Bombshell- Considering going back to the UPC

[navygoat1998]

So now we are going to get into a discussion about what you have rejected to see if I "line up"?

Ferd I was just curious as to where you stood on the subject.

The difference between us is not in my view of "if a woman cuts her hair will she go to hell" but in the fact that you found some stuff taught by some people that you didnt agree with.... so you rejected all doctrine taught by those guys and found some new belief system to replace the old.

Honestly before I ever heard LS preach his crazy message I had doubts. Added to the fact that we were getting kicked in the teeth was just more fuel to the fire.

I did not find a new belief system, my eyes were opened to Jesus Christ and Him crucified and that He is full of Grace and Mercy.

I still believe in repentance and one must have a altar of repentance in ones life.

I still believe that Baptism is vital in the life of a believer and all believers in Christ NEED to be Baptized in His death, burial and resurrection.

I still believe that the GIFT of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence is for all that ask.

I still believe in living a life that is pleasing unto the Lord.

I didnt. I find great comfort in the doctrine and I have no need to reject doctrine, when I find some man misapplying it in some way.

I don't think you know how hard it was for us to leave. It was not easy waiting God to punish us and to pronounce judgment on us and to remove us from the earth and send us to Hell. I don't think you understand the sleepless nights and the anguish thinking that God had turned us over to our own sins. This is what we were being taught and was being preached. Left a really bad taste in my mouth.

We prayed and fasted and sought God and sought His mercies. I have pleaded with God to show me if we are in error. He has confirmed to me over and over again that we have not left His truth. I won't ever go into the different times we have heard the tongues and interpretations at different churches that we had never been to and did not know a soul.

Does God not love us enough that He would show us the error of our ways? My wife and I have the same Holy Ghost inside of us that you yourself posses. He does not love us enough to correct us if we are out of line?

I know the convicting voice of the Father and I know the loving voice of the Father. I would be obedient!

Since we are asking questions, do you believe it is proper...that a person can be saved... by rejecting entire passages of scripture and just ignoring them?

What particular Scripture does this pertain to???

if the tone here comes accross as harsh, it is certainly not meant to be that way. please understand I dont want to be confrontational here.

Ferd I take no offence and for what its worth I consider you my brother in Christ

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I hope you respond to my previous post, before this one. but now that I have posed my own questions, here goes.


The bible clearly teaches that men should have short hair and women long. Period. That is what the bible says. It was important to Paul when he wrote it. he used words like 'ordanances' and 'everyone does it this way" related to that.

BUT nowhere does it say UNCUT. I dont teach uncut because I cannot justify that. I do not think one can simply reject scripture, tell God "not that one" and not be in rebellion. we all know where that word goes.

Long is enough. As is SHORT (for men). We should each be able to tell within ourselves what is which and if we are good with God. I dont make it my business to decide that for other people (my wife included).

Pants.
The bible teaches explicitly that men are men and women are women and ne'r the twain shall criss cross.... if you are one and trying to be the other, you are LOST. It is an abomination to God. Period. aint no way around that. Its bible.

BUT if I take a 14 year old girl out of the local highschool and march her into Macy's and walk into the Jr. Ms. department, and point at a rack of pants and tell her those are mens clothes, she is going to think I am purely and utterly nuts.

At the same time, my baptist Grandmother who died in 1990 at the age of 80, didnt own a pair of pants that I remember. Pants were mens clothes to her.

We need to get past some hangups, teach sound doctrine and give folks room to live for God within the safe confines of sound teaching. (Yea I realize this makes me left of a good part of the UPCI.... but not all of the UPCI)

As for my wife, first, she NOT ME is in charge of her relationship with God. I dont get a vote. We do talk, we do walk together, but at the end of the day I cannot and will not order her around and speak for her soul. I can be the spiritual leader in my home. I can provide sound teaching of scripture and insure my family is being fed in a congregation that teaches right. But at the end of the day, her salvation is in her own hands to work out.

My wife does not cut her hair, or wear pants or makeup. These are her convictions. We do not project our values on others one way or the other. We live our lives by the disiplines that we have formed from our own prayer lives, walk with God, and yes, the way we were raised.... but they are ours and no one elses.

One more thing. Makeup is YUCKY. period. That aint bible. but it is Truth.

Peace!

What would you do, Ferd, if you found out that your wife changed her convictions?

How about you, Hoove?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ILG

What would you do, Ferd, if you found out that your wife changed her convictions?

How about you, Hoove?

Not sure I know what you are asking for... can you be specific, then give me about four options????

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Not sure I know what you are asking for... can you be specific, then give me about four options????

LOL! Umm.....what if your wife decided that she was going to start wearing pants on a regular basis because even though she still believed in the same biblical principles, she felt the "rule" of no pants was more detrimental to the cause of Christ than making a statement for a definite distinction between sexes, meaning pants vs dresses.

What is sad is that this ONE small shift causes huge ramifications between those who believe dresses MAY be a better application and those who believe pants are an abomination to God on women.

So, unfortunately, this one small shift could cause a domino effect of needing to stay or leave the organization you love. What would your reaction to that be?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ILG

LOL! Umm.....what if your wife decided that she was going to start wearing pants on a regular basis because even though she still believed in the same biblical principles, she felt the "rule" of no pants was more detrimental to the cause of Christ than making a statement for a definite distinction between sexes, meaning pants vs dresses.

What is sad is that this ONE small shift causes huge ramifications between those who believe dresses MAY be a better application and those who believe pants are an abomination to God on women.

So, unfortunately, this one small shift could cause a domino effect of needing to stay or leave the organization you love. What would your reaction to that be?

A) Quit Church

B) Beat My Wife

C) Call for a resolution requiring dresses AND chastity belts for all females

D) None of the above


I would go with D

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

A) Quit Church

B) Beat My Wife

C) Call for a resolution requiring dresses AND chastity belts for all females

D) None of the above


I would go with D

What sort of ramifications (choosing D) do you think this would cause for your family?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by ILG

What sort of ramifications (choosing D) do you think this would cause for your family?

Very little in terms of our immediate family. A bit more in terms of our extended families, and a bit more in terms of church (specifically if she wanted to be in any leadership position.

Overall very little practical difference.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Or later evangelicals misunderstood what the reformers taught about faith and works.

Btw I've read Calvin also believed it was necessary. What about Wesley?

Isn't the evangelical view rather new?

I have read that Wesley believed in infant baptism regeneration and baptism regeneration and also read that he did not.

John Wesley asserts, that "by baptism we enter into covenant with God, and everlasting covenant, are admitted into the church, made members of Christ, made the children of God. By water as the means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again." [Preservative, pp. 146-150]

Charles Spurgeon: I think he does not. This is from his sermon Regeneration.

“We ourselves are not unsure on this point, we declare that persons are not saved by being baptized. In such an audience as this, I am almost ashamed to go into the matter, because you surely know better than to be misled. Nevertheless, for the good of others we will discuss it. We firmly believe that persons are not saved by baptism, for we understand, first of all, that it appears completely out of character with the spiritual religion, which Christ came to teach, that he should make salvation depend upon mere ceremony.”

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Bro. Epley, do you know what I preached yesterday? Acts 2:23-41. The Bible isn't the problem. The answer is still the same. The command is 2-fold, repent and be baptized. The Holy Ghost is both a gift and a promise, not something to check off the list.

Most conservative Christians don't have any problems with Acts 2:37-38. The ones I've been in contact with don't even have a problem with water baptism in Jesus name. The problem is your new fangled interpretation which tries to force a square peg (tongues) into a round hole. Acts 2:41 is plain that the people who believed Peter were baptized, and thus added to the church. Your whole interpretation is flawed, but your too proud to acknowledge it after all these years.

Bro Epley, whydo you require speaking in tongues for salvation when there is no evidence (pun intended )that the 3,000 in Acts 2:41 spoke in tongues, nor the 5,000 of Acts 4:4? Or for that matter, no evidence in 18 of 21 conversion accounts in the book of Acts, and no evidence from the epistles (where tongues is mentioned in only 1 of 21 epistles) that speaking in tongues was a normative and universal experience of early believers?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I have read that Wesley believed in infant baptism regeneration and baptism regeneration and also read that he did not.



Charles Spurgeon: I think he does not. This is from his sermon Regeneration.

Spurgeon believed baptism was necessary.

http://godsbreath.net/2010/01/05/cha...about-baptism/