More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

I doubt cons are concerned about this. Doesn't matter. Women better wear a dress/skirt or they'll be condemned and cast into hell.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

I don't know the details, but maybe that was a sensible admonition. However, if one believes that the Law of Moses still applies, and believes that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about pants, they are under Law, there can be no compromise or flexibility. It would be an abomination. In such a circumstance, they'd have to leave their women more vulnerable, and just pray that God protect them.

[n david]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

Originally Posted by n david

I doubt cons are concerned about this. Doesn't matter. Women better wear a dress/skirt or they'll be condemned and cast into hell.

I should not have said: "I doubt cons are concerned about this." It's wrong of me to insinuate cons are callous and unconcerned about rape and sexual assault. I certainly don't believe cons are unconcerned or callous about that, so I apologize for that part of my post. It was wrong and I shouldn't have posted that.

The rest is true. There are no exclusion. There are no exceptions. Cons believe any woman wearing pants will burn in hell. Period. It doesn't matter why a woman chooses to wear pants, be it culture, personal preference, or simple dislike of cold weather and the wind blowing up around her nether regions. That doesn't matter. No exclusions. No exceptions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

How many Jamaicans are around you? Also do you know any Apostolic Pentecostals who are Jamaicans? Down here we have quite a few.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

First, the Law of Moses was abolished.
Second, I'm dead to the Law of God.
Thirdly, I'm under the Law of Christ.

And as it relates to the Law of Christ, I'm called to be guided by the Spirit.

The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

Dear brother, disagreeing with you isn't an attack. And it is important to understand that not everything in the Bible applies to you. For example, animal sacrifices, dietary laws, Sabbath laws, festival laws, ceremonial laws, ancient civil laws, etc. We both can glean from the types, shadows, and examples under the Law, but we aren't bound to them as Israel was.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.

Amen. The Holy Spirit will never contradict Scripture. However, the Holy Spirit will often contradict and challenge our human understanding of those Scriptures.

While the Sculptures are infallible, let us always be mindful that our interpretations of it are not.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Pliny

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.

We simply reject your interpretation of a biblical passage, in other words we reject your opinion of what God word means.

We are not attacking you, we are attacking your erroneous ideas.

We do not reject the word, we simply reject your personal theology.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jason, I could be wrong, but something tells me that you'll understand the meaning behind, Ordo Solutis.

Please tell me what you think about this order of redemption (I had to write my soteriological understanding in this form to help my Reformed theology friends understand the deeper soteriological aspects of "Apostolic salvation"):

Order of Redemption:

1. Corporate Election (God's choice to save whosoever will enter into the body of Christ)

2. Predestination (God's predetermined glory for the church)

3. Atonement (Christ's work of satisfying the Law's condemnation for all who will enter the church)

4. Propitiation (Christ's satisfying God's wrath against sin for all who will enter the church)

5. Prevenient Grace (the Holy Spirit's drawing of the lost to Christ Jesus through both an inner and an outer calling)

6. Conversion (repentance & water baptism)

7. Justification (imputed righteousness received by faith at Conversion)

8. Regeneration (being born of the Spirit as a result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit)

9. Adoption (membership in God's family through the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit)

10. Sanctification & Holiness (growing into Christlikeness by taking part in the divine nature provided by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit)

11. Death (the cessation of physical life after which one enters the intermediate state wherein the soul is present with the Lord in Heaven awaiting resurrection & glorification)

12. Resurrection & Glorification (receiving a resurrected and glorified body fashioned perfectly after the image of Christ)


It should be noted, the UPCI wanders into the wilderness on point 10, making sanctification based on various legalisms instead of embracing holiness as an ontological reality.

I don't have any real problems with this. I do believe 6-9 are all distinct acts, but happen essentially simultaneously and instantaneously from our perspective. I would see it as error to separate 7 & 8 to such a degree they can be see as different events that can take place weeks, months, or even years apart from each other, as the water/spirit doctrine does. I do believe you cant have any of 6-9 without having them all. IOW its impossible to be justified but not regenerate (again, water/spirit doctrine).

As for 1&2, I really dont have strong opinions on election and predestination yet. Those are still things I'm wrestling with various passages and possible interpretations. I'm not convinced that the calvinistic view is correct, in fact it has major holes IMO.

But overall I'd find a lot of agreement with this post.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I don't have any real problems with this. I do believe 6-9 are all distinct acts, but happen essentially simultaneously and instantaneously from our perspective. I would see it as error to separate 7 & 8 to such a degree they can be see as different events that can take place weeks, months, or even years apart from each other, as the water/spirit doctrine does. I do believe you cant have any of 6-9 without having them all. IOW its impossible to be justified but not regenerate (again, water/spirit doctrine).

As for 1&2, I really dont have strong opinions on election and predestination yet. Those are still things I'm wrestling with various passages and possible interpretations. I'm not convinced that the calvinistic view is correct, in fact it has major holes IMO.

But overall I'd find a lot of agreement with this post.

When it comes to Conversion, we see it as faith/repentance as turning from sin to God. The first step being water baptism. Water baptism serves to bring us unto Identification with Christ (hence being in His name). This is Conversion. Being converted, one is Justified.

Therefore, Conversion is unto Justification. This allows one to stand before God as though they never sinned. However, while many Christians stop here, we believe Justification has a purpose and is what allows us to be deemed worthy enough to receiving the Holy Spirit, which brings Regeneration.

- Justification is more of a legal declaration, not an ontological reality.
- Regeneration is actually taking part in the divine nature as the Holy Spirit comes to abide in our inner man, thus it is an ontological reality.

Experiencing Regeneration, through the abiding presence of the Spirit in one's spirit man, one partakes in the divine nature. This makes one a son of God, which is the doctrinal reality of Adoption.

So it's kinda like this.... in our perspective....

Conversion is unto Justification. Justification is unto Regeneration. Regeneration is unto Adoption. They are link overlapping links in a chain.

The entire Acts 2:38 experience.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That's not true, that is just your perception. Also you haven't been to every UPCI or Apostolic church. So, you are limited only to the one who were associated with. Bad experiences send people from Baptist to Pentecost, from Pentecost to Baptist to the hodgepodge of the re-examiner church. Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of Truth. Don't get me wrong, re-examining is a part of learning. Just don't think everyone draws the same conclusion you do. Also, gleaning from the heros of Protestant movement is re-examining. It is called shopping for answers. Which Jesus called the blind leading the blind.

Nah. Y'all really can not understand why people leave, it always gets reduced to 1)bitterness or 2)bad experience. It never truly dawns on y'all that maybe just maybe someone actually likes being pentecostal, enjoys the worship, the fellowship, the familiarity, but just simply leaves because they believe the Bible teaches something else. It always goes back to bitterness or bad experience. You are the second person to tell me that this week. The other, none other than DKB himself on a facebook thread about worship styles.

Let me make it plain. I don't dislike the UPC or UPCers. I am disappointed the UPC/greater oneness movement is not what I thought it was. I thought and believed for years it was the restoration of the apostles doctrine and practice, the true church on the earth, the channel God would use to bring endtime revival and the restoration of true Christianity. I believed all those things, I was not unhappy. I was not hurt. I was not mistreated, and I whole heartedly believed the doctrine.

There was no fishing for answers, no looking for a way out. It just happened over time as I studied God's Word that He lead me out.

It has little to nothing to do with protestant heros. You know the only protestants I had read before leaving the OP movement was William Barclays commentaries, who is a very liberal presbyterian, that I dont agree with on much dogma, but he is good for historical information. I read a book on The Sermon on the Mount by DA Carson, and I read several commentaries by Warren Weirsbe. Not a ton of "heroes" there, and not a lot of influence either. None of those guys are particularly focused on doctrine or say a ton that would be seen as an assault on pentecostalism. It wasn't the heros who moved me, it was the scripture. Particularly the NT, especially Romans, the Gospels, especially John, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 John.

I dont think I read a MacArthur book until 2010, either right before or after I left. It was called "Faith Works: The Gospel according to the apostles". It was a polemic against easy believism, not a theological treatise on salvation.

I've since read a few more books from MacArthur, who is one one my favorite authors, but only about 6 or 8 in total, and only his commentary on Romans.

Beside that, I've got a book of Jonathan Edwards sermons, only read about 60 pages of it. I've read parts of a few Charles Spurgeon sermond, but not much. (Those guys sermons go forever, it hard reading).

I've never read anything from John Calvin or Martin Luther except half of Luthers small catecism. I've got 2 books by John Owen, I've started one ( The mortification of sin) but never finished it, and havent even opened the other (the death of death in the death of Christ). I've never read a systematic theology, but did read most if ""bible doctrine" by wayne grudem, which is a summary of his systematic theology. Thats pretty much it, and all that is after leaving the oneness movement, not before.

I mostly read the scripture and commentaries, or books on church history.

My "re-examining" has been rooted in scripture. As usual, you are projecting things you really don't know anything about.