***UPCI's Anthony Langston's New Book: Holier Than God ***

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by J-Roc

for St. Matt

What answer do you want from me J-Roc? should I excuse a mans venomous attitude because he states it is simply his "personality"?

To be quite honest, our forum rules are very clear that debate is welcomed, but bad attitudes are not. So even though I was addressing him as a poster, our rules also back up what I have posted.

[BobDylan]

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

This man will not be able to reach those he wants to "save" from the big bad wolf simply because he has just blown the bridge up.

He goes by "Anthony" now?

I wish you well on your new book, Tony. If anyone can can take the beating that will follow, I trust that you can (LOL). Don't forget "the Devil Storm."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I would like to make a few observations here. Disregarding whether or not the writer Langston made some venemous remarks... why couldn't he have simply held his beliefs, did what he was going to do to build a church, then in retrospect say "Hey, here is the approach we took, and here is the results we got!" The proof is in the puddin' so-to-speak! There are several things he stated that in my opnion are accurate, right on, but he comes accross as confrontational to those who hold "traditional" values. If he wouldn't have had this confrontational approach, I think his "thesis" would have been better received and considered by those who have entertained many of the thoughts he suggests but are apprehensive about diverging from the "traditions" they have received.

It's been a long time, but I remember him to be rather "confrontational" in his manner and approach.

He's a good guy, and I think that the confrontational approach that you perceive here may be a result of him coming to the conclusion that "the proof is in the puddin'" (as you say). I think he's comparing the "puddin'" of the 1920's and etc. with the "puddin'" of the 1950-1960's and saying we need some of that "older stuff."

Basically, it sounds like a challenge for so-called "traditionalist" to rethink the timeline of their traditions. As I've always said, the "conservatives" of our movement are not really conservatives. They are not conserving the past, but rather introducing innovations that they have insisted "God told them." I hear Langston and his generation recommending that we move on now that those innovations have failed. By "moving on" he's really saying, "Let's go back..." Back to the first years of the Pentecostal revival in North America, and most importantly: back to the New Testament teachings and practices of the Apostles.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by philjones

Your paint gun just coughed up a major hair ball, TV1A... you are way beyond broad brush to the mega paint gun with a 50hp compressor attached to it!

Your efforts at emphasis & effect seem to render your posts ineffective. You have no idea how many are being destroyed and you are just making inflammatory statements! You really should speak what you KNOW and not what you want to use to stoke the fire!

You know, I've probably sounded like tv1a alot of times, and I agree with his sentiments. But PhilJones is right. Slamming the whole UP of C for "legalism" isn't fair. Consider that this particular thread is focused around an "anti-legalism" article written by a UPCI author.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Do you not agree that someone has to interpret and communicate what "modesty" means in a general sense? If left up to individuals, they may come up with an infinite number of definitions of "modesty". We really should at least strive for a close to consensus definition of modesty...

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO

[Steve Epley]

More of the same ole same ole. Guys depart from the faith and give their excuses. I have already read the other books by others who departed so here is another so what? Not impressed.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Newman

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO

Once again the voice of inteligent reasoning from Newman.

Good post!!

[Newman]

Legalism aside; I would love to see someone address the first part of the post. Why do we interpret Scripture in the mouth of two and three witnesses today when it comes to salvation and then use trinitarian scholars from the past to make a case for standards today based on questionable reading of isolated verses without witness?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Newman

Why? What has this got to do with the Gospel of Christ? "Modesty" wasn't defined in Scripture so why is it so critical to define what Scripture has not defined? Why are we so afraid to trust the Holy Ghost to lead us rather than a manual?

In truth, the concept of modesty varies across cultural lines, countries and regions, age and socio-economic groups and perhaps even marital status. Modesty is not forever linked to a particular time period in US history although we are not the only group that has gone in such a direction.

Our insistence that there must be uniformity in our ranks has only served to make us less influential in our own areas and perhaps created a false sense of what holiness is about, for too many. IMO

Well put, Newman.

For all of us: Just spend some time in a hospital- while your wish for "modesty" is respected by the staff, the "standards" are pretty much chucked out in a bed pan. The "relevance of place" trumps what you may have heard from the pulpit.

And just wait until you're in the nursing home. All them nekkid wimin and all... but alas, for you! You're such a bag of wrinkles that what a blanket or a robe gives you is some scrap of "dignity," forget the "modesty."