Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob McKee
Sorry...I'm sure your name isn't Max...forgive me. I don't know if we've ever met.
Concerning a statement from Bro Stoneking...
C'mon Max...y'know It wouldn't matter...you just want to debate the hair issue in General. Bro Stoneking could issue a "non-holy-hair-declaration signed in blood with his ear tacked in the corner but that's not what you want. You want him to agree that cutting hair is okay. He's just not going to do that no more than you are going to find a UPC church and submit to it's pastor.
You mentioned "obscure reference". Even if that were true...why isn't that enough? If we get the slightest hint in scripture that it displeases God...we should want to comply. Why would I need God to say it more than once?
I often say "If we are concerned about "Heaven and Hell issues" we are lost already. It's not about rules...it's about relationship. Of course, for a relationship to survive we have to respect some rules. There's many things I could do but don't because there's a chance it might displease my wife. (Not because I'm scared she will divorce me). My relationship isn't that shallow. When people say "I'm only going to preach the basics" it's like they are looking to build a house on the "divorce & stay married" line. If that's where they want to live...get a prenuptial....it's just a matter of time. You don't have a relationship....you've got a Rule-lationship. Stop focusing on the rules...it's all about worship. Is there anything that God could ask of you that you wouldn't be willing to give? Is there only a 5% chance that it's going to be required? When you think about what He did for us...Isn't that enough?
I realize you may have had a bad experience with a United Pentecostal Church somewhere..I noticed several of your posts seem to be focused on the evils of the UPCI...Whatever happened...let it be history...forgive...move on...don't allow it to manipulate your present. The more you talk about it the more it keeps bitterness alive in your spirit.
I hope you will receive this in the spirit in which I sent it. Again...forgive me if I'm out of line. We've all been hurt...but the Lord wants us to put it on His tab.
I am praying for you and look forward to meeting you one day. If you are ever around Katy (West Houston)...stop by...I'll take you to lunch.
Rob McKee
www.thepok.com |
Quote:
Concerning a statement from Bro Stoneking...
C'mon Max...y'know It wouldn't matter...
|
I'm quite capable of intellectually engaging the argument without it being one, single issue. My opinion is that Holy Magic Hair is a few preacher's desperate attempts at validated a non-Biblical teaching. If you said LS has issued a formal statement on his teachings, I'd like to read/listen in, as would many in the UPCI constituency. The video clip that you said was "out of context" was almost 20-minutes in length. Not exactly a sound-byte. And, it's not his first stop along the way.
Quote:
|
You mentioned "obscure reference". Even if that were true...why isn't that enough? If we get the slightest hint in scripture that it displeases God...we should want to comply. Why would I need God to say it more than once?
|
Obscure doesn't mean a minority text, something said off-the-cuff, it means "not clearly understood or expressed." This means it would be irresponsible to base a core Bible teaching (one that defines many OP's mind you) on an obscure passage --- and adding to that, those who have spent their lives studying the writings of Paul, Greek Text, 1st Century culture, etc... the very ones who agree the passage is still "obscure"... none of them give credit or consideration or possibility to uncut hair. The issue is quite complex, and I've heard the uncut hair crowd teach it with such splendid "simplicity." Makes me just grin ear-to-ear.
We have no slight hint that it displeases God. We have no historical precendent (either in 1st Century Corinth or in any time preceding, relating to the Story of God).
As far as saying something more than one, there are certain laws that govern the written Text. They are hermeneutics. They help us "interpret" not just surfing for mere words and demanding total submission to that. For example, we don't demand people literally greet each other today with kisses because we've not just read the passage referenced, but we've interpreted it, and found out what it meant to the original audience and learned what it could mean to us today.
Quote:
|
I often say "If we are concerned about "Heaven and Hell issues" we are lost already.
|
I don't agree.
And people are concerned. Concerned enough to define entire organizations on these issues. You pretend that rules help people live more fully. You forget the alternative is not rules or lawlessness. There is a Great Sanctifier called the Holy Spirit, and great spiritual guide posts called Principles. Every argument you used in this paragraph about Rules-Relationship can be said right back to you. And as our friends at Slapstolic said: "I don't want to do just barely enough to get into heaven" means "I believe I can do enough to get into heaven." The comfort of my salvation isn't tied up in the minutia of "if there's a chance" teaching. It's tied up in the security that is in Christ Jesuys. I don't live life with fragile faith, I live it fully and confidently as the Eternal Life Giver intended.
If God asked me to give something, I'd give it. The issue here is not if I'm obedient to God or not. The issue is making biblical absolutes out of obscurity, or in some cases, out of absence. And no matter how many times we say standards that are often preached aren't salvific, the culture that practices them certainly wouldn't know the difference. The horror of a sister that trims her hair is like she just took someone's life.
Quote:
|
When you think about what He did for us...Isn't that enough?
|
It most certainly is enough. It's enough.... I can't improve on the Cross. I can't save myself any better than that.
The whole "He died for you, will you sacrifice for Him" argument cannot couch together a call for strict obedience to laws of man, and distorted biblical teachings. There are some more conservative than you probably stringing the same line to you.
Quote:
|
I realize you may have had a bad experience with a United Pentecostal Church somewhere..I noticed several of your posts seem to be focused on the evils of the UPCI...Whatever happened...let it be history...forgive...move on...don't allow it to manipulate your present. The more you talk about it the more it keeps bitterness alive in your spirit.
|
You really don't know my story. I appreciate your encouragement anyway. I'm not bitter, I enjoy biblical discussion. I'm passionate about how oppressing religion is and want to point people to the liberty in Jesus. It's not bitterness that fuels me, it's passion for Jesus. The "bitterness" argument is old, and it gets old. My idealogical beef isn't with the UPCI specifically, it's with religion in general. Those who take the beauty of the Cross and build fences around it, establishing ways to earn it, and determining who gets to be near it or not. It's not personal. It's not malicious. This particular forum is one where people flesh ideas out. It's not a scary place.
Quote:
|
I am praying for you and look forward to meeting you one day. If you are ever around Katy (West Houston)...stop by...I'll take you to lunch.
|
If you mean that, I'd enjoy it. Thanks for your prayers. I also am praying for brothers like you. I don't think you have poor intentions, and from what I know of you, you seem like a great guy. I sincerely believe you are wrong though. Beneath the layers of fear about "the other side" and the nostalgia about where you are now, I urge you to prayerfully consider and discuss with an open heart. In the meantime, I can still call you "brother" and exhort you as such.
But I've been around long enough to hear the value system of those who would use the "no gossiping" tag when it's convenient. Give them a conference pulpit, a minister's back-room and it all comes out just fine and dandy. Oh yes, it's not gossip if they aren't saying the name 
Linear Mode
