WOW!!! T F Tenney - "Let the Redeemed of the Lord DRESS SO"

[J-Roc]

Originally Posted by Trouvere

Pulpit envy or what? I did not see your name listed on the ministers speaking at Bogalusa??? Hum...maybe some of us like hearing his dumb statements.I may not agree 100% of the time
but the disrespect is sad coming from a christian.

Firstly, I thought you were thick-skinned?

Secondly, the AFF is loaded with comments that say another poster's statement is "you fill in the blank"...and I have yet to see you come to the rescue and protest about it (perhaps, you have, but I haven't seen it from you)...let's not deify anyone...public speakers will get public scrutiny and their words are being critiqued here, not their reputation.... nuff said.

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

This statement is probably one of the dumbest statements ever uttered over a pulpit! Guardrails - really.. Gee I thought the bible said follow after the spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Guess I was wrong bout that... as well as Paul... it should have read follow the dress code and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh...

The Pharisees thought the extra rules they had created where guardrails... but instead they where stumbling stones to real relationship... strange similarities here.... actually frightening similarities

Holiness standards have never been a stumbling block to my relationship with Jesus. And they are not all about dress codes.



ARPH

[sola gratia]

okay - well - I think the statement is damaging to Christian faith. Damaging to true faith and trust in the Holy Ghost. Possibly ... well never mind.

I could care less to what degree someone ministry is successful. That in no way validates their message... if it does we should all be tuning into Joel Osteen, every night... I don't see any apostolic preaching to those kinds of crowds! Yet they rip into their teachings --- I wonder is that disrespect as well?

I respect the man, but disrespect the statement. If I conveyed otherwise it was unintentional

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

okay - well - I think the statement is damaging to Christian faith. Damaging to true faith and trust in the Holy Ghost. Possibly ... well never mind.

I could care less to what degree someone ministry is successful. That in no way validates their message... if it does we should all be tuning into Joel Osteen, every night... I don't see any apostolic preaching to those kinds of crowds! Yet they rip into their teachings --- I wonder is that disrespect as well?

I respect the man, but disrespect the statement. If I conveyed otherwise it was unintentional

I think that people that wear crosses halfway down thier cleavage is damaging to the Christain faith, I think that people that have Christain symbols on their cars and drive stupid are damaging to the Christain faith, I think that people that confess Christ and cuss are damaging to the Christain faith, but I don't think that saying holiness standards are like guardrails in any way damages the Christain faith.
BTW, that was the first preaching message of his I ever heard, I don't know who the man is and never read any of his books, so his "success" to me is nothing.



ARPH

[Sacerdotal]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

Holiness standards have never been a stumbling block to my relationship with Jesus. And they are not all about dress codes.



ARPH

This is a very good post.

[Sacerdotal]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

I like when he said holiness standards are like guardrails on a highway.



ARPH

I thought it was a good statement as well. I have never hit a guardrail in my life. It is amusing but sad to think of people who would drive down the highway and be angry over what that guardrail is keeping them away from. Just be thankful you have a great highway to drive on.

I can't find what is so wrong with his analogy. But the difference may be that I don't find a reason to dislike the standards I have.

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Sacerdotal

I thought it was a good statement as well. I have never hit a guardrail in my life. It is amusing but sad to think of people who would drive down the highway and be angry over what that guardrail is keeping them away from. Just be thankful you have a great highway to drive on.

I can't find what is so wrong with his analogy. But the difference may be that I don't find a reason to dislike the standards I have.

I can drive through a guardrail if I want to, but I don't think I will like the results.



ARPH

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Sacerdotal

I thought it was a good statement as well. I have never hit a guardrail in my life. It is amusing but sad to think of people who would drive down the highway and be angry over what that guardrail is keeping them away from. Just be thankful you have a great highway to drive on.

I can't find what is so wrong with his analogy. But the difference may be that I don't find a reason to dislike the standards I have.

Your statement is ridiculous, because the analogy is so non-applicable, apparel standards do not keep folks from losing faith. If folks lack a real relationship with Jesus, such standards can be false sense of holiness. I have no problem with folks having personal convictions about apparel, but to place it in the category of holiness or righteousness is false doctrine.

The laying on of hair is an example, God will respond to faith in Him, and said faith should be based on His word not on our works.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Your statement is ridiculous, because the analogy is so non-applicable, apparel standards do not keep folks from losing faith. If folks lack a real relationship with Jesus, such standards can be false sense of holiness. I have no problem with folks having personal convictions about apparel, but to place it in the category of holiness or righteousness is false doctrine.

The laying on of hair is an example, God will respond to faith in Him, and said faith should be based on His word not on our works.

Right on! The walk after the Spirit causes us to not fulfill lusts of the flesh. When physical acts of obedience are replacing Jesus and the Spirit's empowerment for keeping us saved, we are in deep trouble, I believe.

Standards are fine and dandy, until they replace love that shows the world we are Christ's, and replace Spirit leading for keeping us saved.

We dress modestly/holy because we bleong to the Lord. Holiness actually means BELONGING TO. And in that sense, we dress modestly.

[The Dean]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Your statement is ridiculous, because the analogy is so non-applicable, apparel standards do not keep folks from losing faith. If folks lack a real relationship with Jesus, such standards can be false sense of holiness. I have no problem with folks having personal convictions about apparel, but to place it in the category of holiness or righteousness is false doctrine.

The laying on of hair is an example, God will respond to faith in Him, and said faith should be based on His word not on our works.

It appeared to me that the post of Sacerdotal and the analogy of Bro. Tenney were both on target. What appears ridiculous is people who seem to instantly attack everything that remotely appears to value holiness or any outward standards that portray a hunger for holiness. On second thought, it doesn't appear ridiculous: it IS ridiculous.