Are All Oneness Christians Apostolic By Default?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

They both have more hope of salvation than the so-called Apostolic who has cast away their convictions for holiness.

The meth addict, upon salvation will have a heart pliable for holiness and the holy living Trinitarian Pentecostal lives a life that suggests that God really is at work in their lives.

Why do you assume they cast anything away? That is, that they consciously believed something--say, they had a conviction about uncut hair--but then quit teaching it. That sort of thing sounds much more sinister than what is likely the truth: they just didn't ever find the argument for uncut hair compelling.

Besides 1 Cor 11, in your opinion what other passages teach uncut hair? Not long hair, but explicitly uncut.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Why do you assume they cast anything away? That is, that they consciously believed something--say, they had a conviction about uncut hair--but then quit teaching it. That sort of thing sounds much more sinister than what is likely the truth: they just didn't ever find the argument for uncut hair compelling.

Besides 1 Cor 11, in your opinion what other passages teach uncut hair? Not long hair, but explicitly uncut.

That's basically what I said. They could come from a church that says the KJV is clear enough, you don't have to study the original language. We believe the KJV translation to be clear enough. Which you can't even see this clear enough unless you get in the original language.

I think this kind of thing is the outcome of something like that, and we should see the dangers that lie within that sort of teaching. I do believe if people know of the teaching and are just in open rebellion to it, it could be a salvational issue. But otherwise, I don't believe anything of the sort. For its God who is the judge of the thoughts and the intents of the heart. For you can be right in doctrine and walk sprightly before Him, and your heart be not perfect before Him. We see that all throughout the book of Kings and Chronicles.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

That's basically what I said. They could come from a church that says the KJV is clear enough, you don't have to study the original language. We believe the KJV translation to be clear enough. Which you can't even see this clear enough unless you get in the original language.

I think this kind of thing is the outcome of something like that, and we should see the dangers that lie within that sort of teaching. I do believe if people know of the teaching and are just in open rebellion to it, it could be a salvational issue. But otherwise, I don't believe anything of the sort. For its God who is the judge of the thoughts and the intents of the heart. For you can be right in doctrine and walk sprightly before Him, and your heart be not perfect before Him. We see that all throughout the book of Kings and Chronicles.

Well said, God is indeed the judge. On the issue of uncut hair in particular I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they just are not convinced that this passage demands uncut hair. It is not that they see it plainly in this passage but don't teach it lest they lose people, etc.

And you point out one of the reasons for this willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt: it is unclear in the KJV and other modern versions. Of course many would argue it is unclear in the Greek as well.) Now this should give us pause. If there is ambiguity in this passage--and I don't think it can be denied since good hearted people study the matter and disagree over the meaning--we might want to treat people kindly over this. We might want to treat people kindly in general. :-)

The reason I asked Bucky, and feel free to respond yourself, to list verses besides 1 Cor 11 explicitly about uncut hair is that in general it seems people base their teaching on this one passage alone, and that is generally not a sound hermeneutical move.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Well said, God is indeed the judge. On the issue of uncut hair in particular I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they just are not convinced that this passage demands uncut hair. It is not that they see it plainly in this passage but don't teach it lest they lose people, etc.

And you point out one of the reasons for this willingness to give people the benefit of the doubt: it is unclear in the KJV and other modern versions. Of course many would argue it is unclear in the Greek as well.) Now this should give us pause. If there is ambiguity in this passage--and I don't think it can be denied since good hearted people study the matter and disagree over the meaning--we might want to treat people kindly over this. We might want to treat people kindly in general. :-)

The reason I asked Bucky, and feel free to respond yourself, to list verses besides 1 Cor 11 explicitly about uncut hair is that in general it seems people base their teaching on this one passage alone, and that is generally not a sound hermeneutical move.

Well this word "komaō" is only used in 1 Corinthians 11,nowhere else.

[Bro Flame]

I want to clarify that these ladies are not chopping their hair off to compete with the latest fashions. The majority of them have hair well past their shoulders, but it has obviously been cut because it is usually straight across the bottom. Some of them may even have their hair in layers, but it is still, by general definition, long.

Speaking of 1 Corinthians 11:15:
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

I've heard this one verse deciphered many different ways, as I'm sure you all have, too. In some cases, some people interpret "long hair" as clear enough that ladies are to have longer hair than men, but that they can still keep it cut and manageable. In other cases, I have heard people take "but if" from the beginning to justify their claims that a woman can have any length of hair, long or short. This will depend on her personal preference according to these groups. And lastly, the majority of classical holiness Apostolic Christians interprets this verse as evidence a lady should never cut her hair. My Pastor, for example, is one of the many Apostolic preachers around that teachers this verse, when properly researched, proves ladies aren't to cut their hair.

As a personal belief, I do believe ladies are to have longer hair than men. That's a given. It's another symbol of clear gender distinction between the sexes. I personally do not see anything wrong with a lady keeping her hair a manageable length by cutting it somehow. I'm not meaning chopping it off to the point that there's almost nothing there, but keeping it somewhere between past her shoulders and between her elbows. But, the problem with that theology is, how long is long? Is the pastor to measure his ladies' hair? That would be legalistic and very cultish. And I don't go for either of that. I suppose that's why my Pastor and many others have researched it, and say "don't cut it".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

Bucky is a guy name and I am Bucky.

I thought you were living in Wakanda and just received a new vibranium arm?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

First of all, to speak of an unholy Apostolic is a misnomer, but for the sake of this conversation, the only way an unholy Apostolic can exist would be for that unholy man to be living in a place of rebellion-- which is witchcraft.

I Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Just as God rejected Saul, it is not far-fetched to look at unholy Apostolics as rejected by God.


So these so-called unholy Apostolics have the Truth you say. Yes, they have been invited to the Great Banquet. They will come in and attempt to have a seat only to have the king throw them out of the venue because they are not properly dressed for the event. Yes, this is what you would call a double entendre-- because I am speaking about physical clothing (for the earthly, unholy Apostolics' unholiness does not and will not stop with cut hair) and spiritual clothing as well because the rebellious are not clothed in righteousness.

Matthew 22:11 - 14
11 But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. 13 Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

First of all, the cutting off from God doesn't end there. Exodus 22:18 gives you a job as well. Which means you are to put the rebellious one to death.

Bucky?

How's is that accomplished?

Matthew 22:11-14

Is parallel they were Revelation 6:11 has nothing to do with clothes.

It has to do with purity in the law.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Why do you assume they cast anything away? That is, that they consciously believed something--say, they had a conviction about uncut hair--but then quit teaching it. That sort of thing sounds much more sinister than what is likely the truth: they just didn't ever find the argument for uncut hair compelling.

Besides 1 Cor 11, in your opinion what other passages teach uncut hair? Not long hair, but explicitly uncut.

What other passages teach that you are to be as completely mature as the Father? Matthew 5:48

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

First of all, the cutting off from God doesn't end there. Exodus 22:18 gives you a job as well. Which means you are to put the rebellious one to death.

Bucky?

How's is that accomplished?

Matthew 22:11-14

Is parallel they were Revelation 6:11 has nothing to do with clothes.

It has to do with purity in the law.

Clothing is mentioned because it is something the audience could identify with. When you are called to a wedding, show up at the wedding clothed in apparel appropriate for a wedding. Do not act as if the connection I have made is lost on you.

It isn't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBukaroo

Clothing is mentioned because it is something the audience could identify with. When you are called to a wedding, show up at the wedding clothed in apparel appropriate for a wedding. Do not act as if the connection I have made is lost on you.

It isn't.

I understand that you were vaporized by Thanos, that Cap was shocked at losing you. But, please understand what clothed means in the verse. It means that they were worthy to attend. It is symbolism not literalism. I believe in standards of separation, probably more than you, especially since you are from Ohio. But you can't use that scripture to prove that we should all wear white robes.