I affirm to not speak against other ...

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I disagree - without really agreeing with DAII on this one either.

To me, the "affirmation" cited in DAII's post seems to be entirely consistent with what JG was doing -

"However, I do reserve the right to speak out or write as God would direct me against any sin, trend or compromise which weakens the truth and righteousness of God’s Word and Kingdom."

I disagree with JG's statement and his actions at the time certainly seemed to show that he had ulterior motives as well; but I can't "call him out" on the "affirmation" that was cited.

On the other hand, I don't quite see how the "change things from the inside" kind of guys could possibly be equated with:

"... an opening to the gate to everything that the Devil's got ... opening the door to the carnality and worldliness ..." either.

Fact of the matter is, some the most carnal sermons I have ever heard have come from the two WPF Godair brothers. To this day I'm still trying to figure out how hollering "I'm 100% Country!" from the pulpit of a UPCI conference isn't as carnal as it gets.

... but then again, that's just IMHO.

I didn't say I agreed with his conclusions, pel. I'm just pointing out that he's right about the tactical side of it.

And anyway, only the appearance of carnality is objectionable.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I didn't say I agreed with his conclusions, pel. I'm just pointing out that he's right about the tactical side of it.

And anyway, only the appearance of carnality is objectionable.

Yeah well... you're the one with her ducks all lined up.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah well... you're the one with her ducks all lined up.

They only appear to be lined up. *I refuse to insert the condescending coffee cup here.*

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

They only appear to be lined up. *I refuse to insert the condescending coffee cup here.*

And I take THAT as the highest of compliments. Thank you.

[noeticknight]

Originally Posted by A.W. Bowman

I finally decided to listen to the entire sermon. While I did stop and recording a number of times and took notes about specific comments, I will just give a quick overview of my observations.

1. If preachers do not continually preach on standards, the congregation will backslide.
2. Revival is a product of religious performance. The more energetic the performance the greater the revival will be.
3. When revival comes you will know it by the changes one makes in their outward appearance.
4. TV is evil – but the Internet and computers are not mentioned (accepted by pulpit silence).
5. The attitude of the minister is good (accepting of all holiness standards, as defined by the organization), and all other attitudes are wrong. A whole list of things to ‘preach against’, but nothing to preach in support of.
6. Preach the word was the call – but in this sermon, the word was all but ignored. Rather, the sermon was on what ministers could/should be accomplishing - that was the focus – Not Christ or what He could accomplish.

Summation: The focus is on men and their efforts and accomplishments – not on Jesus, His message and what He will accomplish. Except in a couple of prayers and a scriptural reference, the name of Jesus was mentioned perhaps 1-2 times. There were a number of Praise God, Thank God, Thank the Lord and Praise the Lord statements, but always as a side note, but not as the subject.

Bottom line:"It is amazing what these Americans can accomplish without God."

Conclusion. I have no idea what the other preachers had to offer during this conference, but this sermon was all about justifying an organization’s holiness standards, and nothing to do with the gospel or empowering folks to enhance their relationship with God. Just receiving the approval of the pastor. I assume that was the intent all along. That being the case, it was a wasted hour.

-------------
The organ playing? it was as good as the message that was preached.

I believe your conclusion of the message is right on target.

I have not participated in that theater for some time, but listening to it a few minutes triggered that suffocating religious experience I endured for too long of a time.

I agree though, the point and delivery of the message seemed to be rooted in carnal thinking. For the speaker, performance, outward appearances, and physical externalities are the measurement tools of choice which were carefully crafted to be viewed as ultimate determinants of spiritual salvation. In the aggregate sense, it is an organizational call to arms against all outside or inside forces which threaten to compromise “their” message of “truth.” The theme was as divisive as tone was intimidating. Perhaps the standard of Christ has been ignored amidst a competitive effort to prove that “their” banner is supreme.

Put simply, this is the manner and method of religious speech that cripples and stymies the development of healthy independent thought. I was astonished and saddened that the congregants corporately rejoiced to such bold and violent commandments suspended over nothingness. To subject oneself to such repetitive programming is to slowly become numb to proper logical discourse or shall we say, just good sensible reasoning? How would the need to “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to a room full of Rabbis able to trace their ancestry all the way back to those beard-wearing Levites (who were btw, the only ordained of God to receive tithes)? How would “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to the beloved King David who must have been fond of his royal mane having seen Hanun exact shame on his men by removing a portion of theirs? And how does “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to Christians today when history tells us the very central figure of the Christian faith most likely held to the Jewish tradition and grew what the Father made genetically possible whether for aesthetics or for gender distinction or for purposed evolutionary functions? But I digress…

Indeed, this is the game and these are the players. For those Pentecostal slogans which claim to own God’s special favor and love, it’s difficult to see minding the arrows and swords protruding from the bodies of their kin. Oh wait, did someone say I can trade my loyalty for some chain mail armor? Which battlefield are we on anyway?

[A.W. Bowman]

Thanks noeticknight -

I do not use this as a justification for my beard, but as a point of reference for exposing extra biblical, man made doctrines:

Isaiah 50 is generally accepted by most Christian Bible teachers to be a true Messianic passage, yet some choose to ignore the second half of verse 6, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting."

Well, it looks as though we found a prophesy, that according to a few, Jesus did not fulfill. And that one fact alone disqualifies Him from being the true messiah! Even so, if He did fulfill this prophecy, was not Jesus also a true apostle?

Apostle definition - a person sent by another; a messenger; envoy. This word is once used as a descriptive designation of Jesus Christ, the Sent of the Father (Heb. 3:1; John 20:21). It is, however, generally used as designating the body of disciples to whom he entrusted the organization of his church and the dissemination of his gospel, "the twelve," as they are called (Matt. 10:1-5; Mark 3:14; 6:7; Luke 6:13; 9:1). 17:8; 20:21) - from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

The question that stays with me is this, "Why do we seem to spend more time teaching on Paul and the doctrines of men, developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, than we do on teaching Jesus Christ and his eternal doctrines?

[DAII]

Originally Posted by CC1

mmbcox,

I just wanted to tell you that I am glad you are here to represent the old time Oneness Pentecostal viewpoint.

What a pathological obsession Still missing Epley?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by noeticknight

I believe your conclusion of the message is right on target.

I have not participated in that theater for some time, but listening to it a few minutes triggered that suffocating religious experience I endured for too long of a time.

I agree though, the point and delivery of the message seemed to be rooted in carnal thinking. For the speaker, performance, outward appearances, and physical externalities are the measurement tools of choice which were carefully crafted to be viewed as ultimate determinants of spiritual salvation. In the aggregate sense, it is an organizational call to arms against all outside or inside forces which threaten to compromise “their” message of “truth.” The theme was as divisive as tone was intimidating. Perhaps the standard of Christ has been ignored amidst a competitive effort to prove that “their” banner is supreme.

Put simply, this is the manner and method of religious speech that cripples and stymies the development of healthy independent thought. I was astonished and saddened that the congregants corporately rejoiced to such bold and violent commandments suspended over nothingness. To subject oneself to such repetitive programming is to slowly become numb to proper logical discourse or shall we say, just good sensible reasoning? How would the need to “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to a room full of Rabbis able to trace their ancestry all the way back to those beard-wearing Levites (who were btw, the only ordained of God to receive tithes)? How would “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to the beloved King David who must have been fond of his royal mane having seen Hanun exact shame on his men by removing a portion of theirs? And how does “…preach against facial hair on men!” sound to Christians today when history tells us the very central figure of the Christian faith most likely held to the Jewish tradition and grew what the Father made genetically possible whether for aesthetics or for gender distinction or for purposed evolutionary functions? But I digress…

Indeed, this is the game and these are the players. For those Pentecostal slogans which claim to own God’s special favor and love, it’s difficult to see minding the arrows and swords protruding from the bodies of their kin. Oh wait, did someone say I can trade my loyalty for some chain mail armor? Which battlefield are we on anyway?

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and it was ordained of God.
There is more Bible for facial hair, than against it. However, the Bible for it also is against rounding the corners, which means it needs to grow, uncut, I believe.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by DAII

Only if you agree not speak against the President.

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I'll take that... are you up for it?

I'll agree not to speak against the President or what he says and you agree not to speak against other UPCI, WPF etc brethren or what they say.

Is that a deal?

Si?

No?

Tal vez sea así? (Google translator... so... if it's wrong... sorry. )

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and it was ordained of God.
There is more Bible for facial hair, than against it. However, the Bible for it also is against rounding the corners, which means it needs to grow, uncut, I believe.

A small correction. The ten percent that Melchizedek received from Abraham was a gift, not a payment, see Gen 14:20. Second, the gift was a portion of the spoils of war, of which Abraham did not plan on keeping anything for himself. The other 90% he gave away to the king of Sodom. Third, neither this freewill gift to Melchizedek nor the gift to the king of Sodom were God mandated.

The other frequently used tithing example from the pre-law period is the promised tenth by Jacob to God (Gen 8:22), which was offered to God as a barter (a conditional gift). These are the things we don't know, for sure: (1) If Jacob ever made good on his promise. (2) If this was a one time gift or something else, (3) How he was to make good on the promise, i.e. to whom was Jacob to make the payment and in what manner (crops, cattle, gold, people, etc.) was the promise to be fulfilled.

There are no scriptures against facial hair on men and the problem of women not cutting or trimming their facial hair is not addressed at all, unless they too take the Nazirite vow. However, you are correct concerning the uncut beards - for members of the Levitical priesthood.