal event but rather consider it to be an allegory?

(And this line of questioning could go on for ages; for example, look at the exodus with Moses; where Egyptian chariot wheels have been found at the bottom of the middle of the Red Sea, or the commemorative pillars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia from around 1000BC to commemorate the event)

Works Based Salvation
<\/strong>
It is known that the Old Apostolic Church preaches a works-based salvation; that is, the requirement to do things as a part of salvation.

Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>If you think that \u201cbeing good\u201d contributes towards your salvation, do you believe that God will overlook your sins? Does being good make any difference in making up for your sin?

Isaiah 64:6 <\/strong>– But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.<\/em>

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>If you have committed sin \u2013 and yes, you have \u2013 will any<\/em> amount of good works take away your guilt of that sin?

Question 3:<\/strong> <\/strong>Are you really<\/em> that good in your works?

Romans 3:12 <\/strong>– They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.<\/em>

Question 4:<\/strong> <\/strong>Do you even know what \u201cgood\u201d is, since – for example – loving someone whom you should hate is also a sin?

2 Chronicles 19:2 <\/strong>– And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD?  therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.<\/em>

Question 5:<\/strong> <\/strong>Why do you think that works can save you, when the Bible clearly says salvation has nothing to do with works?

Ephesians 2:8-9 <\/strong>– For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works<\/u>, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

Everlasting Hellfire
<\/strong>
Doctrines regarding the afterlife for those who are not saved, in the view of the Old Apostolics, can vary from \u201csouls go outer space in search of Heaven, don\u2019t find it so they come back and roam the earth\u201d to \u201ceternal denial of your favourite desire or pastime\u201d.

Question 1:<\/strong> <\/strong>How can this be, when the Bible gives a literal case whereby a man died and went to Heaven, and a man died and went to Hell? (see Luke 16:19-31)

Question 2:<\/strong> <\/strong>How can Hell be a mere spiritual state, when Jesus refers to \u201cHell Fire\u201d three times, \u201cFire\u201d in the specific context of Hell nineteen times, and \u201cEverlasting Fire\u201d twice? And this is only in the New Testament. \u201cHell\u201d is mentioned by name thirty-two times in the Old Testament. Nowhere does it appear to be a metaphor, but a literal place deep down in the earth.

Psalm 55:15 <\/strong>– Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them.<\/em>

Revelation 14:10 <\/strong>– The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:<\/em>

Revelation 21:8 <\/strong>– But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.<\/em>

In Closing
<\/strong>
Dear reader, I have posed various questions to those of you who are members of the Old Apostolic Church. I have deliberately not given the answers, since the questions are rhetorical. If you belong to this movement, then I really want you to ask yourself those questions and try to work out the answers; and, in so doing, try to work out why you even belong to that movement.

But, there is one question I would like you to ask yourself as well; and this time, I shall give you the answer. That question is this: Today is a given, tomorrow is not guaranteed. So if you were to die today, even right now; are you saved? Will you go to Heaven or Hell? Do you know this 100% for sure? (yes, three questions in one)

First of all, I think every one of us knows we are sinners. Only someone wicked would say he or she is not (1 John 2:4).

Romans 3:23<\/strong> – For all have sinned<\/u>, and come short of the glory of God;<\/em>

So, what does that mean? Surely sin is punished? Yes, absolutely!

Romans 6:23 <\/strong>– For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.<\/em>

Death? Yeah, so we all die, right? Rather be concerned what God\u2019s definition of death is.

Revelation 20:13-15 <\/strong>– And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.<\/em>

That is, eternal damnation in Hellfire! The punishment for sin is eternity, burning in Hell! And sadly the vast majority of people are going there.

Matthew 7:13-14 <\/strong>– Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.<\/em>

Why would God do that if He is a loving God? Well, God also has righteous hatred of sin. But God\u2019s justice is perfect \u2013 if it were not, He would not be God. Think of this hypothetical situation; someone you know is wronged or killed. The police catch the criminal (see, it\u2019s hypothetical!) and it goes to court. The judge says \u201cyou\u2019re guilty as charged! Before I pass sentence, is there anything you\u2019d like to say?\u201d The criminal says: \u201c Judge, I know I did wrong; but I went to church a lot, I gave to charity, I tithed, I built a few RDP houses so I\u2019m generally OK. Besides, I believe you\u2019re a good man!\u201d. Now, should the judge let him off? No, of course not! If the judge did, what about the victim? What about the relatives of the victim? To deny a sinner punishment is to deny justice.

Dear reader, going to a church does NOT save you. Doing good works does NOT save you. Paying a Pastor money does NOT save you. Baptism does NOT save you. \u201cTurning from sin\u201d does NOT save you (That isn\u2019t even possible, and \u201crepent\u201d means changing your mind, not \u201cturning from sin\u201d as some claim \u2013 heck, God repented more than anyone in the Bible!). Believing Jesus merely exists does NOT save you, for even the devil believes that. There is nothing you can DO to be saved!

Isaiah 64:6 <\/strong>– But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.<\/em>

Matthew 7:21-23 <\/strong>– Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.<\/em>

So then, what can you do? Well, that\u2019s where the GOOD NEWS comes into it.

God doesn\u2019t want you to burn in Hellfire forever. God loves you and wants you to go be in Heaven forever with Him instead! So, He was manifest in the flesh \u2013 that is, Jesus Christ \u2013 who dwelt among men, yet was without sin; and He was put on the cross and died to pay for your sins! Past, present and future. He died, went down to Hell for 3 days and 3 nights, was bodily resurrected and overcame death (and with that, your sins).

John 3:16-18 <\/strong>– For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.<\/em> For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.<\/em>

To get saved, simply believe!

Romans 10:9-13<\/strong> – That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.<\/em>

Acts 2:21<\/strong> – And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.<\/em>

Acts 16:30-31<\/strong> – And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.<\/em>

And there are so many more<\/em> verses from the Bible which tells us this; believe! It is 100% belief which saves! And once you\u2019re saved, that\u2019s it \u2013 salvation is cast in stone. You cannot lose your salvation once you are saved.

Finally, just in case you have any question about needing to \u201cdo\u201d something for salvation, there is nothing you can do. Just in case you were wondering about that:

Ephesians 2:8-9 <\/strong>– For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.<\/em>

So, if you haven\u2019t called upon the name of the Lord yet \u2013 what are you waiting for? For today is a given, but tomorrow is not guaranteed.

My final thought on this; if you are going to a church \u2013 be it the Old Apostolic Church, the New Apostolic Church or indeed any<\/em> church, which does not teach you of the need to be saved and how to get saved by this, the Good News \u2013 you need to ask yourself what on earth you are doing in that church.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Allison<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is a testimony, which I received on 30 April from Allison:<\/em>

I can’t believe how brainwashed my family and I had been. I’m truly grateful that God saved us before my brother had children, and before my children were old enough to be misled by the dangerous doctrine of the OAC. The eye-opening thing for me was when I recalled how they baptised people by making a cross between your eyebrows, saying they’re opening your ‘spiritual eye’. We already have two natural eyes, so that would surely be our ‘third eye’? In the occult, the third eye is the all-seeing eye of Satan. (In the OAC I vaguely recall hearing the ‘spiritual eye’ also being referred to as the ‘third eye,’ but I speak under correction. When they make a cross between your eyebrows during baptism, they don’t actually say they’re opening your ‘spiritual eye’, but they teach that to those who are being prepared for baptism. During the actual baptism, they say the words, “I baptise you in the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.)

We were also told to ‘always face East’ (only go to your allocated priest for a blessing, advice, etc. because HIS word was God to you). The sun rises in the East, so guess what, that’s sun worship aka devil worship. That became quite clear to me in a fascinating series by Mark Woodman, God’s Temple Of Truth<\/a>. Pagan priests would face East to worship the sun. The sanctuary was designed by God so that one enters the gate to the courtyard of the sanctuary, the Holy place and the Most Holy place with your back to the East – so you actually face West. Mark Woodman explains every facet of the sanctuary in depth and one realises the significance of every little detail. God does nothing ‘by chance’, or for appearance sake (to make things ‘look pretty’). The whole plan of salvation is fully explained in the layout of the sanctuary.

I believe the top structure in the OAC, those ‘in the know’ (the ‘enlightened ones’), know who is really being worshipped in that church, just like the higher degrees in freemasonry know that they’re worshipping lucifer (intentional omission of capital letter), acknowledging him as ‘the lightbearer’!

(Matt: from the 30th<\/sup> degree of Freemasonry upwards, members are told they follow \u201cluciferian doctrine\u201d \u2013 as was communicated to them by Albert Pike in the 19th<\/sup> Century. Lower ranking Masons are deliberately not told about this. There is evidence of Freemasonry and Satanism in other movements too, such as the Catholic Church and Mormonism)<\/em>

During communion in the Old Apostolic Church, when you drank the wine (I don’t know if they have switched to grape juice nowadays), you had to think back on the sacrifices of the person who brought you to this church, the blood THEY shed, the sacrifices THEY made. (Jesus, our true, literal Saviour is written out of the equation!) I often recall a priest pinching the flesh on his arm and saying, “THIS is Jesus,” meaning that Jesus is one’s flesh, one’s earthly body. People would laugh at those who prayed to ‘liewe Jesus’, regarding them as being in the darkness, uninformed, not having a ‘spiritual eye’, thus being ‘carnal minded’. What a complete distortion of the truth.

We were discouraged from reading our Bibles on our own. We were told we may not have the ‘spiritual eye of discernment’, and it would be best to wait for the apostle’s teachings. (We were taught that the apostle was guided by the dreams, visions and prophecies of the church members as to what Scriptures and teachings were needed.) The apostle would discuss the month’s teaching with the ‘fourfold officers’, who in turn would discuss it with the priests, who in turn would bring the teaching to the underdeacons, and ultimately to the brothers and sisters.

If you were a brother or unmarried sister, you had to go to the priest that had been allocated to serve the area in the community where you lived. This was regarded as ‘facing East’. You could not go to any other priest, even if he was in your community. The OAC believes that the word of your ‘owergestelde’ was God to you. This ‘facing East’ principle applied to every member in the church – the underdeacon had to go to his allocated priest, the priest had to go to his allocated elder, etc. I always wondered who the apostle went to; who was his ‘owergestelde’? This OAC understanding of “the Word was [is] God”, is a complete distortion of John 1:1 (KJV): “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<\/em>” My first realisation that the OAC was not ‘the way’, was when I asked my priest’s blessing to heal my son through a healthy lifestyle and natural remedies (vegan diet, pure water, sunlight, fresh air). The priest scoffed at this idea, whereas I knew a sister in another community who had received her priest’s blessing to do the same thing. I reasoned that in Scripture we learn that He is the Alpha and the Omega, that He never changes (Revelation 22:13), so if the priest’s word was God, both I and the sister in the other community would have received the same word. I thank God for opening my eyes to the deception in the church I had loved so long. No human man’s word is God. That is sheer blasphemy to think your word is God to another human being. My family would have been lost had I remained in the OAC. I had met some of the most sincere, unselfish people in that church, but my loyalty should be towards God, and not towards man.

‘Sealing services’ (versegelingsdienste<\/em>) are held in the OAC at least once a year. This is when the apostle comes and ‘seals’ those who have been baptised in the OAC. At these ‘sealing services’, a ‘fourfold officer’ and his wife are baptised and ‘sealed’ on behalf of those souls who had come to the OAC faith after having ‘passed out of the flesh’, and now had no bodies of their own. (The Bible clearly teaches that the dead know nothing, and that everybody rests in their graves until Jesus comes to fetch His people. When we die, we don’t go from having a body, to being a ‘body-less’ being, wandering around heaven and earth.) We were taught that the apostle has the key to heaven. At a certain time during these ‘sealing services’, the apostle would unlock the door of heaven so those who had died in the faith since the last ‘sealing service’, could enter into heaven. At these ‘sealing services’ many members who had been ‘gifted’ to see ‘die doderyk’ (kingdom of the dead<\/em>) by asking their ‘owergestelde’ for this ‘gift’, or receiving this ‘gift’ when their ‘spiritual eye’ was opened at their baptism, would say they saw so-and-so (happy and dressed in white if they were fortunate to be going through the ‘door’ when the apostle unlocked the door of heaven, or sad if they didn’t make it, having known the ‘truth’, but not being ‘op hulle plek’).

(Matt: Right there, divination and consulting with familiar spirits! See Deuteronomy 18:10-12, this is abomination!)<\/em>

When someone died, the priest (or higher officer, depending on which ‘heaven’ the person who had ‘gone out of the flesh’ had been in) would say at the graveside, as the coffin was being lowered into the grave, “Go into the rest of the (f)ather you served.” (“Gaan in, in die rus in van die vader wat JY gedien het<\/em>.”) According to their teaching, if your ‘heaven’ while you were alive, was to go partying, when you ‘went out of the flesh’ you would go to that ‘heaven’ as that was where the father you served was. It would be hell for you because you wouldn’t have a body anymore to be able to dance. If your heaven was drinking, it would be hell for you not to have a body and be able to pick up a drink and swallow it. That would be the permanent state of those who had not been ‘op hulle plek’. (You could have been ‘op jou plek’, attending all the activities, paying your tithe and ‘facing east’, but that one time you perhaps decided to go somewhere else, like a movie, which was ‘into the world’, and you died in an accident, you could lose your salvation, having ‘backslided’ at the time of your death!)

(Matt: I\u2019d love to know how an Old Apostolic would relate to Matthew 5:22, or Luke 16:19-31 and especially 23-24. Hell is an eternal torment in fire!)<\/em>

Oh, by the way, when apostle Klibbe had said that the dogs would lick that other apostle’s blood off the street, and it came to pass, that was the OAC’s claim that apostle Klibbe was the true Apostle, that his word was indeed God. The OAC seemed to be boastful of this horrific accident. I also remember hearing that a more current Apostle (back in the day when I still attended that church), had been asked how he could say his word was God. He was asked if he could speak a word and create a bird. The Apostle replied, “Show me a bird that has not been made, and I’ll make it!” How arrogant! What blasphemy! (At the time of hearing it though, we thought ‘how wise’ – how brainwashed could a person be.)

(Matt: Arrogant is one way of saying it! Sounds more like he saw himself as a god! Just like the first lie of Satan in Genesis 3:4-5, \u201cye shall be as gods\u201d. Pity nobody ever read Job 38-41 to Mr Klibbe to give him a much-needed wake up call!)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Anonymous<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Matt: This is a testimony I received on 28 April 2014 – sadly I didn’t get a name or contact address other than “anon”, other than that it is from South Africa – but you’ll see why upon reading the below.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the 24th of April 2014, I (for the first time in my almost 47 years) googled OAC, and what an eye opener it was!! I was born and raised in the OAC. My father was a “high ranking” officer in the OAC and devoted his life to them. We went to church seven days a week; that was the life we led, the way we were “taught” by the OAC to lead our lives. I suppose I could thank them for the ‘clean’ life I lived, but then I think of the LIE I lived and it infuriates me!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I finally put the OAC behind me after my father passed away and my mother were ‘deserted” by their fellow high ranking officers. I could not understand how, after all my parents did for the OAC, my mother could be pushed aside, no-one visiting her, the way she and my father used to visit members of the OAC in old age homes ,widows and sick people. Your website surely gave me insight into what we were, Unknowingly, involved in. I prefer to remain anonymous seeing that some family members are still active members of the OAC. You are free to use my testimony. I thank God that I found your website!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Anonymous Two<\/h1>\n\n\n\n


This is a testimony which I received on 22 November 2015 \u2013 from a former Old Apostolic, who wishes to remain anonymous.<\/em>

Growing up in an Old Apostolic Church has never made sense to me. Ever since I was a youngster, I could never grasp the religion; but I went to that church by force. It was a family religion of 4 generations. My mother would be shattered if she heard me now. She had her faults but was truly committed to the church. I’m not saying anyone is bad (Nor am I judging) but the level they are on is way too complicated for me.

I can also remember how, as a youngster, I was chased out of the Sunday school class a few times. This was because I found it too complicated and got bored, and that annoyed the under-deacon. I have never made any sense of anything there, nor their beliefs. They see everything in a \u201cspiritual\u201d way; I must have a lack of imagination because I can\u2019t read or understand them or their way of \u201cinterpreting scriptures spiritually\u201d like they tried to teach me. Today though, I feel now more than ever that I can pick up my Bible, read a verse, and then ponder over it and understand it without any complications about how to analyse it \u201cspiritually\u201d.

What also gets me – and I know a few Old Apostolic members that do this, including my sister – when she is cross, she will send a spirit to your house to cause havoc in your house. According to her, no one messes with an Old Apostolic child. What a load of crap, that is like abuse of power! It\u2019s more like a cult. Also, another family member of my husband got converted to the Old Apostolic Church and they will brag about all their earthly possessions, saying: \u201cSee, this is what an Old Apostolic member achieves for being committed!\u201d, but they are not even active presently. I know for a fact that the husband strays a lot, but they want to cast stones and pretend they are so perfect. I also can\u2019t see why I must ask the priest for something, or to grant me a safe journey, as I pray to God myself and ask Him. I was taught from a young age about spirits and how to send them out of the house etc. and that freaked me out.

(Quick note from Matt: I have received many ex-OAC testimonies \u2013 some I have not published since they were nothing more than mere \u201cOAC bashing\u201d; or people who disagreed with something the OAC discourages but I actually agree with the OAC, such as alcohol use. However, one common trait I see in most of the testimonies and rants is that of hypocrisy. Where the OAC member or clergy will publically criticise something, but does the same thing themselves)<\/em>

I’m not scared of the Old Apostolic Church. I only recently started to have a relationship with God which is very personal and deep, and I feel filled. Finally my life is getting better; but because they confused me since I could crawl, I went into totally the opposite direction as expected of me and did witchcraft and used tarot cards because I could find no peace where I was, and felt that I never understood God because I don’t have a spiritual degree or imagination.

I am so glad that I can read my Bible without having to have a spiritual brainwashing degree to understand it and analyse it. I am free in God and pray that the truth will set them free!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Anne<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

I have had some stick before because I wrote regarding the issue of curses, and some people being threatened with a curse if they quite the OAC. And then I got this testimony from “Anne”, on 3 January 2013:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fantastic article. I used to be a member of the OAC, born and baptised and raised and married it it!! Luckily I married a “NG outsider” and he opened my eyes! Thank God. I could write a book about the OAC-cult, my dad was a “high ranking” member. A very good person, but caught in the wrong religion. Seeing that I still have family caught in this cult, I would prefer to stay anonymous. But please keep up your good work and maybe more people could be saved from this non-Christian “church”…. I know, I’ve been there, for 24 years, its very difficult to get out because of the “curse” threats. But it can be done! Its total brainwashing. … You can use my message, anytime… Keep well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Ex Elder Johan Nel<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is a testimony which I received on 28 January 2014 from Johan Nel, a former Elder in the Old Apostolic Church (OAC).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think it is right that you exposed the OAC. I was<\/strong> an Elder in the OAC and can’t help thanking God enough for opening my eyes, so I could have the guts to leave them!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are many members and officers who don’t believe everything, but are too scared to leave because of the curse they place on people. Why I was so blind I don’t know.
(Matt: some OAC visitors have said I was wrong, that the OAC doesn’t curse anybody – but I now have at least two people who have confirmed they’ve been threatened with curses if they don’t come back; the concept of people being cursed, or being condemned to Hell, if they leave is a common trait in cults)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some things they (the OAC) believe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

* They are the body of Christ and every member is Jesus.
* The word of the one (officer) above you is God.
* Because everyone is Jesus they are all in Heaven.
* Not the same heaven though; there are 7 Heavens. One for sisters; one for Brothers; one for Underdeacons; one for Priests; one for Elders; one for the fourfold ministry; and the Apostles and children share the same Heaven.
* The Lord Jesus won’t come again (second coming) because they (the OAC) are Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You HAD to be there at the church every night, around 19:00-20:00, otherwise you won’t get salvation. That was applicable to South Africans; the OAC members in the rest of the world had to be in church on Sundays only for salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If any minister questioned something regarding the sermon, they were revealing a “devil spirit” and not a “child spirit”, and you accept everything being preached by your “overplaced” (the ministry above you).
(Matt: again, blind submission to clergy authority, or one’s own doctrine above Scripture, common cult traits)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After I resigned, all the members must have been told not to talk to me because wherever we met, they would just give me a look and not greet us – they would just ignore me. But don’t worry, I pray for them.
(Matt: yet again, shunning former members is a common cult trait and this is definitely not the first time I’ve been told of this by former OAC members!)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My advice to everybody is to PLEASE leave, or don’t invite them into your lives. THEY are the antichrist. It is not sour grapes (for writing this); I resigned as an Elder and member and I bring all honour and glory to God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Mark<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is a testimony which I received on 28 March 2014 \u2013 from a former Old Apostolic, Mark.<\/em>

I was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church because my dad grew up as an Atheist and my mom was raised in the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerk, or NGK<\/em>); a church she wanted nothing to do with when she grew up because of the \u201cstiff upper lip\u201d attitude she encountered there. A friend of theirs happened to be Roman Catholic and suggested that I get baptised there.

When I was about 5 years old, some Old Apostolic Church (OAC<\/em>) members came to visit my parents and I basically grew up in that church. Fortunately for me, I\u2019ve had some good influences throughout my life – I wasn\u2019t just brought up on OAC bread\u00a0\"\". I remember at school having a desire to one day go to Israel and learn Hebrew when I was grown up, so that I could understand the origins of the Word better. I don\u2019t know where this came from; it was a private thought while growing up.

(I can\u2019t remember the year when this happened, I was still at school) Then\u00a0at some stage the apostolate decided to \u201cremove the glass in front of the worldly goodies\u201d with the reasoning that before it was forbidden and members were kept from even owning a TV, but then they removed the \u201cglass\u201d and expected in return obedient members. I remember when I was a laaitie (young boy<\/em>) of about five years old how my parents would be \u201cnaughty\u201d by going to the Drive In and how we were told to tell nobody that we went to the movies.

I remember one day when I was about 7 years old, my nose started bleeding and it wouldn\u2019t stop despite my parents\u2019 best efforts to stop the bleeding. Then they rushed me off to the priest and then he started praying. After he had finished praying, he took a white piece of cloth, tore two strips from it and put table salt in the cloths which were then bound around both my wrists and the bleeding stopped. I was instructed to wear these strips of cloth which were folded to keep the salt in for a week. I do still get the occasional nose bleed but it has never bled as profusely as it did that day.

When I went to boarding school, some friends of mine invited me to join their prayer group and I remember enjoying a weekly\/monthly publication called \u201cFaith for Daily Living\u201d. We also went to Youth Group where there was always a gospel band playing. I guess this helped to prevent me from losing touch with reality. In my little Gideon\u2019s Bible which I received when I was in Standard 6, I wrote in the back that I received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. When you belong to Jesus, nobody can take you away from Him!

Our headmaster also took us on Sundays to his church, the Presbyterian Church and I always looked forward to the Chelsea buns and coffee after the service\u00a0\"\". In the army we always had the chaplain who was normally affiliated to the NGK preaching to us and I found I have always \u201cgravitated\u201d towards Christians and associated with them, irrespective of what church they belonged to.

After the army though, my mom and my sister became super-active in the OAC and I got sucked in big time. Up until that point I didn\u2019t really know what the OAC was all about. They became my life and I was always on my place and took part in all the activities. Fortunately I wasn\u2019t married because only married members are allowed to become officers. Other than that, I served several roles and was given many responsibilities such as auditor, doorman, young member leader and in my spare time I would visit the Priest. In spite of being so heavily involved, I never ever really believed in my heart that Jesus didn\u2019t exist as a real person.

I was lonely though, I somehow couldn\u2019t find anyone in the church who was romantically interested in me. Looking back, this was probably my saving grace! I met my wife, who went to the NGK, and her dad was an \u201couderling\u201d (Elder<\/em>) in the NGK. Ideally, members of the OAC marry someone in the OAC because marrying someone with the same beliefs makes life easier for the couple.

Then I went through my Agnostic phase, I lost interest in going to church and my faith took a dip. When my daughter was born I had to make the decision and reluctantly I agreed to join the NGK. My heart wasn\u2019t in it though. My wife wasn\u2019t deterred though; she continued going to church with my daughter and I would sleep late. Then one day I dragged myself out of bed and the guy that was preaching that day was Professor Hennie Stander, a Professor in ancient languages and especially Hebrew and Greek. I was impressed with his sermon and it dawned on me that I was neglecting my duties as a parent.

Then I went to work in Germany, which is steeped in Catholicism, and there were impressive cathedrals all over the place. I was then also exposed to other religious holidays which I was never aware of. This caused some confusion. When we got back from Germany a friend of mine at work gave me a DVD from a right wing group called the \u201cSuidlanders\u201d\u00a0(Matt:\u00a0<\/em>Suidlanders<\/em><\/a>\u00a0is a group which believes in racial separation and that whites need to be evacuated soon, and claim to be Christian)<\/em>. This scared the \u201chell\u201d out of me! I then decided now was the right time to read the Bible myself, from cover to cover! I resolved to forget everything I had learned up until that point; there were too many doctrines which all created confusion and I didn\u2019t know what to believe anymore. It took me more than two years of discipline and dedication but it made all the difference!

During this time I also saw Dr Veith\u2019s DVDs\u00a0(Matt: very interesting, intelligent guy, but he\u2019s Seventh Day Adventist so \u201ceat the meat and spit out the bones\u201d)<\/em>\u00a0and attended 2 MMCs on Oom (Uncle<\/em>) Angus\u2019 farm. I have only seen Kent Hovind\u2019s stuff more recently after doing my own Creationism research. Meanwhile I have also done a lot of my own research and receive regular newsletters which I keep in a huge folder called \u201cGeloof\u201d (Faith<\/em>). It has become another one of my huge reference resources to do comparisons with. I get newsletters from Messianic Bible, Angus Buchan, Noodroep, Good News, The Real Truth, Alive to God, Chabad, Christ Alone Ministries, Church Plants, The Institute for Creation Research, eTeacherGroup, Josua Mannebediening, Mary Fairchild, Outreach, Partners with Israel, Prayer Union for Israel, Sermon Central, United with Israel, Zola Levitt Ministries, Bibles for Believers\u2026and and and \uf04a It has really opened my mind in ways I never thought imaginable!

Matt:\u00a0See the great, in-depth expos\u00e9 which Mark did in conjunction with me (but mostly him) in\u00a0OAC\u00a0Exposed, Part Three<\/a>!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Njabulo<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is a message I received on 15 September 2012 from Njabulo, after having read my expos\u00e9 on the Old Apostolic Church.<\/em>

It’s was nice to finally get this confirmation about this OAC church. I grew up in it, but left it in 2010 when I was in my Matric. It wasn’t easy since to this day my mom loves it! There was guilt but I couldn’t stay there anymore. This OAC I was in is in KZN-Durban, in a place called Adams Mission. They strictly don’t believe in Jesus as coming in flesh let alone the second coming they dispute that. I first got my eyes opened when I watched a series of DVDs; one by Mark Woodman (God’s Final Call) and the other by G. Craig Lewis(The Truth Behind Hip Hop). Ever since I have gotten a desire to really know God, and am thankful to you about your site.It’s really informative, keep on doing this. I know it’s hard these days when you reprove sin people just pass you off as judgemental but those very same people call themselves Christians. I am bookmarking this page thank you again now I have a place where I can get equipped with information.

Kind Regards
Njabulo

*I just realised in your article about those catechism books. They teach those to kids while they are still young. I remember in Sunday School we were made to memorise those books.

(note from Matt – Mark Woodman truly loved the Lord, but he was a Seventh Day Adventist, so if you watch his stuff, just block your ears when it comes to Ellen G White)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

OAC Testimony – Victor<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

This is a testimony which I received on 4 June 2013 from a former Officer in the\u00a0Old Apostolic Church, after reading my articles.<\/em>

I was a member of the Old Apostolic Church from birth; a third-generation member and Officer. My grandfather and my own father were officers in the OAC\u00a0as well. I gave my life to that organisation; being a FREE organist for 30 years, not to mention that Officers – especially Priests – give far more than just their tithes to the organisation. They devote their lives to it, and have to pay all other costs as well, like clothing, petrol, personal transport and so on. It’s only from the position of elder and upwards where some costs are refunded such as travel expenses and so on; some are receiving more than their own tithes per month depending on where they operate. Well, we all know that all the apostles are well cared for – with luxury cars and so forth, while the struggling members pay for it all – many times they don’t even have a decent meal on their own table. Oh, and don’t\u00a0dare\u00a0<\/em>to ask for welfare help either, as in the OAC\u00a0it just non-existent – that I testify out of personal experience from the giving and receiving end as an Officer and member.

Well, I am happy to say that my eyes have been opened to this organisation; my family and I are no longer members of this OAC\u00a0system as we have been officially removed from their system and members lists.

There is no way that God can condone or bless a system of this magnitude of unfairness in any way. Also, their ranking system “office” structure is in no way the road to Heaven at all. Jesus said that “I am the son of God and so are you”. I cannot understand what makes the apostle worth so much more, yet they themselves testify that 100% of the Holy Ghost is sealed in every one equal – so why is a elder or so called Fourfold Officer worth more than a member? How and why can God bless certain individuals with more of Himself as the absolute Creator? There is only ONE Creator, God Himself, and we are all equal in His eyes – man, woman, rich, poor, all races et cetera. No one is above the other as God is within every one and we all are a part of the Creator Himself. God is Love and Love alone; how can God give more to some than to others?

I personally see very little hope for the future of the OAC\u00a0and its current system of doing “business” – in my personal experience – is all about the money (of which they have plenty!) and many, many poor members that still contribute out of blind faith, sad but true.

Regards from a former OAC member and Officer.

(And when I asked for permission to publish this:)<\/em>

You are welcome to post it – just fix some grammar where necessary. You are free to use my name but please don’t place my email address as I shall receive many bad mails for telling the truth.\u00a0(Matt:\u00a0yeah, that happens to me a lot!)<\/em>\u00a0Since we left we are squandered by the members and Officers, everybody in the congregation has been told not talk to us. Well that is fine, it just shows their character – the OAC does not handle the TRUTH very well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This information about the \u201cOld Apostolic Church\u201d and “New Apostolic Church” in South Africa left the internet a few years ago. It is reproduced here in one very long page, with (likely broken) links to web.archive.org. Content belongs to the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":null,"sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[334,2],"tags":[190],"class_list":["post-1642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lostfound-stuff","category-stuff","tag-stuff"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1642"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1642\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1644,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1642\/revisions\/1644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mcgill.org.za\/stuff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}