Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more .... - Page 18

LUKE2447 · #1 02-03-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

If we're basing this on Adam & Eve... we can throw out clothing.

Sorry, I just had to say that. hehehe

LOL!

*AQuietPlace* · #2 02-03-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

So only if Adam and Eve did it...... Ever heard of progressive revelation of God's will and desire? No need to get baptized I guess.... what other stuff can we throw out?

I'm still trying to figure out where mandated veiling was thrown *in*.

SOUNWORTHY · #3 02-03-2009, 08:57 AM

I think David Barnard in not suggesting change but reaffirming what we as Apostolic's have always believed.

Aquila · #4 02-03-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

My response to are we lost....

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...915#post687915

If a person knows to do good and doeth it not it is sin. In ignorance I cannot judge. Even then do I believe it is sin unto death? No!

To shame your head and Christ is not love! To not love is break law and thus it is sin. To do it intentionally is a deeper issue than a veil.

Bro, if you sincerely believe that women should wear a veil on their heads that’s entirely up to you. I sincerely do not see that in Scripture. I believe Paul is addressing some very specific issues and setting some very specific first century issues in order. The eternal principle is submission and modesty, the veil was just the first century catalyst bringing these issues to light for Paul’s address.

I used to be a second covering believer. For me it was an evolution. I was saved in a church that believed in long, uncut, magic hair. Our pastor would have the women take their hair down for “spiritual warfare”. It was strange. I began researching the subject and transferred my hair dogma to the covering, because the text was obviously talking about a covering. However, additional prayer and study opened my heart to see the complexity of the passage and liberated it to express eternal principles not laws and outward requirements. I sincerely believe that if one soul is lost due to the “holy magic hair” doctrine or the “holy magic covering” doctrine there will be a serious price to pay. When the Judaizers began demanding that Christians observe various aspects of the Law Paul went as far as to say that he wished that those doing so were altogether “cut off”. The bondage of legalism is a satanic snare that will reap a heavy price in eternity. If you’re sincere, I pray you’re right and I’m wrong. Because by our own words this isn’t a sin unto death. However, legalism and religious bondage is strongly denounced in Scripture.

LUKE2447 · #5 02-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro, if you sincerely believe that women should wear a veil on their heads that’s entirely up to you. I sincerely do not see that in Scripture. I believe Paul is addressing some very specific issues and setting some very specific first century issues in order. The eternal principle is submission and modesty, the veil was just the first century catalyst bringing these issues to light for Paul’s address.

I used to be a second covering believer. For me it was an evolution. I was saved in a church that believed in long, uncut, magic hair. Our pastor would have the women take their hair down for “spiritual warfare”. It was strange. I began researching the subject and transferred my hair dogma to the covering, because the text was obviously talking about a covering. However, additional prayer and study opened my heart to see the complexity of the passage and liberated it to express eternal principles not laws and outward requirements. I sincerely believe that if one soul is lost due to the “holy magic hair” doctrine or the “holy magic covering” doctrine there will be a serious price to pay. When the Judaizers began demanding that Christians observe various aspects of the Law Paul went as far as to say that he wished that those doing so were altogether “cut off”. The bondage of legalism is a satanic snare that will reap a heavy price in eternity. If you’re sincere, I pray you’re right and I’m wrong. Because by our own words this isn’t a sin unto death. However, legalism and religious bondage is strongly denounced in Scripture.

Who is teaching holy magic covering? Seriously you need to stop the insulting! Then Paul is a legalist!

Aquila · #6 02-03-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Who is teaching holy magic covering? Seriously you need to stop the insulting!

Bro, I don't mean to be insulting... but you've transfered a lot of the beliefs held by those who believe in Holy Magic Hair to the veil. It's "Holy Magic Covering" doctrine. It is what it is. In all humility I admit, I did this too when I embraced the teaching.

LUKE2447 · #7 02-03-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro, I don't mean to be insulting... but you've transfered a lot of the beliefs held by those who believe in Holy Magic Hair to the veil. It's "Holy Magic Covering" doctrine. It is what it is. In all humility I admit, I did this too when I embraced the teaching.

Seriously if you think that then you have issues and cannot read.

See your true color is coming out about your previous comments on baptism in Jesus name. I could even point to how you make baptism a charm or whatever my friend by your own argument!

I have never said it had magic power but was a sign of authority and acceptance of ones calling. You my friend are on dangerous ground for false accusation!

Aquila · #8 02-03-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I have never said it had magic power but was a sign of authority and acceptance of ones calling. You my friend are on dangerous ground for false accusation!

Bro, those who believe in Holy Magic Hair don't believe that the hair has magical powers per se, they believe that angels respond to women with uncut hair in response to prayer. You transfer that teaching to the veil. It's not a false accusation.

revrandy · #9 02-03-2009, 09:03 AM

LUKE2447 · #10 02-03-2009, 09:32 AM

You are basically changing the clear teaching of the text! Whatever man! God using symbolism is not wrong as he has done it all throughout history!

you don't have to attack it directly as your argument does attack it. You are basically saying anything God uses as the physical to parallel the spiritual is "holy magic ....." Brother you are on dangerous ground and should be careful if you are wrong. I do what I do in faithful response whether I am wrong or right. You on the other hand mock God's teaching as this is not the only thing he does this with. Passover/communion is another along with baptism.