Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Labelling your argument against LS teaching as "Holy Magic Hair" is a blatant misrepresenation, and implies that you are suggesting LS teaches "supernatural powers in the hair".

I've never labled MY arguments against what LS teaches as "Holy Magic Hair"

You have said it yourself, whether you used the word "magical powers in the hair" verbatim or not.

What I said was, we have all been there done that. We have already heard your "They don't say Magic hair" and we all agreed with you and pointed out THAT was not what we disagreed with them on. We never said they said "magic hair", thus you introduce a red herring having no bearing on the real issues at hand

Now you are trying to get by with what you are accusing LS of. You are saying "I didn't say he said he believes in 'magic powers in the hair'", while the whole time saying "LS is teaching supernatural powers in the hair".

Supernatural meaning "From God"...magic meaning as you put it, casting spells. You said authority in the spirit realm...THAT I would call supernatural.

Call it what you want, supernatural, magical, etc... you are accusing LS of teaching something he is not teaching. Your advocacy of DA's website further discredits your objection to LS's message

No I am not. I am accusing LS of teaching exactly what he said he was teaching. I never said he taught anything about magic. Supernatural is NOT akin to magic. Miracles by God are supernatural. Spell casting by witches is magic

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I've never labled MY arguments against what LS teaches as "Holy Magic Hair"

What I said was, we have all been there done that. We have already heard your "They don't say Magic hair" and we all agreed with you and pointed out THAT was not what we disagreed with them on. We never said they said "magic hair", thus you introduce a red herring having no bearing on the real issues at hand

How would you characterize LS and RRH's teachings? If it's not "supernatural power in the hair", (as the HMH nomen indicates), what are their assertions that you disagree with? It seems to me that the basic disagreement lies in their interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10. I am seeing a few things develop here, and I see how people would disagree and be opposed to some things LS and RRH seem to be saying and advocating. But from my analysis at this point, I do not see where it rises to the level of "heresy" or "false doctrine" as some would assert. Their teaching in no way indicates they teach a "holy magic hair" doctrine... I would love to see a bulletted list of the tenets of their teaching that you disagree with. It's real easy, just say something like this: "LS and RRH are teaching 1.) ... and 2.) ... and 3.)...

You can even put your bulletted list vertically, like this:
LS and RRH are teaching this that I disagree with:
1.)...
2.)...
3.)...

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Supernatural meaning "From God"...magic meaning as you put it, casting spells. You said authority in the spirit realm...THAT I would call supernatural.

This is getting plainer. I am certain that LS goes into detail as to how he interprets 1 Cor 11:10. He refers to Gk., has conferred with Gk. scholars (supposedly) who have affirmed his interpretation. He quotes leading Gk. scholarship, reading extensively from Spiros Zodhiates and some other resources. Some leading theologians in our movement seem to disagree with his interpretation of 1 Cor 11... You also seem to disagree with it. IMO, the jury is still out. In the context of obedience and submission, I am convinced that individual believers have authority in the spirit realm (yes, supernatural authority over spirits) because of their obedience. The wording of 1 Cor 11:10 seem to support this idea. LS's emphasis on uncut hair and short hair on men as the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, especially in the context of preaching on 1 Cor 11, is consistent with his teaching and preaching on the subject.

Again, I see how someone can disagree with him over this, but it hardly rises to the level of heresy or false doctrine. I have friends who disagree over who the Genesis 6 "Sons of God" are, but one side of this debate does not accuse the other of "false doctrine" and "heresy". I have heard attempts from one side to accuse the other side of teaching "serpent seed", which is totally misleading and a strawman. I have friends on both sides of the wine/grapejuice debate. I will admit that while winers really give the juicers a hard time for not "seeing it", they still have fellowship, and do not accuse the other of false doctrine and heresy, or drunkeness.

I see where there can be some differences in interpretation on 1 Cor 11. People who have confidence in LS teaching will use him and read RRH's books, people who don't can avoid him and discourage the propogation of RRH's books. I hardly think this is an issue that will subvert core doctrine (as do other spurious doctrines like divine flesh, or one-step conversion). If someone in a church has been exposed to the LS interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10, and their pastor disagrees with it, what a great opportunity for that pastor to instruct his people more thoroughly regarding his view of this passage. Whether you agree with LS or not, IMO, it hardly rises to the urgency to label him as a false teacher of heresy (as I have already seen here in this thread).

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No I am not. I am accusing LS of teaching exactly what he said he was teaching. I never said he taught anything about magic. Supernatural is NOT akin to magic. Miracles by God are supernatural. Spell casting by witches is magic

Very well... I appreciate your diligence in reiterating the point you are trying to make. I was under the impression that you and DA were lockstep regarding your objections to LS teaching. Thanks for the clarification...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

How would you characterize LS and RRH's teachings? If it's not "supernatural power in the hair", (as the HMH nomen indicates), what are their assertions that you disagree with?

Heretical, dangerous, false doctrine. Keep reading, I've said the parts I disagreed with since this discussion started in the other thread you started

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Heretical, dangerous, false doctrine. Keep reading, I've said the parts I disagreed with since this discussion started in the other thread you started

If LS' emphasis on "compliance", with the directives of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, were presented as issues of obedience and submission giving elevated authority in the spirit realm equally for both men and women, I think I could more strongly advocate for LS's unique interpretation. However, coupling LS's emphasis on possessing uncut hair solely, and his connection with this act and authority in the spirit realm for the woman to the seeming exclusion of the man, I can see are somewhat problematic.

I have offered a couple reasons why he may be doing this: 1.) This message does not "exclude" men from "authority in the spirit realm", but more accurately describes and emphasizes the unique position a woman has in their standing before God that men cannot obtain, and 2.) because the context of 1 Cor 11, the emphasized acts directly related to obedience and submission are uncut hair for women and short hair for men, and 3.) since LS is focusing on the woman's unique position before God and the emphasized act of obedience and submission connected to the context of 1 Cor 11, he therefore focuses primarily on the act of uncut hair as the issue directly connected to the woman's unique standing before God. Allow me to explain in more detail...

1.) Both genders possess unique positions in God's kingdom, and "in the spirit realm", that the other gender cannot possess. For instance, men are equipped to fill positions of authority and influence in the Church and in the family that women cannot fill. And the same is true for the woman. A man is not instructed to a.) have uncut hair, b.) be a keeper at home, c.) honor her husband, d.) keep silent in the church, e.) not teach or usurp authority over the man... etc. My point here being that women possess a position in the family, in the community, and in the Church that men "cannot" fill. To extend this into the "spirit realm" seems to be a natural extention, and I think this is what LS may be doing when he makes statements like "women are entagled with angels and have access to wisdom in a way a man cannot have". (not verbatim, but you know the quote I am referring to here). The same is true for the man, men are also "entangled with angels and have access to wisdom a woman cannot have". These statements may be true becuase of the unique positions each gender fills in the family, community, Church, and in the spirit realm before God.

2.) From LS' message on "Order of Creation" from the text of 1 Cor 11, the sole acts that are emblematic of individual submission to God's order of headship and creation are the acts of a.) uncut hair for women, and b.) short hair for men...

3.) This point is the natural logical flow from the previous two points. Since LS is focusing on the woman's unique standing before God, since his text is primarily the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16, and since this text emphasizes the act of uncut hair for women as the emblem of submission to God's authority and her unique postion, LS therefore seems to focus on the act of uncut hair directly relating to the woman's unique standing before God and her authority in the Spirit realm to the seeming exclusion of the man.

Conclusion: LS is focusing this message on the woman's submission, emblem of submission, and her unique standing before God from the text of 1 Cor 11. Why doesn't he include the man in this message? Because this is not the focus of this particular message. There are countless numbers of messages that are preached that focus on the man's position, authority, and insight into the spirit realm, but in this message is primarily focused on the woman's position. (FTR, when I heard him preach this message recently, he did in fact address man's position before God, AND having short hair, but only briefly.)Why the seeming emphasis on uncut hair? Because this is the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, and woman's unique standing before God in that order, that is prescribed from the text of 1 Cor 11 that LS uses to develop the foundation for his message. I think most of LS's statement that people are objecting to (at least here on this forum) are the result of this approach and focus.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

If LS' emphasis on "compliance", with the directives of uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, were presented as issues of obedience and submission giving elevated authority in the spirit realm equally for both men and women, I think I could more strongly advocate for LS's unique interpretation. However, coupling LS's emphasis on possessing uncut hair solely, and his connection with this act and authority in the spirit realm for the woman to the seeming exclusion of the man, I can see are somewhat problematic.

I have offered a couple reasons why he may be doing this: 1.) This message does not "exclude" men from "authority in the spirit realm", but more accurately describes and emphasizes the unique position a woman has in their standing before God that men cannot obtain, and 2.) because the context of 1 Cor 11, the emphasized acts directly related to obedience and submission are uncut hair for women and short hair for men, and 3.) since LS is focusing on the woman's unique position before God and the emphasized act of obedience and submission connected to the context of 1 Cor 11, he therefore focuses primarily on the act of uncut hair as the issue directly connected to the woman's unique standing before God. Allow me to explain in more detail...

1.) Both genders possess unique positions in God's kingdom, and "in the spirit realm", that the other gender cannot possess. For instance, men are equipped to fill positions of authority and influence in the Church and in the family that women cannot fill. And the same is true for the woman. A man is not instructed to a.) have uncut hair, b.) be a keeper at home, c.) honor her husband, d.) keep silent in the church, e.) not teach or usurp authority over the man... etc. My point here being that women possess a position in the family, in the community, and in the Church that men "cannot" fill. To extend this into the "spirit realm" seems to be a natural extention, and I think this is what LS may be doing when he makes statements like "women are entagled with angels and have access to wisdom in a way a man cannot have". (not verbatim, but you know the quote I am referring to here). The same is true for the man, men are also "entangled with angels and have access to wisdom a woman cannot have". These statements may be true becuase of the unique positions each gender fills in the family, community, Church, and in the spirit realm before God.

2.) From LS' message on "Order of Creation" from the text of 1 Cor 11, the sole acts that are emblematic of individual submission to God's order of headship and creation are the acts of a.) uncut hair for women, and b.) short hair for men...

3.) This point is the natural logical flow from the previous two points. Since LS is focusing on the woman's unique standing before God, since his text is primarily the text of 1 Cor 11:4-16, and since this text emphasizes the act of uncut hair for women as the emblem of submission to God's authority and her unique postion, LS therefore seems to focus on the act of uncut hair directly relating to the woman's unique standing before God and her authority in the Spirit realm to the seeming exclusion of the man.

Conclusion: LS is focusing this message on the woman's submission, emblem of submission, and her unique standing before God from the text of 1 Cor 11. Why doesn't he include the man in this message? Because this is not the focus of this particular message. There are countless numbers of messages that are preached that focus on the man's position, authority, and insight into the spirit realm, but in this message is primarily focused on the woman's position. (FTR, when I heard him preach this message recently, he did in fact address man's position before God, AND having short hair, but only briefly.)Why the seeming emphasis on uncut hair? Because this is the emblem of submission to God's order of creation, and woman's unique standing before God in that order, that is prescribed from the text of 1 Cor 11 that LS uses to develop the foundation for his message. I think most of LS's statement that people are objecting to (at least here on this forum) are the result of this approach and focus.

LS himself states that women have a certain insight men do not have because the do not cut their hair. HE says himself it's the woman with uncut hair that affords this special angelic protection over her and her family, not because of a man's obedience.

It's not here obedience, it's her obedience to HAVE UNCUT HAIR. That is why he says there is a spiritual significance in hair.

The Obedience part comes in play when you obey what Paul said you will have uncut hair. If you have uncut hair you have authority and other special things men do not and can not have.