UPCI's Randy Hollis Throws Down the Gauntlet: The Emancipation of Isaac

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

PP,
I'm curious as to what points of the Mosaic law you see being imposed. Could you elaborate?

Understand that it is not the principles I am denouncing. It is the required ENFORCEMENT of these principles I despise. In other words a law and fear based adherance rather than a love and relationship based devotion.



1. The application of Deut 22:5

2. Tithing to ensure salvation.

3. The total lie that jewelry was universally forbidden in the OT.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

LOL

My point exactly. They are holding him up as a trophy of sorts. Is it true he was an ultracon darling not too long ago?

Ultra-con?

Not exactly. He did preach for a lot of conservative men.

A friend of mine really leaned on me to use him for a revival a while back, but while I had heard a lot of good things about him, the Holy Ghost emphatically spoke to me not to schedule him. I didn't know him personally, only by reputation.

I am sure glad I listened to the still small voice.

This is the first I knew of him leaving the fellowship.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Understand that it is not the principles I am denouncing. It is the required ENFORCEMENT of these principles I despise. In other words a law and fear based adherance rather than a love and relationship based devotion.



1. The application of Deut 22:5

2. Tithing to ensure salvation.

3. The total lie that jewelry was universally forbidden in the OT.

Who is it that requires you to enforce those things in your church?

Lots of UPC churches are full of jewelry, and there is nothing in the manula that prevents it.

I have never heard of anyone being called before a district board for jewelry in their church.

I have never heard of anyone getting disfellowshipped because they didn't teach tithing in any specific way.

And really, unless you are in an extremely conservativve district, maybe one of two or three in the UPC, you could probably get by with being silent about Deut. 22:5. Many do.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Understand that it is not the principles I am denouncing. It is the required ENFORCEMENT of these principles I despise. In other words a law and fear based adherance rather than a love and relationship based devotion.



1. The application of Deut 22:5

2. Tithing to ensure salvation.

3. The total lie that jewelry was universally forbidden in the OT.

modesty is the principle.

sleeve length is a rule
a wedding band is a rule
a skirt's slit length is a rule
a skirt/pant length is a rule

Can rules happen to be in accordance with the Spirit of the principle? Sure, but once a rule is placed into a delivery system that teaches obey them that are your rulers, the spirit of the hear is no longer involved with the PRINCIPLE, but instead has moved to strictly being in operation with the RULE issuer.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Understand that it is not the principles I am denouncing. It is the required ENFORCEMENT of these principles I despise. In other words a law and fear based adherance rather than a love and relationship based devotion.



1. The application of Deut 22:5

2. Tithing to ensure salvation.

3. The total lie that jewelry was universally forbidden in the OT.

I heard someone say, "Anytime jewelry is mentioned in the Bible it has a negative connotation." I was thinking, "What?"

Here's a scripture someone gave me to prove that jewelry was looked down on for the NT church.

Rev 17:4 "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:"

The implication here, being that she is wearing purple and scarlet, which is a sign of wealth, is that she is full of pride. I don't believe it is addressing the jewelry aspect here, but her attitude and character.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by tbpew

modesty is the principle.

sleeve length is a rule
a wedding band is a rule
a skirt's slit length is a rule
a skirt/pant length is a rule

Can rules happen to be in accordance with the Spirit of the principle? Sure, but once a rule is placed into a delivery system that teaches obey them that are your rulers, the spirit of the hear is no longer involved with the PRINCIPLE, but instead has moved to strictly being in operation with the RULE issuer.

Good point, tbpew!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amos

Who is it that requires you to enforce those things in your church?

Lots of UPC churches are full of jewelry, and there is nothing in the manula that prevents it.

I have never heard of anyone being called before a district board for jewelry in their church.

I have never heard of anyone getting disfellowshipped because they didn't teach tithing in any specific way.

And really, unless you are in an extremely conservativve district, maybe one of two or three in the UPC, you could probably get by with being silent about Deut. 22:5. Many do.

The word "wear" in Deut 22:5 is particularly interesting, in that, the choice in the Hebrew is the word "hayah", which means, "to exist as".

I find it very, very interesting that the common word, "labash labesh", which in the Hebrew means, "wrap around, to put on a garment" is not used.

Therefore, the deep meaning of Deut 22:5 is being missed and supported as pants, when it is in fact stressing "homosexuality" which is the abomination.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The word "wear" in Deut 22:5 is particularly interesting, in that, the choice in the Hebrew is the word "hayah", which means, "to exist as".

I find it very, very interesting that the common word, "labash labesh", which in the Hebrew means, "wrap around, to put on a garment" is not used.

Therefore, the deep meaning of Deut 22:5 is being missed and supported as pants, when it is in fact stressing "homosexuality" which is the abomination.

Sister,

PP's post seemed to indicate that he objected with the verse being preached as doctrine at all, not just a particular application of it, on the basis of its being Mosaic law.

I believe and teach that this verse includes dress, but also much more.

Spirit, manner, role, attitude, etc.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Amos

Ultra-con?

Not exactly. He did preach for a lot of conservative men.

A friend of mine really leaned on me to use him for a revival a while back, but while I had heard a lot of good things about him, the Holy Ghost emphatically spoke to me not to schedule him. I didn't know him personally, only by reputation.

I am sure glad I listened to the still small voice.

This is the first I knew of him leaving the fellowship.

And the beat goes on......"He went out ....because he was not......!" Just maybe he went out because there is a lack of mentoring of strong, young men in a way that builds on what God has placed in them.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Amos

Sister,

PP's post seemed to indicate that he objected with the verse being preached as doctrine at all, not just a particular application of it, on the basis of its being Mosaic law.

I believe and teach that this verse includes dress, but also much more.

Spirit, manner, role, attitude, etc.

Well, I suppose you could preach it that way, but I believe the larger meaning is being left out. It was the admonition. I don't believe I could take that any further.

Modesty and conduct covers the other parts for us in the NT. We don't need Deut 22:5 to bolster that for us. JMHO.