Whaaaaaaatt???? What's happening in Canada??

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Felicity

It's nice to hear someone (Bro. Epley) giving credence to Tom Fudge's writings when so many UPCers do their best make it out to be a work of fiction.

Now that is what is really very laughable.

I think Fudge is NOT to be taken as absolute because he has prejudice however it was well written and many things can be verified by others.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I can PROMISE you that the only way these things would be proposed by him as heaven or hell is if a rebellious spirit rose up in a person, and refused just ti refuse, rather than sincere disagreement.

Here is a quote, from an unnamed brother, that expresses the same concept:

MOST ISSUES OF HOLINESS ARE NOT SALVATION ISSUES; THEY ARE CHRISTIAN MATURITY (OR, SANCTIFICATION) ISSUES. ONLY AS WE DO NOT OBEY GOD IN THESE AREAS DOES OUR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE BECOME A SALVATION ISSUE.

When I read or hear something like this, it sounds like "These are not salvation issues unless you fail to comply, and then they are."

Or, "You won't go to Hell for cutting your hair, but if you cut your hair you will go to hell for cutting your hair, but it won't be for cutting your hair, but because you disobeyed and cut your hair."

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

Here is a quote, from an unnamed brother, that expresses the same concept:



When I read or hear something like this, it sounds like "These are not salvation issues unless you fail to comply, and then they are."

Or, "You won't go to Hell for cutting your hair, but if you cut your hair you will go to hell for cutting your hair, but it won't be for cutting your hair, but because you disobeyed and cut your hair."

I have heard the same remarks before, does sound like they are contradicting themselves.

[mfblume]

When someone is outright rebellious by nature and spirit, and they disagree with ANYTHING, that is the problem that sends folks to hell. But comparing that with sincere disagreement over an issue is not at all the same.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When someone is outright rebellious by nature and spirit, and they disagree with ANYTHING, that is the problem that sends folks to hell. But comparing that with sincere disagreement over an issue is not at all the same.

I can appreciate what you are saying, but fail to see its application to the issue of "standards."

For example: It is preached that a lady wearing pants is an abomination to God. Then the disclaimer is added that it is not wearing pants, but rebellion that will cause the pant wearing lady to go to hell. The conclusion is that ladies may wear pants, be an abomination to God, and yet go to Heaven if they sincerely disagree.

If a lady wearing pants is an abomination to God, she is an abomination in spite of her opinion, attitude, or circumstances.

In my opinion, it is a contortion of logic to preach that wearing pants is an abomination to God, and then to convolute that position by suggesting that it's not a Heaven or hell issue. If it's an abomination to God, it's a Heaven or hell issue.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I can appreciate what you are saying, but fail to see its application to the issue of "standards."

For example: It is preached that a lady wearing pants is an abomination to God. Then the disclaimer is added that it is not wearing pants, but rebellion that will cause the pant wearing lady to go to hell. The conclusion is that ladies may wear pants, be an abomination to God, and yet go to Heaven if they sincerely disagree.

If a lady wearing pants is an abomination to God, she is an abomination in spite of her opinion, attitude, or circumstances.

The actual thought, though, is whether or not pants ARE an abomination. The bible never said that. It said men's apparel on a woman is an abomination, and vice versa.

So we must ask ourselves whether or not "pants" are men's apparel at any given time in history. We know cultures change and so does the "standard" of what and what not is men's or women's apparel. And then there aree the opinions of whether or not something is the current thought for men's apparel.

At one time pants were neither men's nor women's apparel. NOBODY WORE THEM. God never gave Adam "breeches", nor Eve. He clothed them with COATS. As time went on, cultural variation began. And then what was considered masculine or feminine changed. One day, who knows when (?), pants came into being. Culture CHANGED for that to occur. So, who is to say culture WILL NOT CHANGE again, or has not already changed?

Someone responds saying, "But modesty is still modesty." Amen! So God's people are adominished to retain masculinity and feminity in respective modes of apparel, while maintaining MODESTY all the while. When cultures change, men's apparel will not be what it was at one point, but modesty must still be maintained with whatever we consider men's apparel. Same with women's apparel.

My point is that PANTS were not labeled as men's apparel in Deut 22:5. That is because God knows CULTURES CHANGE along with what specifically is considered men's apparel, while modesty remains.

In my opinion, it is a contortion of logic to preach that wearing pants is an abomination to God, and then to convolute that position by suggesting that it's not a Heaven or hell issue. If it's an abomination to God, it's a Heaven or hell issue.

I never said wearing pants was an abomination when I gave my example. That was not an issue.

CULTURES CHANGE. And it will always be that it is an abomination for a woman to wear "men's apparel", and vice versa. But WHAT EXACTLY THAT APPAREL is will CHANGE. We cannot insert PANTS or ROBES or SARI'S in for MEN'S APPAREL. So the BIBLICAL truth is to maintain feminine and masculine distinction in dress, AND REMAIN MODEST in it all. It is abomination for a woman to wear men's apparel. Let's let the bible say what it actually said.

[Maple Leaf]

You're preaching to the choir here Pastor.

There are some ladies' pants that I view as abomination, but not necessarily on religious grounds.

I received your book, and have already looked at all the pictures; now all I need to do is find somebody to read it to me.

I was privileged to spend my teen years under the ministry of Lloyd W., and we never had any doubts about whether people who violated standards were lost - we knew they were, without a doubt, and beyond any question.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

You're preaching to the choir here Pastor.

There are some ladies' pants that I view as abomination, but not necessarily on religious grounds.

I agree. lol. And SOME dresses.

I received your book, and have already looked at all the pictures; now all I need to do is find somebody to read it to me.

lol. Cool pics, eh?

I was privileged to spend my teen years under the ministry of Lloyd W., and we never had any doubts about whether people who violated standards were lost - we knew they were, without a doubt, and beyond any question.

wow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

I can appreciate what you are saying, but fail to see its application to the issue of "standards."

To clarify, my application was concerning something that is not nailed down in scripture like the pants versus dresses issue, since those items of clothing did not exist then. That makes the issue opinion. If the the pastor abides by claiming PANTS ARE the issue, in his opinion, and the saint disagrees, then it is not heaven or hell. I think the knowledgable pastor would agree. So then it becomes something that COULD BE heaven or hell if the person involved is simply rebellious natured, but not so if it is sincere disagreement -- all because it is not nailed down in scripture. That was my point.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by mfblume

To clarify, my application was concerning something that is not nailed down in scripture like the pants versus dresses issue, since those items of clothing did not exist then. That makes the issue opinion. If the the pastor abides by claiming PANTS ARE the issue, in his opinion, and the saint disagrees, then it is not heaven or hell. I think the knowledgable pastor would agree. So then it becomes something that COULD BE heaven or hell if the person involved is simply rebellious natured, but not so if it is sincere disagreement -- all because it is not nailed down in scripture. That was my point.

I am still looking for AJB's tape on hair from his 1982 series on "Separation." I found and listened to the tape on "Television," but I can't find any others from the series. The television tape would blister the hide of a lot of preachers in the new UPC.

Contrary to the protestations of a few, I don't know of one person, family or otherwise, that was "used" in the church, with cut hair, during that era. He inherited a lot of cut hair in a later church, but in those days you wouldn't sit under his teaching and believe you were going to Heaven with bobbed hair. I certainly didn't.