Monopoly on Apostolic Identity is no more .... - Page 22

Aquila · #**211** 02-02-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What?

Did someone call my name?

lol

Hey bro, what are some of your thoughts regarding my take of I Corinthians 11?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=198

Praxeas · #**212** 02-02-2009, 10:44 PM

If I don't get to it in a day or so remind me again. :-)

CAD/JPY · #**213** 02-03-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

lol

Hey bro, what are some of your thoughts regarding my take of I Corinthians 11?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=198

This wasn't addressed to me... but hey, why not answer....

fwiw I thought it was good; however, if I wanted to tear it apart... I would ask for reference material that support your history of culture during the Corinthian church age. Other than that, I thought it was good.

Aquila · #**214** 02-03-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

This wasn't addressed to me... but hey, why not answer....

fwiw I thought it was good; however, if I wanted to tear it apart... I would ask for reference material that support your history of culture during the Corinthian church age. Other than that, I thought it was good.

Bro... there's nothing like doing your own homework. There's LOTS of stuff out there on it. Most commentaries cover it. Don't just try to refute it, learn of the position and compare it to what you've been taught. See which view is truest to the wording of the text and the cultural context of the writing.

SDG · #**215** 02-03-2009, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAD/JPY

Wow, thanks for the link. That is quite the article. I have to say I find it very, very interesting. For example... uncut hair is not mentioned, when it could have been... pants on women is not mentioned, when it could have been... beards on men are mentioned. Then he sums up the article with this, and I quote....

We must be willing to examine and evaluate modern Pentecostals traditions and practices as
follows: (1) If they are contrary to the Bible, we must discard or modify them as needed. (2) If
they are compatible with the Bible but not required by it, we must grant Christian liberty
according to the teachings of Romans 14. (3) If they are appropriate expressions and applications
of biblical teaching—whether specific statements of Scripture or valid implementations of
scriptural principles—we must uphold them regardless of the shifting opinions of modern
culture, philosophy, and theology. (4) Finally, if we are lacking in our adherence to biblical
teaching, we must be willing to conform our thought and conduct to the Word of God.

That is quite the final statement. I agree 100%!!! Go Bernard!!

It is quite the statement isn't it? I know he's modified his stance on beards ... despite a resident "expert" poster from Texas who stated that he has held the views he always has.

I wonder how 'malleable' his holiness theology really is however. He was not malleable in 92, was he, as a chief apologist for the Wesburg resolution?

And whether the relevant crowd pastors will be granted the Christian liberty in Romans 14

I guess we'll know soon ... as it seems that the relevant crowd is organizing also ... and will be meeting soon.

pelathais · #**216** 02-03-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It is quite the statement isn't it? I know he's modified his stance on beards ... despite a resident "expert" poster from Texas who stated that he has held the views he always has.

I wonder how 'malleable' his holiness theology really is however. He was not malleable in 92, was he, as a chief apologist for the Wesburg resolution?

And whether the relevant crowd pastors will be granted the Christian liberty in Romans 14

I guess we'll know soon ... as it seems that the relevant crowd is organizing also ... and will be meeting soon.

In '92, I think he felt like he had a job to do. We were all younger then. Perhaps a few of us are wiser now, too.

SDG · #**217** 02-03-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

In '92, I think he felt like he had a job to do. We were all younger then. Perhaps a few of us are wiser now, too.

And that job was to disfellowship?

He apologized for TV ministry.

He also did his job to heighten the Tulsa split ... in advocating a legal position to try to make sure ministers did not "double dip"

Used resolution 3 powers to place men under question in his diocese who were out of the org for years.

and apparently with this paper, recent letters, and other subsequent GB actions, I think it's safe to say he finds that his job is to once again apologize and deal with the perceived "relevant" movement sweeping the ranks, IMO.

He's proven one thing, Pela. To be an apologist ... through and through ... a company man.

Try to get a staight answer on HMH doctrine from him and what we get is ambiguity knowing it not expedient.

Once just a apologetic theologian ... now moving up the political ladder.

But ... Maybe he will prove to be malleable ... flexible. Who knows?

In the long run will it matter?? ... despite these recent efforts men like TLC can keep their credentials in both orgs ...

None of this has teeth. Those who leave ... usually leave by their own volition ... of course under intense pressure and scrutiny.

LUKE2447 · #**218** 02-03-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro... there's nothing like doing your own homework. There's LOTS of stuff out there on it. Most commentaries cover it. Don't just try to refute it, learn of the position and compare it to what you've been taught. See which view is truest to the wording of the text and the cultural context of the writing.

Aquila.... As stated before for the most part your position and that of many commentaries is speculation at best. They all have different opinion and many contradictive. As Paul does not even bring up heeding local custom. Sure veiling in part was common but you can't relegate veiling to simply something you can do away with. It is not a sign just to us but to the angels etc... They expect distinction in the divine order when in ministry when one is acting as part of the body. Veiling gives the significance of position in the body and headship. God always has a parallel of the spiritual to the physical. You are attempting to negate the representive aspect that Paul says a woman should do. God always uses signs of something to represent the heart even if they are not true at heart. It still does not negate that which is desired by God. Baptism is a perfect example it is the appointed time to be united with Christ. Does the water or faith save? They both combine to be that which God desires. So it is with veiling!

pelathais · #**219** 02-03-2009, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Aquila.... As stated before for the most part your position and that of many commentaries is speculation at best. They all have different opinion and many contradictive. ...

It's not so speculative when when you have archeological support and vast amounts of historical documentation to support your view.

The "Uncut Hair" side of the argument does not have a single witness from the first two centuries of the Christian era? Not one. Yet the interpretation involving the "cloth-type veil" has living witnesses going as far back as the time of Isaac and Rebekah through today.

Aquila · #**220** 02-03-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

It's not so speculative when when you have archeological support and vast amounts of historical documentation to support your view.

The "Uncut Hair" side of the argument does not have a single witness from the first two centuries of the Christian era? Not one. Yet the interpretation involving the "cloth-type veil" has living witnesses going as far back as the time of Isaac and Rebekah through today.

Thank you! LOL