I refuse to remove the landmarks

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A landmark was a landmark. Please review the following post...it was biblically accurate.



Here's the actual verse...

Proverbs 23:10
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:

What we see here is that we have drifted from what the Bible is actually talking about in context because preachers have tried to "sermonize" on a word. If we drift away from what the Bible is actually addressing we'll argue over it until Jesus comes back because it's up to subjective opinion. However, if we keep it strictly within it's biblical context we can actually know the Bible and know what it was actually addressing.

Let's look at Paul's hermeneutics.

2 Cor 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Wow!! Who would have had the insight that Paul did to figure out that God gave this to Moses to also be instructive to us when it comes to those who minister of the gospel?

Let's look at the dictionary.

land⋅mark   /ˈlændˌmɑrk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [land-mahrk] Show IPA
–noun 1. a prominent or conspicuous object on land that serves as a guide, esp. to ships at sea or to travelers on a road; a distinguishing landscape feature marking a site or location: The post office served as a landmark for locating the street to turn down.
2. something used to mark the boundary of land.
3. a building or other place that is of outstanding historical, aesthetic, or cultural importance, often declared as such and given a special status (landmark designation), ordaining its preservation, by some authorizing organization.
4. a significant or historic event, juncture, achievement, etc.: The court decision stands as a landmark in constitutional law.

–verb (used with object) 5. to declare (a building, site, etc.) a landmark: a movement to landmark New York's older theaters.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
bef. 1000; ME; OE landmearc. See land, mark 1


Synonyms:
4. milestone, watershed, benchmark. From Dictionary.com

I take it you don't find it appropriate to use figures of speech like metaphors and the like to find principles and instructions from the OT that can be applied to us today? Would you consider this adding to the word of God?

[Michael The Disciple]

Altho I disagree with the thread starter about "holiness standards" I dont see that he is doing anything wrong by stating his beliefs. Unless I missed something he seems to be courteous enough. Thats what this forum is about right? A place where Apostolics can speak their mind?

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Altho I disagree with the thread starter about "holiness standards" I dont see that he is doing anything wrong by stating his beliefs. Unless I missed something he seems to be courteous enough. Thats what this forum is about right? A place where Apostolics can speak their mind?

It most certainly is! And freely, up to a point!

I would just like to point out to any of our new friends that this forum is neither conservative nor liberal. It was never meant to be either one.

It was meant to be a place where FRIENDS could gather and fellowship. Our one main tie being that somewhere, somehow, most of us have an Apostolic heritage.

We would love for all to stay and enjoy this place, but if we are not your 'cup of tea', that's okay. There are many places out there where you can find your niche. Just please stop with the condescending attitude and kicking us in the teeth on the way out.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

Prov 22:28
28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

I find it interesting that many after being blessed by finding the Truth, begin to seek ways to change what they have received.

Men and women before us understood the strength in Holiness, both inside and out. They were wise enough to know that the NEW BIRTH experience was just the beginning. Men were to dress like men and women like women. Because this was right in the eyes to the LORD. And still is. Men and women were to dress modestly and still should. Uncut hair on a women was her covering and showed her submission to her head and long hair on a man was a shame and still is.

Just because culture changes it's view does not mean the church should or that GOD has.

I am progressive in the sense that I believe we should change our methods for reaching the world in need. I am an old time preacher in the sense that I do not believe we should ever change our MESSAGE, any of it.

The landmark being referred to was a real landmark that marked property borders, but even in a spiritual sense, you have to assume every "border" was set right the first time and that seems to be what you are saying.

This is a cirular argument that assumes something that was not yet proven...the very "landmarks" you hope to prove.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The landmark being referred to was a real landmark that marked property borders, but even in a spiritual sense, you have to assume every "border" was set right the first time and that seems to be what you are saying.

This is a cirular argument that assumes something that was not yet proven...the very "landmarks" you hope to prove.

BTW go read "The Winds of God" and "United We Stand" and you will find that the earlier Pentecostals that we got our beginning from did not all believe in the same standards. You will also find they were not all three steppers...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

There are still a lot of us who agree with you but you won't find them on AFF. Most here have adapted to the easy route.

or maybe they just don't agree with the other Apostolics on what the bible says...you know it's been like that. It isn't some new movement. It's just gaining momentum

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

I believe that i made my position clear. We should not blend into the world and say we are trying to be relevant. We should be Biblical in our stance. We should be modest. We can do all of this and win the world. What I have noticed is that most of the time when people have problems with what keeps us Biblical and distinct it is because they do not like submission. I do understand that anything can be taken to extremes. However if I am going to be extreme I do not want to be so exteme that I blend in to the world.

even the people that differ with you on standards agree we should be biblical.

They don't agree with you on what IS biblical

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

I would totally agree that the dress standards (holiness ) from the 1840,1940 or 50's . They are much older than that. However a women can dress like a women, in dresses and skirts and still look fashionable. A man can look like a man and still look trendy. Then biggest problem is that teaching on this subject has been harsh and hurtful in the past.

I agree with every thing you mentioned as landmarks. But we can not leave off ones we do not like.

GOD BLESS

fashionable? Trendy? Some that set up those landmarks would say that is worldly talk

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TalkLady

Hey, you might like it here. I miss many of the conservatives who used to be here. Why can't we talk about things about which we agree? I love Jesus Christ. You love Jesus Christ. I won't be unfriendly to anyone. I have Friends in the real world who are conservative and I have Friends in the real world who are liberal. Jesus was a Friend to Sinners (not saying you are a sinner by the way).....Even if you think we're sinners, stay around and post.

did you read the Unity Post?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

did you read the Unity Post?

Is that required reading?