Interesting thought, however I would have to challenge your thought in the term "Pentecostal." The only Pentecostals who have used this term as slick-haired, Bible-thumping preachers spitting, and scowling women with their hair in buns are those who have narrowly defined "Pentecost" as holiness as describes by following a list of do's- and don'ts. There is a LARGE body of Spirit-filled Pentecostals that this aspect is not any a twitter of a thought in the definition of this word.
Hmmm, with all areas there is a ditch on either side of the truth. It would appear that he jumped from one ditch into the other. Just as a strict guideline of how you should or should not have your hair has no affect on your Chrisitanity, don't deceive yourself into thinking that this is a "Prophetic act of consecration" either. Does he proclaim to be a Nazarite or something?
If you really wanted to get in a debate on this from a spiritual side you would have a VERY weak position as the history of dreadlocks is tied to spiritual movements, non of which is about the Jesus we preach (Dreadlocks are associated most closely with the Rastafari movement, but people from many groups in history have worn them, including the Hindu Shiva worshippers of India,). So to declare that it is a prophetic consecration I would tell him just live clean and come out from among other groups.
He may not practice Rastafarian, but he is utilizing their beliefs. It is interesting how peopel use words like "radical Christian" as though "Christian" needs some kind of pre-fix to it. A true Christian has died to themselves and their desires and realizes that their life has been bought with a price and they are not their own. Wow! I don't think a Christian needs a pre-fix to describe who they are.
Amen on that point!
I have a problem with the usage of the world "relevant." People using this word tend to imply that the Bible is not "relevant." That is what has birthed the whole seeker sensitive movement, now the emergent church movement, not long ago the Todd Bailey thing.
What most call "relevant" is error. It is a doctrine that allows a person to stay the same and fill good about themselves. Want to know what is relevant in the world we live in today?
Without Jesus you are sinner bound for hell!
That's relevant!
I read a study not so long ago that in "Today's Christian colleges" as you stated that up to 50% of the professors are not even born again. Of course they are nauseated by any form of "religion"
Now, you mention "hype", "blow-dried evangelists", "insincere appeals of offerings", "faked healings", etc. I would agree that any Christian would be turned off by these. The problem is the people you are talking about would call in type of an appeal to live clean and deny yourself "hype."
They would call any evangelist "blow-dried" that told you that you needed a Savior and that the walk of a Christian will cost you in denying the things of this world.
They would also call any offering an "insincere appeal" because it is not about the offering it is about their desire to spend their money to satisfy their carnal nature and not the funding of the gospel so others can hear it.
It was probably a good speech and there is a valid point in it. We are to glorify God wherever we are. The only thing I would add is "don't chase a career, chase God. What does God want you to do with your life?"
The best way to glorify God is to allow God to control your life.
Awesome story! Something everyone should keep in the forefront of their thinking.
Humanitarian work is awesome and much needed. It also opens the door to evangelism and fulfills many scriptures about helping those who are less fortunate than yourself.
However, those who do humanitarian work must always remember to keep the first thing first. While, giving someone clean water so that they are not dying prematurely or suffering from disease is good, if they spend eternity in hell it was a mute point. Rescuing an exploited girl is phenomenal, but if she is only rescued and not saved you've only achieved a temporary solution.
The more I think about this post the more it bothers me. I just wonder what most Christians define as "coming out from among them" means (2 Cor 6).
While I am not a legalist in any sort I just can put my hands around this pierced, tattooed, dreadlock, goth, lifestyles while professing to be Christian.
I will give an example of myself. I shave my head. Now, I can either shave it and be bald or I can not shave it and by 3/4 bald. So I don't see a difference. However, even though I wanted to shave my head for many years I would not do it because to have a shaved head was to be associated with the neo-nazi skinhead movement. Therefore, (even though I don't look anything like them) I still refrained as I did not even want that appearance.
However, a time came when a shaved head was no longer associated with them and was just another hair style and so I shaved my head.
Why do Christians want (or think) that looking or being in the pop culture is a sign to a free heart, when everyone else who lives that way are doing these things trying to find something to satisfy the longing in their hearts?
Location: In two of the most beautiful states in the U.S.A
Posts: 1,676
Re: Pentecostalism, Version 20.09
Quote:
Originally Posted by gloryseeker
Interesting thought, however I would have to challenge your thought in the term "Pentecostal." The only Pentecostals who have used this term as slick-haired, Bible-thumping preachers spitting, and scowling women with their hair in buns are those who have narrowly defined "Pentecost" as holiness as describes by following a list of do's- and don'ts. There is a LARGE body of Spirit-filled Pentecostals that this aspect is not any a twitter of a thought in the definition of this word.
Hmmm, with all areas there is a ditch on either side of the truth. It would appear that he jumped from one ditch into the other. Just as a strict guideline of how you should or should not have your hair has no affect on your Chrisitanity, don't deceive yourself into thinking that this is a "Prophetic act of consecration" either. Does he proclaim to be a Nazarite or something?
If you really wanted to get in a debate on this from a spiritual side you would have a VERY weak position as the history of dreadlocks is tied to spiritual movements, non of which is about the Jesus we preach (Dreadlocks are associated most closely with the Rastafari movement, but people from many groups in history have worn them, including the Hindu Shiva worshippers of India,). So to declare that it is a prophetic consecration I would tell him just live clean and come out from among other groups.
He may not practice Rastafarian, but he is utilizing their beliefs. It is interesting how peopel use words like "radical Christian" as though "Christian" needs some kind of pre-fix to it. A true Christian has died to themselves and their desires and realizes that their life has been bought with a price and they are not their own. Wow! I don't think a Christian needs a pre-fix to describe who they are.
Amen on that point!
I have a problem with the usage of the world "relevant." People using this word tend to imply that the Bible is not "relevant." That is what has birthed the whole seeker sensitive movement, now the emergent church movement, not long ago the Todd Bailey thing.
What most call "relevant" is error. It is a doctrine that allows a person to stay the same and fill good about themselves. Want to know what is relevant in the world we live in today?
Without Jesus you are sinner bound for hell!
That's relevant!
I read a study not so long ago that in "Today's Christian colleges" as you stated that up to 50% of the professors are not even born again. Of course they are nauseated by any form of "religion"
Now, you mention "hype", "blow-dried evangelists", "insincere appeals of offerings", "faked healings", etc. I would agree that any Christian would be turned off by these. The problem is the people you are talking about would call in type of an appeal to live clean and deny yourself "hype."
They would call any evangelist "blow-dried" that told you that you needed a Savior and that the walk of a Christian will cost you in denying the things of this world.
They would also call any offering an "insincere appeal" because it is not about the offering it is about their desire to spend their money to satisfy their carnal nature and not the funding of the gospel so others can hear it.
It was probably a good speech and there is a valid point in it. We are to glorify God wherever we are. The only thing I would add is "don't chase a career, chase God. What does God want you to do with your life?"
The best way to glorify God is to allow God to control your life.
Awesome story! Something everyone should keep in the forefront of their thinking.
Humanitarian work is awesome and much needed. It also opens the door to evangelism and fulfills many scriptures about helping those who are less fortunate than yourself.
However, those who do humanitarian work must always remember to keep the first thing first. While, giving someone clean water so that they are not dying prematurely or suffering from disease is good, if they spend eternity in hell it was a mute point. Rescuing an exploited girl is phenomenal, but if she is only rescued and not saved you've only achieved a temporary solution.
Good post. Hang in there, he who is faithful to the end shall be saved. The world is looking for something different not more of what it have. I'm afraid of where where so many of our young people are headed. God help us. They look more like rock stars than followers of the one who died for them.
I believe this generation is tired of clothesline religion, and they're leaving it in droves.
Pentecostalism is shedding Wesleyan Holiness theology, and Apostolics are shedding Pentecostalism.
Apostolics are de-emphasizing the power of Pentecost at the same time Pentecostalism is spreading like wildfire.
Weirdness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edjen01
interesting.
please define what you consider to be Apostolics and Pentecostal/Pentecostalism
Apostolics are those people who are now embarrassed to call themselves Pentecostal because "Pentecostal" isn't legalistic enough for them any more.
I mean, hey, EVERYBODY claims to be Pentecostal nowadays! And this global outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not real revival because most of these 1 billion people plus who have spoken in tongues do not follow legalistic, 18th century standards.
__________________ The world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it.
Apostolics are those people who are now embarrassed to call themselves Pentecostal because "Pentecostal" isn't legalistic enough for them any more.
I mean, hey, EVERYBODY claims to be Pentecostal nowadays! And this global outpouring of the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not real revival because most of these 1 billion people plus who have spoken in tongues do not follow legalistic, 18th century standards.
Ed....is this definition made up? what theological dictionary or study does it come from?
Since the largest religious in the world are Hindu(various forms), Muslim(various forms), and Christian(various forms)....and only a small part of one of those religions is "tongue-talkers"....I would hardly say "EVERBODY" claims to be Pentecostal.
again...where do you get that 1 out-of-every 6 people on planet earth is a tongue-talker? since even every Christian is not a "tongue-talker" than Christianity must have somewhere between 2 & 3 billion followers...which means that the Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhist, and everyone else makes up the remaining 3-4 billion. the numbers don't add up.
Ed....is this definition made up? what theological dictionary or study does it come from?
Since the largest religious in the world are Hindu(various forms), Muslim(various forms), and Christian(various forms)....and only a small part of one of those religions is "tongue-talkers"....I would hardly say "EVERBODY" claims to be Pentecostal.
again...where do you get that 1 out-of-every 6 people on planet earth is a tongue-talker? since even every Christian is not a "tongue-talker" than Christianity must have somewhere between 2 & 3 billion followers...which means that the Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhist, and everyone else makes up the remaining 3-4 billion. the numbers don't add up.
I heard a statistic read the other day that there are 600 million confirmed "tongue talkers" in the world today.
Ed....is this definition made up? what theological dictionary or study does it come from?
Since the largest religious in the world are Hindu(various forms), Muslim(various forms), and Christian(various forms)....and only a small part of one of those religions is "tongue-talkers"....I would hardly say "EVERBODY" claims to be Pentecostal.
again...where do you get that 1 out-of-every 6 people on planet earth is a tongue-talker? since even every Christian is not a "tongue-talker" than Christianity must have somewhere between 2 & 3 billion followers...which means that the Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhist, and everyone else makes up the remaining 3-4 billion. the numbers don't add up.
First of all, I find it ironic that you go around the board and reply to every post I make, calling me by my first name, and speaking to me as if we know each other.
Second of all, yes, it is MY definition. I am entitled to it, as I have been a Pentecostal for 33 years, only to find out recently that I am now "Apostolic."
Also, use your fingers and google 'glossolalia statistics'.
The numbers aren't mine. They've been published extensively elsewhere.
__________________ The world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it.
I've enjoyed a couple JLG articles, but this is one where he just goes off the reservation. He hates anything to do with oneness pentecostalism ... so he must write anything he can to show how out of touch they are with everyone else.
Hybrid Mode
