< In response to CAD/JPY>
Obedience to
1 Cor 11 or any scripture for that matter is NOT a barrier.
Shorn or shaven. The hair is given for a covering. If a woman prays uncovered, then she has removed some (shorn) if not all (shaven) of her covering - what is her covering? Her hair.
I would encourage you to study more about this as there are other great resources that teach more in depth about this than just David Bernard's books.
Brother Larry Booker says in his book "What a difference a line makes" that he believes men's facial hair is not a heaven or hell issue; he goes on to give a very good explanation for what he believes and gives an illustration why. Regardless of facial hair, the above book is a very good read and would recommend it to every apostolic to read.
Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.
Paul wrote, 1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Incidentally, abmonination reveals something that God really hates - it reveals how he feels about something in his character. God changes not, the bible says; he may change what he requires of man, but He himself is not unstable and always changing.
Does God still require a distinction b/n the sexes in the NT? Absolutely,
1 Cor 11 teaching about hair shows just that.
Concerning holiness conservativism, I thank God that God's truth is pertinent to all centuries regardless of what the WORLD makes popular in culture for a certain period of time.
Should Pastors think very, very, very carefully before creating standards of holiness for their church? Yes, and they should probably pray and fast about it as well. IMHO, they should not be created on a whim.
Perhaps because one of Timothy's parents was a Jew and so in order to win the Jews and/or to avoid a debate on one things when really the Jews need to be born again? The context of Paul getting Timothy circumcized without any DIRECT scriptural commandment/admonishment was because one of Timothy's parents was a Jew and because of the Jews; can't say the same for Cornelius.
The snowmobile kinda reminds me of the argument of "what about those on their death bed?". Logical arguments for dismissing truth not based on a real-world example? An abomination to God for a man to wear that which pertaineth to a woman and vice-versa.
Incidentally, abmonination reveals something that God really hates - it reveals how he feels about something in his character. God changes not, the bible says; he may change what he requires of man, but He himself is not unstable and always changing.
Does God still require a distinction b/n the sexes in the NT? Absolutely,
1 Cor 11 teaching about hair shows just that.
Some other things that the unsaved idolize include - sports players, sport teams, American Idol (Why in the world any born again Christian would watch this show is beyond me), tv shows, tv stars, actors/actresses, jewelry, etc.
Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.
1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
Some of "us" still do not watch any movies/DVD's/or tv shows.
When the UPC leaders/elders met, discussed, and decided against TV it was accompanied by tongues and interpretation with God himself uplifting the decision. Kinda reminds me of Matt 18 in the context of church leaders making decisions when Jesus said that whatsoever they would bind/loose on earth, he would bind/loose in heaven and said right after that in the same context, that if any 2 or 3 of them agreed as touching anything, it would be done. Some like to take that out of context, but if you read the whole context to that, you will see that in was in the context of church leaders/elders making decisions concerning church discipline. Imagine that, Jesus knowing that certain things would come up that he gave church leaders/elders the authority to make decisions that God himself would stand behind. Wow - man making decisions that Jesus would stand behind! But they had to be in agreement, in unity.
And of course we have a practial example of this in Acts concerning circumcision as stated before - leaders/elders coming together to discuss an issue and decisions being made and communicated to the rest of the churches whom it affected. Did God somehow indicate that he would back up the decision that MEN made? Yes he did...
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Somehow God by the Holy Ghost - God's Spirit working in man - showed that it seemed good unto Him. Was it by tongues and interpretation? The bible doesn't say, but what it does say is that some how it seemed good to the Holy Ghost.
Kinda reminds me of the 3 year nightly revival at Azuza Street. But after the leader (Seymour or Parham - I can't remember) rejected the tongues and interpretation of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for 2 nights in a row if I remember correctly, then the revival petered out and the leader ended up going astray and had a bad end.
We don't throw away obedience to God's word and the decisions that our leaders/elders have made with God by the HOly Ghost endorsing it.
Linear Mode
