maybe you need to return to first grade and learn how to write what you really mean better.
The Magic Hair thing is a theology
You would not know it from what you have posted
Most people in this thread have been able to step past the hair and to more general matters of scripture. Now you are trying to put words in other posters' mouths.
What I wrote had no specific examples to today's philosophies. You couldn't see it through the filter you had in your mind. Pull the hair out of your drain and start over.
__________________
"Some may call me foolish, some may call me odd; but I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man than a fool in the eyes of God..."
I do plan on studying this thing out completely, but in reading some of the threads I began to wonder some things. I wonder what some of the posters would say if we began to hear things about Bro SP's ministry and that people were actually leaving him with cloths that had touced him to go lay on the sick, and that people were intentionally trying to get in his shadow so they could be healed. I see no specific Scriptural basis for either...in fact there is probably less Scriptural basis for those than for the significance of hair. I'm not saying that I agree with this as a Theology, I'm just pointing out that we do need to be very careful about what we say and what we criticize...Once again I'm not trying to say that nothing should ever be criticized, just be very careful.
This is true... Peters shadow did heal the sick. Jesus' spit mixed with dirt did heal the blind. Paul did send hankerchiefs and aprons to the sick for them to be healed. But, these weren't doctrinal issues. Its when extra biblical "revelations" are doctrinized where people run into problems.
For example. If I were to say that the Lord has REVEALED to me that the Plan of Salvation consits of the 1) Repentance 2) Baptism in Jesus Name, 3) Recieving the Holy Ghost and 4) Men must grow beards, I would be laughed off and probably driven from this forum. And, rightfully so. Revelations do not create new doctrines, they support and compliment existing doctrines that are based in the Word of God. It is the Word that David hid in his heart that he wouldn't sin against the Lord. It is the Word that keeps us from being blow about by every "wind of doctrine" and the sleight of men.
You're right as well when you say we should be careful about criticizing things before we have had the chance of "trying the spirits" or studying them out. I've heard things preached that just didn't sound right. Later, I studied it out and found it to be truth. Its like this: I recieved the Holy Ghost under the ministry of RW Schambach. I don't agree with some of his theology and don't necessarily agree with some of his methods. But, I don't cast out everything he says and does just because of the things I disagree with.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
This is true... Peters shadow did heal the sick. Jesus' spit mixed with dirt did heal the blind. Paul did send hankerchiefs and aprons to the sick for them to be healed. But, these weren't doctrinal issues. Its when extra biblical "revelations" are doctrinized where people run into problems.
For example. If I were to say that the Lord has REVEALED to me that the Plan of Salvation consits of the 1) Repentance 2) Baptism in Jesus Name, 3) Recieving the Holy Ghost and 4) Men must grow beards, I would be laughed off and probably driven from this forum. And, rightfully so. Revelations do not create new doctrines, they support and compliment existing doctrines that are based in the Word of God. It is the Word that David hid in his heart that he wouldn't sin against the Lord. It is the Word that keeps us from being blow about by every "wind of doctrine" and the sleight of men.
I'm not necessarily saying this is defense of Stoneking because I still have not listened to his message. I'm just saying this in general. I am even speaking to myself and examining how I would respond to the early Apostles and even Jesus if they were doing today what they did when they were here. Would I be one of the ones critical of where Jesus was willing to go and minister and how willing he was to do the taboo and buck the norm.
As for your example, I know you were being facetious, but I have never heard hair teaching as a revelation that is a part of the plan of Salvation.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I have read through this thread and I am kind of confused because what is being discussed here is totally abstract.
What is the context? We are just bouncing about in the stratosphere really talking about nothing.
It appears that the Stoneking message is where this originated, but Jek also said that it is not.
If not, then what? This all seems to be an empty conversation if there is no context.
I think most of us have linked this to LS because Jek starts his first post stating:
Quote:
With all of the recent hubub about a certain popular preacher SUPPOSEDLY not preaching truth from the Word of God I have wondered about some things. Interestingly, with the lack of scripture at the time of these events, I wonder...
Most see this thread as defense for LS ... since Jek has been defending him on other threads ...
Perhaps there seems to be a breakdown in communication based on some safe assumptions?
But previous to scripture, how did people decide that what someone else said, was the Word of God?
We don't live previous to scripture, Jek.
THe Bible says "All scripture is given for reproof, correction, doctrine, instruction in righteousness."
Jesus said in "John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
I could go on and on, but in our generation, God's word takes priority. IN fact, the Bible says that he has exalted his Word above his Name.
My point is this - the Bible says God is a healer. Now, it doesn't limit the way God can heal me, so if it's someone's shadow passing over me, or an anointed handkerchief laid on me, or someone lays hands on me - same result, if I'm healed, it's in accordance with the Word of God.
HOwever, when someone preaches something that is in direct violation of the Word of God, please don't be so crass as to imply that its "revelation", and us poor, sinful AFFer's can't hear the voice of God.
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
It think most of us have linked this to LS because Jek starts his first post stating:
Most see this thread as defense for LS ... since Jek has been defending him on other threads ...
Perhaps there seems to be a breakdown in communication based on some safe assumptions?
Thanks, I thought I read in this thread that he didn't intend for his comments to relate to what LS had said in the sermon but in more of a general sense.
...but then I get confused pretty easily sometimes.
Thanks, I thought I read in this thread that he didn't intend for his comments to relate to what LS had said in the sermon but in more of a general sense.
...but then I get confused pretty easily sometimes.
Could be .....but I think he must understand that we all came away with this general impression ... hence, he may have to come back into this thread and make some more clarification.
With all of the recent hubub about a certain popular preacher SUPPOSEDLY not preaching truth from the Word of God I have wondered about some things. Interestingly, with the lack of scripture at the time of these events, I wonder...
What would have happened to Naman if he hadn't decided to dip in a dirty river seven times? I mean the nerve of the prophet!
What would have happened to the widow lady who served the prophet the last meal that they were planning to cook before dying of starvation? I mean, that selfish profit took their last meal!
What would have happened if those fishermen didn't cast their nets over to the other side, I mean, who had scripture for that???
What would have happened if Noah hadn't built and loaded the ark? A boat??? In the middle of a desert? (Of course, no one but his family listened to HIM)
What would have happened if Daniel would have obeyed King Darius' signed law instead of praying as usual? I mean he WAS breaking the law.
What would have happened if Samuel thought Eli was crazy? Really...to imagine a 7 year old hearing from God? Where was scripture for that??
And, who, just WHO would think that marching around a city would cause its walls to fall down?? I KNOW that the leader of the Israelites once previously commanded the sun to stand still, but, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURE that supports the destruction of brick and mortar by marching around it for seven days.
Good thing these people have good ole AFF to set them straight! Go ahead! Rip into these folks!
I am not the only one that picked up on this Jekyll. Others too and either you meant what this says and are not backtracking or you have a communication problem
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Thanks, I thought I read in this thread that he didn't intend for his comments to relate to what LS had said in the sermon but in more of a general sense.
...but then I get confused pretty easily sometimes.
Kind of hard for Jek to claim that, given his opening sentence in the first post on this thread...........
__________________ "Many people view their relationship with God like a "color by number" picture. It's easier to let someone else define the boundaries, tell them which blanks to fill in, and what color to use than it is for them to take a blank canvas and seek inspiration from the Source in order to paint their own masterpiece"
Linear Mode
