"Power Before the Throne" by Ruth Reider

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the wonderful name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

I have just read Ruth Reider's book Power Before the Throne. And in defense of Sis. Reider, I have to say that she has been grossly misrepresented by those who oppose her stance on hair.

Those here who have opposed her position have done so by saying that she says a woman's UNCUT hair has "magical" powers of some sort.

That's not what I read or gleaned from her book. There is a constant theme throughout her book, and that theme is the same theme that I have been pushing here; that being Headship, God-given authority IN THE HOME, and Submission. The POWER she ascribes to a woman's UNCUT hair is based upon a woman's submission in her heart to God and the things of God.

Nowhere did I read in her book where she ascribes POWER to women and/or their hair without there being a right heart toward God and His order for things.

Let me share a couple clips from her book, Power Before the Throne:

(pg.21) "Apostle Paul said to be a follower of him and also follow him as he follows Christ...In I Corinthians 11:3, Paul lays out God's order and line of authority for the Church. It is as follows:

- GOD (Spirit)
- CHRIST (the Sonship-the man Christ Jesus in submission to God the Father)
- MAN
- WOMAN"

(pg.22) "One day while on the job, a woman asked my sister Beth why she didn't cut her hair. Beth said that it was a sign of submission to her husband."

(pg.22) "Headship and submission do not imply superiority and inferiority but rather responsibility and relationship. The husband is the head of the wife in the sense that he is responsible for her protection, her provision, and her guidance (Ephesians 5:23, 25-28, 31, 33 and I Peter 3:7). God never intended for the husband to treat the wife as an inferior slave or a doormat under his feet. He is to love and cherish her as Christ does the Church.

"A wife is to ALLOW (emphasis added) her husband to fulfill his role, submitting to his loving, sacrificial leadership as the church submits to Christ. Ephesians 5:22, 24, 33 and I Peter 3:1, 5-6 explain what the woman's response should be to her husband's leadership. Women are not inferior to their husbands, but they do have a different role. Husbands and wives work together for a beautiful home."

(pg.25) "When God tells a woman not to cut her hair in the context of God's order and she rebels by cutting her hair, she then assumes the position of the man, who is commanded by God to show his submission through an uncovered head or cut hair. In so doing, she usurps the position of the man and is out of her position in God's order."

In reference to 1 Corinthians 11:7, on pgs. 27-28, she says, "This Scripture says that the woman is the glory of the man. Glory means: 'a highly praiseworthy or brilliant asset; something that secures praise or renown; resplendence, magnificence.' Wives are the resplendent, majestic beauty of their husbands. She is an asset to him that secures praises and brings honor to him. The actions of a woman can make or break a good man. Proverbs 12:4 tells us, 'A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.' A crown is a symbol of authority, majesty, and glory. Paul uses two contrasting words, shame and glory, to describe the consequences of our actions. Cut hair on a woman shows a rejection of authority and brings shame while uncut hair is a recognizable attribute of a glorious and honorable woman. The cutting of a woman's hair is an outward symptom of an inward condition called lack of submission. "

(pg.34) "Our hair and our dress are an outward sign of our inward condition. We are either occupying our place in God's order, or we are trying to stage a role reversal."

(pg.58) "God commands the woman not to usurp authority over the man in I Timothy 2:12, 'But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.' This Scripture has long been misunderstood and has been interpreted as saying that women are not allowed to speak in a church setting. If you examine the context in which it is written, Paul is referring to the marital relationship going all the way back to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. When a woman desires the things of the world, she can manipulate her husband to accept her desires for worldliness in things such as cutting her hair, and wearing make-up and jewelry. Using her power of persuasion over her own husband, she bends him to her wishes. Then she has usurped his authority, and there is no holiness in her heart as it is now inhabited by the spirit of vanity. Like Adam, the man is placed in the difficult position; he now must choose between the will of God and the will of his wife."

(pg.66) "A woman's hair signals to the spirit world whether she is in rebellion or in submission. Is she in her correct place in God's order?...The woman's hair displays the influence that controls her life."

The point to all this is just to prove that what Sis. Reider is endorsing is God's order: Headship, God-given authority IN THE HOME, and Submission. And that the outward manifestation of that is related through a woman's uncut hair (and she even ties women wearing pants to this too in her book).

In this book, she does make some TYPOLOGIES of women's hair, but it is still within the confines of God's order of Headship, God-given authority IN THE HOME, and Submission. Nothing she says in her typologies is OUTSIDE of that. It all ties right back into it.

As much as I tried to find something I could disagree with, I could not; afteral, Bro. Yohe, I mean Faithchild chided me for "parroting" Sis. Reider BEFORE I had read any of her materials, so I tried to find something to disagree with her about to prove him wrong, and I didn't find anything. She is in line with my position.

So, there you radical, left-wing, liberals go; fire away. I have read and I have agreed. In her defense, you have grossly misrepresented her position.

(Before I close, let me get back in my trench and take cover before the warfare begins all over again :D .)

God Bless!

[foreverblessed]

I have read all of her books, and she is a family friend. While I respect her, I cannot agree with everything she writes.

I do not believe everything to the extent that she believes.

There is a part in her book that she makes reference to a women who trims her hair, and she blames the breakdown of that women's marriage on her hair being trimmed. I cannot and will not ever believe that God would punish anyone for trimming their hair by their husband leaving them and having an affair. That punishment does not fit the crime!!! What father would ever cause allow that much pain in someones life because of a women chosing to cut their hair?? Not the heavenly Father I know! If they had breakdown of their marriage, it was because of the sin in the heart of that husband.

The women will have to answer to her pastor as far as her not being submitted to his authority and standard that he has for his congregation. Someone's sin does not cause someone else to sin.
I am not on my home computer, but several scriptures come to mind, I am still at school, I don't have access right now to the internet at home. I would just love to blast you right back out of the water!!! :) LOL

Another place in the book she refers to people being kept safe by their Mother's hair being uncut. I think she makes reference to Steve Richardson being kept from a horrible accident because of his Mother's hair. Hog wash!!!!

Bro. Richarson was kept through the power of his own walk with God, his own prayer life, and faithfulness to God. He is single.

All power that is given us, whether it is healing, protecting, or saving power is afforded to us as the children of God, because we have faith in the power of his blood shed on Calvary.

We are to be obedient to God, and through obedience there is blessings. This goes for both men and women.

There isn't any special power afforded to the hair. A wife being in submission to her husband and putting him and God in the proper place of headship, however does provide power with God in prayer. Oh, but then again, so does your willingness as a man to Love, honor and cherish your wife as Christ loves the church!! Why??? we are being obedient to the scripture and will of God. What is it??
Obedience is greater than sacrifice??? I am going to have to memorize scripture......

Honor God with your life and obedience to him, and watch him keep you covered in his blessings, his protection, and everything afforded to you by the blood he shed for us! His children!

[nytxn1971]

I thought standards were not really to be discussed...
At least I'd hoped they wouldn't be...
*sigh*

[ThirdGeneration]

Hebrews- Sorry to disappoint you; but I don't have the time. :D

However I have great confidence in Foreverblessed to "blast you out of the water!" :sb:

[ThirdGeneration]

Nytxn- Nobody makes you read it!

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Sis.ForeverBlessed, it would appear that we "conservatives" don't speak clear enough for you radical, left-wing, liberals :D to understand what we're trying to say.

I repeat (from the old Cafe), the hair, in and of itself, has no power. Just like water, in and of itself, has no literal power to wash us and cleanse us in baptism.

Just like baptism is a typology of the death and burial of Jesus Christ, through which God has chosen, to plant us in the likeness of His death and burial; baptism is a LITERAL IDENTIFICATION with the death and burial of Jesus Christ IN THE EYES OF GOD.

So, hair too, is a typology. Let me quote from Sis. Reider's book again, (pgs.66-67):

" The only other place where you see these three components mentioned together - the covering, the angels, and the glory - is in the Ark of the Covenant. The mercy seat covered the testimony, the law. The cherubims, the angels assigned to guard the glory, covered the mercy seat and, indeed, were attached to it. Dwelling in the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God. If ever the covering, the mercy seat, was removed from the Ark, the angels were removed with it. They were attached to the covering. The glory, mercy, and presence of God were removed as well, leaving only naked law, no mercy. To forfeit the covering was to forfeit the divine protection!

"The token of our New Testament salvation is the blood applied through baptism in Jesus' Name. Without the covering of the blood, we are exposed to naked law without mercy. The woman's hair is a type and shadow of the covering that Jesus provided for His Church. Not submitting to typology can be disastrous. (Just ask Moses.)

"The woman, as God created her, is a picture of the Church - the Law on the inside; the covering of her submission to that law on the outside; the mercy and the angels covering her; and the glory and the presence of God dwelling over, around, and in the midst of her! The woman's uncut hair is a part of what makes her visible and recognizable as the covered bride of Jesus Christ."

Sis.ForeverBlessed, it is a type and shadow. Just like baptism is. A woman who cuts or trims her hair IS BREAKING (not submitting to) the typology laid out in Scripture, and we know that breaking typology is what kept Moses OUT OF the Promise Land.

The POWER is afforded through a submissive heart, outwardly demonstrated through the uncut hair. Let me reiterate here for a moment, an UNSUBMISSIVE heart, whether the hair is uncut or not, still has NO POWER.

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth AND IS (emphasis added) baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The emphasis in this Scripture is belief AND baptism. Jesus explains that with the second half of the Scripture when he added "he that believeth not...". In other words, belief ALONE will not save you. You must believe AND be baptized.

The reverse also being true, you have to believe BEFORE you are baptized, otherwise, you're just getting wet; no salvation for you.

The same thing is true with the hair issue. HAIR ALONE has no power. Submission ALONE has no power. You cannot be submissive to the things of God and still rebel and disobey against His word. Obedience and submission go hand in hand. Just like, "faith without works is dead."

So, a woman, who is in submission to her God AND is obedience to His Word with UNCUT hair, will have POTENTIAL power before God in prayer.

What do I mean by POTENTIAL power? We have to pray according to the will of God. If OUR will, or the will of the person we're praying for, IS AGAINST the will of God, GOD WILL NOT ANSWER our prayers. Thus, if a wife, who is in perfect submission to God and her husband, and is being a praying wife, praying for her husband, trying to cover him with her prayers represented by her submission to God through uncut hair, IF her husband's will is against the will of God, in other words, he would rather live by the dictates of his own will, not submitting himself to the will of God, then God CANNOT prevent this man, who if he has it in his heart to commit adultery, by her prayers. Those prayers only had potential if ALL the parties involved had their will's submitted to God.

That being said, every man will be faced with such temptations and maybe even opportunities. If she is in perfect submission to God like I've described, AND her husband's will is in perfect submission to the will of God too, a wife's prayers will have power with God, and because all the parties are submitted to God, SHE CAN thwart the plan of the enemy to come in and destroy her family THROUGH PRAYER.

But, if she is in rebellion to God, her rebellion will manifest itself in her relationship with her husband, especially if he is submitting himself to God, because he will be the embodiment of what she's rebelling against, thus her rebellion will turn against him. Over a period of time, her rebellion against God, manifested in her rebellion against her husband, will cause the marriage to deteriorate to the point of possible adultery on his point, or just flat out divorce with or without the adultery.

Will this be just because she cut or trimmed her hair? Absolutely not. A woman can rebel against God without ever touching her hair. That is a rare case though because most women when they rebel against God is take the sissors to their hair, especially if they want to make a statement to their husbands about it.

But, it will be because of her rebellion against God, which manifest in her rebellious attitude toward her husband.

Sister, I've read enough books, lived through enough rebellion from my wife to know, a woman CANNOT rebel against God if her husband is living for God, without it ever affecting the marriage relationship; and visa versa. Marrital problems are the result of husband and wife not submitting to one another in the love of God.

Is a woman's uncut hair going to keep her husband from running off if he is outside the mind and will of God? No!

Is a man going to cheat on his wife JUST BECAUSE she up and cuts her hair? I don't believe so.

If either husband or wife is being unsubmissive to God, will it effect the marriage negatively? Absolutely!

If both husband and wife are living for God and submitting themselves to the will of God, do BOTH of them have power with God in prayer to cover their spouses with protection and blessing? Absolutely.

A woman's uncut hair through her obedience to the will of God reflects and demonstrates the power she can/will have with God.

A man's position of Headship IN THE HOME, through his obedience to the will of God, reflects and demonstrates the power he can/will have with God.

Okay, gotta run.

God Bless!

[nytxn1971]

Originally posted by ThirdGeneration
Nytxn- Nobody makes you read it!

I was simply expressing an opinion... no need to get snotty.

[ThirdGeneration]

And so was I....

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in Jesus name!

Hey Sis.3rd, HI! I mean no disrespect to you or Sis.Foreverblessed, but she couldn't argue her way out of a paper bag. Her arguments are as weak as yours :D . You never ANSWER questions with answers, but rather answer questions WITH QUESTIONS to try and REDIRECT the discussion to where you'd rather have it, avoiding the real issues.

Okay, I'm teasing you two. I couldn't resist the door you opened, sisters. The door was left wide enough for me to pull in a Mack truck; I apologize if I offended you (which I don't think I did; have to apologize for those around who may not understand some of our humor though)

God Bless!

btw, sister 3rd, I'm still waiting answers to my questions from the old Cafe thread you said you didn't have time for either. :D

[bill]

Did somebody say STANDARDS!:D

Brother Hebrews, isn't it great, that you and I both came to the SAME CONCLUSION as Sis Reider, although we had NEVER read her book? I read it afterwards and you're just now reading it. It sounds like the HOLY GHOST still speaks to those with an open heart! :)

Love you all!

[light]

I sometimes wonder why some people even bother going to church. (You noticed I didn't say serving God. You are not serving untill you summit.) Hell will be full of those that want to have there own way. It realy dosen't matter what the issue is.
Gods word is for ever settled. You and I obey or spend eternity with the devil.

Wouldn't it be a shame to go to hell over hair, when by obedience heaven awaits?

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in Jesus name!

Bro. Bill, I'll stand up and shout "Amen" to that!

You know brother, I do find it to be really ironic how the radical, left-winged, liberal, (and for some other topics of conversation) communistic, socialistic, anti-American, so-called Democrats all follow the same trains of thought; they misrepresent what conservatives say, picking out what they want to hear as being against their position, and ignoring the real issues behind it; making the results/consequences of a decision the issue rather than the issue itself.

(Sorry, I've been following the War and the anti-war protestors seem to be making alot of the news, and it's made me a little ornery today; I cannot believe some of these people. I'll try to stick with this issue though :D .)

Anyways, brother Bill, God Bless you with your ministry and your trying to do something for the Kingdom of God! Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.

God Bless!

[ThirdGeneration]

Hebrews! You are cruel indeed. Quit trying to bait me when my plate is so full.

I usually do not enter into these kinds of discussions without much thinking and studying; so they take alot of my time. But if you insist, I have got a great post ready for you.... I was just waiting for a time, when I had more time.

In regard to the mack truck issue- I only stated what some argued; not what I believed. My point was simply that the most authoritative garment of clothing a woman wears is a business jacket, not pants as some have suggested (and thus concluded she should not wear).

So, I have no problem with wearing clothes that conservative women wear in our culture. I do not think they show a woman is or is not submissive to her husband any more than a person being labeled a Christian because they wear a cross or don't.

Btw- It is true that I ask questions of other posters, but I believe I answer the questions too. And I certainly answer those directed at me, unless the board changes over to a new format and the topic doesn't come up....

No dear brother. You did not offend me. You are still one in a million! (Take that anyway you want)!

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in Jesus name!

Sis.3rd, I'm sorry to pester you, but you still haven't answered my question.

I'll repeat it just in case you forgot :D :

By your definition of what you think is the authoritive garment, that being a suit jacket; do you violate your own definition of what garment usurps authority over a man by wearing a suit jacket yourself? You have told the courtroom here :D that that's the way you know how to ensure the waiter hands you the check rather than your husband.

If you're going to argue that that's not what Deut. 22:5 is saying in your defense TO wear a suit jacket, then since we know what you don't think it means, could you tell the rest of us what you DO think it means?

I'll take "you're one in a million" comment as a compliment; Thank you honoring me in such a way! :D

God Bless!

[ThirdGeneration]

Hebrews- I have got a housefull of kids. I will have to catch you later tonight.

Btw- Indeed it was a compliment!

[Hnovilla]

His Name is Jesus!

There is DEFINITELY 'Power Before the Throne'. I know; I've been there.
At first I didn't know where I was. I was deep in prayer when I felt myself FLYING through space at an incredible speed! Way deep in space before me was a very small dot, like a period at the end of a sentence. The more I flew, the closer I got; until the dot was no more. It began taking on a 'form', until I SAW the OUTLINE of a man.
I FLEW straight past the bosom of the outline, until I found myself kneeling in prayer in a GREAT, HUGE, room. I instinctively KNEW that every man, woman, and child that was ever born, or who would ever be born, could 'fit' in there. However, I did not automatically grasp that to be of the Lord. I asked Him that if that was of Him, to show me in scripture. Whereupon He led me to this verse: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the HOLIEST by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..." (Hebrews 10)
Years later, that vision was brought to mind by a beautiful hymn. Maybe some of you have heard the hymn by our Brother in Scottsdale, Az: "...when I looked past the veil it was easy to see, He's my Lord and my God..."

Brother Villa

[ddc101]

I do not disagree with you Hebrews but I have to ask
How is it that if the woman is a type of the church that the men who are also a part of the bride have to cut their hair? I believe the Lord said in Ephesians that marriage is this type:

Eph 5:30-33
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
(KJV)

Big difference...I teach proper roles for men and women.Men with long hair toss their hair in a very effeminate way.They take on the walk and vanity of a woman.Women also take on the masculine role very easy and we need to guard against it.Also history teaches us that in the U.S.Of A women did not cut their hair until rebellion hit the scene.I do not want to ever identify with rebellion.We can teach this stuff without a bunch of types and shadows.What we need is to make the word plain and not blame the women when they question the teaching if we do not.
lv sis.c

[ThirdGeneration]

Hebrews- Actually I said that if I wore a business suit, the waiter would not automatically hand the check to my husband [because it would get placed in the middle of the table].

I really tried to answer your question in the post above your last post. I don't think that clothing (in most cases) says anything at all about submission to one's husband. I believe that IF it did; the jacket conveys 1000x more authority than pants. I wondered aloud why the anti-pants posters never picked up on the article of clothing most closely connected with power and authority.
What don't you understand about my answer?

Just for you, I will start a new thread in regard to my take on Deuteronomy 22:5. I thought you would never ask!

[Faithchild]

Hebrews 116, I'm trying to work up the interest needed to get into this discussion. If you read her books with an analytical eye instead of as a member of her choir, you'll see that it's all a bunch of conjecture, guilt-by-association, and allegorical poppycock. She rose to prominence by being Bro. Urshan's insane niece. (We all have them in our families. I'm the one in my family). Only her brother, Stephen Schimdt is crazier, curiously enough, he's on the other side of the philisophical debate. I'm going to try to find her books in the garage. I just drove in at midnight from Alexandria, Louisiana (900 miles). My wife would kill me if I got involved with this stuff tonight. Later.

[Faithchild]

Open heart? How about empty head? It amazes me how Apostolic political conservatives have such a liberal big church government approach to Christianity! Later.

[searching]

Foreverblessed, you made the statement that Ruth Rieder said that Steve Richardson was saved by his mother's hair. I was honored to know his mother shortly before she passed. However, if her hair was that powerful, I believe that it would have kept him from being such a bad diabetic. If you know him even a little, I'm sure you are aware of his health problems. He is a wonderful man, and I don't know why God allows him to suffer like he does, but God knows all, and I know that he loves Steve very much!

Me...

[bill]

FC,

Where in the world did you get such an idea that I would contact your presbyter????? Never done that and really don't care to. Besides, if I know the upci, and I think I do, nothing would get done anyway! And btw, your name was never mentioned when I invited Sis Reider to defend her honor against your character asassination. I merely noted that her books were being spoken about. It appears as though she is unwilling to engage with non thinking liberals parroting about the same old liberal anti-Biblical nonsense. I can't say I blame her!

[Xerf]

Insane and crazy---now there's a novel way of debating someone's doctrinal teaching--just write em off as lunatics!
Way to go FC! If ya can't deafeat their teaching then murder thier character!

[Faithchild]

Hoist by my own pitard, eh, Xerf? It's more of a been there, done that. Your point doesn't apply because RR isn't guilty of writing about doctrine just her own opinion. The reason RR won't engage in discussion is what her books also reveal from a biblical stand point, she has nothing to say. In a Bible-based discussion she wouldn't last in an exchage of five posts with ThirdGen (who has thoroughly researched this subject).

[stmatthew]

I ask with Paul.......... "Having begun in the spirit, are we now made perfect in the flesh??"


Are we saved because of what we do, or because of what he did??

just axing :)

[bill]

FC,

Please forgive all us poor "crazy and insane" "empty headed" apostolics who haven't as of yet achieved your level of supposed intellectual snobbery so as to meet your judgmental standards of approval! May we all be deemed worthy to sit at your feet and learn the secrets of how to reach a lost and dying world! We are hardly even worthy to be addressing you since we don't "measure up" and since we're all just a bunch of crazy quacks who don't know what they're talking about.

We are hardly worthy, O Great One who possesses intellectual gifts far beyond what we may even comprehend!

:bow:

[ddc101]

You men are too funny.Drop the chit chat and get to business.Tell me why you think sis.R's books are so off and the particular one indiscussion please.I have never read her books.But sis.Forever has and hopefully will discuss one of them soon on the ladies forum.
Thirdgeneration,
Have you read these books by any chance? Would you share some of the stuff if you have.My husband says if they teach against stuff like wearing mixed fabrics and stuff not to waste precious bucks that can go on ss.material.I would really like to know.I personally like sis.Haneys Behold the Nazarite Woman alot.lv sis.c

[foreverblessed]

Searching,
I do know Steve Richardson, and the last time I saw him, he came and visited our church when ABI was here. He is on dialysis (*sp), and so was my father before he passed. I do know of his health problem.
In the book it makes reference to his Mother's hair keeping him for the bad auto accident. I think it is a crazy theory. I fail to see how someone wants to put soo much authority and power on this HAIR.

[ThirdGeneration]

Ddc- Yes, I have. Foreverblessed was gracious enough to share her books and a video with me. I have long since, sent them back.

I remember that I did not find her viewpoint persuasive. I do not have her material in front of me; so I am in no position to comment at this point.

I also remember that I was afraid my son was going to walk in at anytime and see her video playing. The lack of love and condemnation of women who did not see things her way, was not anything I wanted my son exposed to.

[foreverblessed]

ddc,

Email me with your address, and I will be glad to send you all three books, and her video. You can take your time reading them, I won't be in a hurry, and if I need one for some reason, I can find several copies in the church's library.
The video was taped at our church during a conference. The first night of the conference, she spoke on another subject and the presence of God was so strong in the place. The next day she gave her presentation and her take on the hair and standards. This was done in an entirely different manner. My sister brought a guest to the evening service, and made the comment later that she was soo glad that her friend didn't come the day of the video taping. She was afraid that she might never have attended an Apostolic church again.

I don't have the time to post on her third book right now, but I promise that I will give my thoughts on it at a later time. I did like her third book, although still in that book I don't agree with everything, and I also know that my dear friend HEBREWS116 wouldn't agree with everything in it either.

[foreverblessed]

Hebrews,

I am going to go through the book, and when I post, I am going to do it by stating the facts backed by scripture. You are being pretty unfair right now my friend, I am not able to be on my computer!! :realmad: (I am at the library right now, and I have a one hour limit :() I have a feeling your trying to torment me! :flame: You just wait, your gonna pay for calling me a liberal, and you just think I can't argue my way out of a paper bag. I will give it my best shot, hmm never know, I just might surprise you!

I actually would like to pray about it, I plan to read everything over (I am a fast reader) and pray about it.

As you already know, I have circumstances in my life right now, that this issue hits pretty close to home. I have spent time before God in prayer, and he spoke to me as clearly as I have ever had him speak to me that his protection was through his blood that he shed on Calvary not my hair. I will not ever let anything cheapen or come before the sacrifice he made giving his life.

I have to agree with DDC, There are God given roles being male/female. We should embrace them, and I don't think we need to be relying on typology's to inforce a dress and hair code.

Just wait, I'll be back, give me some time.... :bow:

[foreverblessed]

Nxtxn and anyone concerned,

I don't really consider this so much a standards thread. We are just discussing the contents of a book that I feel has been embraced by thousands of Apostolic women across this nation.

I think that there are many errors in her way of thinking. Why should they not be challenged. This is America, and we are entitled to free speech as long as Bro. John allows.

I at one time swallowed everything she wrote and was so proud that I was really doing something with my great "works" of keeping my hair sooo long and uncut. I took great pride in the sacrifice that I was making for my family to help keep my marriage, and family covered in with a special protection.

In the last seven months, I have went through the darkest trial of my life. I lost my marriage, and have gone through things I hope no one will ever have to go through. God has been there every way I turn, I have seen his hand of protection and comfort. He is a wonderful savior, he has provided my every need.

My hair however didn't protect and keep me from the horrible things that I have faced. My security blanket was ripped out from under me. I first became MAD! and in error wanted to just rebel completely. I can say that through all of this, I have learned to think outside the box, search the Word of God and live by the Word.

OH, and I also learned the all important lesson that I needed to be under the authority that God has placed over me, my Pastor.

[truemessianic]

I want to add my 2 cents worth here.
First off, the issue of standards is so divisive. It divides us to much. Let us remember holiness is what happens inwardly coming to focus outwrdly. It starts on the inside, and I do believe the outward appearance should reflect the inward transformation.
As for hair, I gotta say this. The issue of hair is real strifeful in a lot of the Body and should be left up to those who are humble enough to pray and hear the voice of God on this. I have my own opinions, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I will fellowship with you if your hair is cut.
Holiness is inward, not just outward. So, how about this one?
Galatians 5:19-26, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."

[servant]

"Hold the pickels, hold the lettuce,
special orders won't upset us...
have it your way at Burger King!"

Unfortunately, we're not talking about Burger King.

Serv :)

[ThirdGeneration]

Faithchild- LOL Thanks for your vote of confidence. Let your wife know that lunch is on me when you two get out my way!

[Faithchild]

Bill, now you're talking! I accept your heart-rending confession realizing that even lobotimized people have a need to cry out for understanding sometime. I know you feel better now that you were able to reveal the little bit of brain that the doctors left you. Confession is so good for the soul! We all seek our place in the Kingdom. Yours is obviously parroting the words of others (including mine). Happy chirping!

[Nathan]

I've read some of her material, and I must say -- I'm not a fan.

I feel that she points women away from their TRUE covenant and power with God -- that sealed by Jesus Christ at Calvary -- and places their trust in some ficticious misapplication from Scripture (uncut hair).

While I can appreciate the sincerity of her followers, I certainly can't agree with her dogmatic, condescending, and un-Christlike approach to the issue of outward adornment.

I have been writing extensively on 1 Cor. 11, and considered writing a response to "Power Before the Throne," but I haven't even begun to have the time lately. Maybe some day, huh? :)

Excellent reviews of some of her work can be found here:
LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN

The author of the "Power" review seems to be a bit preturbed, but get past it and you'll see just how much rubbish she's passing off as truth in her first book.

[Faithchild]

Btw, Bill, your signature quote didn't originate with Lee Stoneking. I don't know where it came from (it's a good one!) but my Dad was quoting that when Lee Stoneking was still prancing around in a ballet tutu doing pointe!

[ddc101]

Jim,
He was a tap dancer not in a tutu...Bro.Stoneking was working on a masters degree in tap.....lv sis.c

[ddc101]

Nathan,
What exact web site are these reviews posted on because they are terrible reviews.lv sis.c

[Nathan]

Sis. C,

I'm not sure. I don't really like the cynicism they portray, but the facts are pretty inescapable.

I especially like the "Power" reviewer's comments about his injury and his mother's hair compared to Reider's belief that a woman's uncut hair somehow protects her children.

I guess you just have to be a cynic or an analytical thinker to enjoy them. :)

God bless!

[searching]

DDC, the website he is referring to is one that will be taken off, as it's all about UPC bashing. I don't give any credence to that website, as I know about the woman who formed it, and I believe she is evil. MHO

Me...

[ddc101]

Bro.Nathan,
I would rather not read links that bash the brothers or sisters.We have enough to war from the enemy and sure don't need any more jabs.That website was more than cynical.It was mocking.lv sis.c

[John Atkinson]

The owner of the Spiritual Abuse web site does not believe that Jesus name baptism is essential for salvation.

A quote from the afforementioned site

I believe that a person is saved by grace through faith and that no act of righteousness on our part can ever make us right or holy in the sight of God. (Ephesians 2:8-9) When a person comes to God in faith and repents (acknowledging and turning away from acts that are wrong), they are forgiven of any and all sins and are now a believer. From here we are to continue to follow God and grow in our knowledge of him and his Word, exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit and not the works of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16-25)

GNC Rules:

Posting Links: We welcome links to Apostolic Web Sites and Bible Studies. However, Links that point to web sites or material that contain information or material that would be forbidden on this board in general discussion are not permitted. For example if a web page has content that states that "you can be saved without receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues", the link is not permissible.

No more links to this site are to be posted. Are we clear on this?

[Nathan]

ddc,

If I may be candid ... the review is not very respectful, no. But frankly, it shows as much respect for those who hold the standards as those who hold the standards show for everyone else.

There's no end to the derogatory things said about women who don't "look Apostolic." I've even heard them called reprobates. How ridiculous! Especially if they've never been taught anything else!

And yes, it did mock. It mocked the standards in the same way that many who follow them mock the relationship those who don't have with God.

My father still swears to this day that a woman can't know God if she has on makeup. Judgmental attitudes like that are what "the other side" is so sick of, and it shows in these reviews.

Overall, I just feel that we should take the good from the bad and realize that some of the truths the review presented were pretty hard hitting.

Again, the link was not meant to offend anyone, I'm just being as open as possible. God bless!

[ddc101]

Bro.Nathan,
A woman who knows God wouldn't have makeup on at all...she would have cried it all off in prayer.lv sis.c

[ThirdGeneration]

Wow! Ddc. That remark takes the cake....

[Marilee]

Ddc, thanks for the clarification. I have a cousin who went to ABI with Bro. Stoneking and I was always under the impression that he was a ballet dancer before coming to the Lord.

[ddc101]

Sometimes people lump ballet and tap all together in the same category.I guess I paid attention because for almost all of my elementary and highschool life I took dance classes.In fact I wanted to become an instructor.Bro.Cooper taught...get this..he taught DISCO DANCE at community college.Recently I saw just how ridiculous disco actually was.( I threw this in for all of you old Saturday Night Fever Fans.)
Third,
Chocolate or coconut...cake makes me hungry about right now.sis.c

[Faithchild]

Oops! I thought Marilee had logged out! Sorry, honey! Ddc, that ballet response was from me.

[ddc101]

For shame Bro.Yohe....pull up a chair we were about to say
Let them eat cake!Voila!

[Nathan]

ddc,

OK. ;) I'll leave that one alone. :)

[ThirdGeneration]

Ddc- I am pretty amazed by some of the things you are posting. It seems that you now value your opinion as equal to Scripture.....

You note that the hard core churches in your area look their noses down at your church because you do not adhere to their standards and then you turn around and imply that ALL women who wear make up do not have a relationship with God (or their tears would have washed the make up away).

Hellooooooo. Is anybody home? Can't you see yourself in the mirror? Does your lack of make up really mean that you have a better relationship with God?

You were a cheerleader; you were in dance; da da da da da.....

But you come down incredibly hard on everything that is not traditional Pentecost..... It is no wonder that we are losing our kids in astounding numbers.

Don't do as I did: don't even do the little tiny things that I can't find Scripture for..... Don't question it. Don't be a stumbling block.

Ddc- who is the stumbling block? To whom did Jesus direct his remarks continually? Wasn't it to those that already considered themselves the protectors of the religious culture in place?

It is the older, experienced saints who should be concerned about putting stumbling blocks in front of the younger...

Jesus said, " Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two fold more the child of Hell than yourselves (Matt 23:15).

I appreciate Bereans so much more than those with self-inflated opinions and party lines that are void of Scripture.

I am disappointed that you know longer seem to feel the same way. I am taking a break before I say more.....

[ddc101]

Sister Third,
What amazes me is your last remarks.You took what I said in the wrong spirit.lv sis.c

[bill]

Third,

You said "But you come down incredibly hard on everything that s not traditional Pentecost..... It is no wonder that we are losing our kids in astounding numbers. "

Now here you go again ignoring the fact that apostolics aren't the only ones who loose their 'kids'! Have you ever attended a non apostolic church? Don't know if you have, but I certainly have. And guess what? They complained of the same thing. And guess what? Every other denomination and Christian movement, with the exception of the Mormons and the JW's, complain of the same thing! Hmmm...

Could it be that teenagers who loose out with God loose out because they don't have a real relationship with Jesus? :eek:

Hmmmm....I think I may be onto something there! :idea:

[Xerf]

Apparently to stop "losing kids" we simply allow all the ungodliness and immodesty in the church and that way no one leaves the church to involve themselves in worldly activity------------------according to some.

Its like setting fire to the house to keep it from burning!

[ThirdGeneration]

Bill- Actually, I know for a fact that there are growing, thriving Willow Creek affiliate churches that are reaching young people and introducing them to Jesus. God can continue to lead them into truth (Hebrews 11:6).

So great is the impact of these churches on the youth; that either Newsweek or Time magazine did an article about a new trend regarding sex and teenagers this past Winter. They noted that there are actually more teenagers now, then 10 years ago who are saving sex for marriage because of evangelic churches.

I would have to believe that kids who want to keep themselves for marriage despite the mass media that undermines such thinking; do so because there has been some real change in their lives and they are seeking the heart of God.

If only our own youth would do the same.... But instead we keep handing them more and more rules. And they are running further and further from God, just as fast as they can.

Maybe those that have been in muck and mire need to keep these standards and traditions; because of their past associations. But I don't think we should force the extra weight and baggage on our young people.

It has not kept them from sexual sin. It has not kept them in the church. It has not brought them closer to God.

Don't do as I did; do as I say now. What garbage. In the mean time, our beautiful children are losing out with God.

[Xerf]

It is also a deceptive remark to make that all standard preaching churches are losing their youth, to make it all inclusive as if anyone preaching standards are destroying the youth in their churches, it simply is not so!
Some people repeat a thing Ad Infinitum until we are to believe that the remark is true.

[bill]

Third,

Sister, you are pointing to a few churches and ignoring the overwhelming statistics. Teens from all denominations are walking away from their churches. It all boils down to they simply don't have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The law was kept inside the ark of the covenant according to the o.t. If the ark symbolizes the Spirit of God, and I believe that it does, then we know that it is only in the Spirit that we can trully keep the laws of God. We cannot do it in the flesh. I know you see this. That being said, what you are telling me is that it's impossible for kids to keep all these "rules". And I agree.

But think of this, if we lowered our standards of not having sex before marriage, would we "retain" more teenagers? I think so! What if we said you could view porn and look at all kinds of filth on the T.V. and you can smoke and cuss and do drugs. Would we "retain" more teens? I think so! But what would the quality of these teens be?

The real question is this: Are we willing to compromise the Word of God in order to have more people?

Liberals are saying yes, but I say no. We can't do that. We have to realize that only in the Spirit can we trully keep the laws of God. We simply have too much flesh walking around wanting to have it's own way. What our teenagers need is not more "freedom", as you're calling it, what they need is a long prayer meeting and a real relationship with Jesus Christ. I tell you sister Third, that getting rid of our standards of holiness will not keep them in church.

Are you saying that getting rid of our standards will give them a relationship with God? Please say it a'int so sister!

Teens need a relationship with Jesus Christ! Keeping the laws of God will come easy after that is established. Remember, to the spiritual man holiness is what he longs for, but the carnal man hates holiness. To him, holiness is "rules" that he simply doesn't want. The carnal man doesnt' want to please God, but the spiritual man longs for God's presence! If holiness is legalistic and hard, it is because you are living and walking in the power of the flesh and not in the power of the Spirit!

In love,

Bill

[bill]

Xerf,

Your comments are wise and very true. I come from a church that didn't really keep the standards at all (and yes it was UPC). And do you know what? 80% of the youth group that I grew up with backslid within 1 year after they graduated from High School. It all boils down to relationship. A relationship must come first.

[ThirdGeneration]

Bill- I find your post outrageous.

1. I do not believe that Time or Newsweek was commenting on a trend that was occuring at a FEW churches. Sure most churches are losing kids. But those that plug into the real power of God and point the kids to a real relationship with God instead of man made rules are having impact in the kids' lives.

2. Not having sex before marriage is NOT a standard! I think it a tragedy that we don't know the difference between fornication and a man made standard.

Don't tell me it's ok that we are losing our kids because everyone else is too. Don't tell me that anyone has ever suggested that we should not teach against sin, so that we can retain them.

There is a stench in Pentecost..... I do not believe God is pleased with so many dead babies.

[Xerf]

Bill, your remarks concerning "relationship" seems to be the part that some are not seeing. It appears that it is the anti-standard group that is MORE dress concious than the standards group, because the anti-standard group equate EVERYTHING as having to do with dress, while true holiness churches realize that the outward manifestation is simply a byproduct of their inward devotion.

[nytxn1971]

Actuaolly, Xerf, your comment is as much of a broad generalization as you claim the 'anti-standard' group (your words, not mine) tends to use.

I personally don't follow most 'standards', but I do dress modestly. That is because I love the Lord and I don't want to displease him... not because my pastor tells me to, and I don't equate someone's dress with their committment to God.

That is told by their fruit (actions, attitudes, spirit, words) more than by their outward look.

I know people who don't fit the 'typical' pentecostal look, but have a beautiful spirit about them and bear much fruit. I also know many people who DO fit the 'typical' pentecostal look, and have the same sweetness about them and bear much fruit as well. Both have a deep level of committment to God...

[bill]

Third,

Tell me, if teens are leaving our churches because they don't like the standards, why aren't they going to some of the other non-standard churches that are available? Sure there are plenty!

Tell me!

I await with baited breath!

And btw, you ignored all of my points. Teens are leaving because they do not have a relationship.

And have you noticed, that the ones who are leaving are the ones who grew up in church? Hmmm...could that be telling us something?

[Xerf]

NX you speak in contrdiction of your own terms. "I do dress modestly. That is because I love the Lord and I don't want to displease him... " (your words not mine).

You seem to say that pleasing God is to dress modestly and then you reverse your remark and say that anyone can dress immodestly and please the SAME God........double speak.

Either God is pleased with a way or He is not. Vaccilation is always prevelant in confused theology.

[ThirdGeneration]

Well, actually Bill.... I suspect that by the time the kids have the ability to attend the church of their choice (you mentioned the age of 18 at your church) it is too late.

The damage has already been done. And yes, I have noticed it is the ones who grew up in church. That is why I am kicking and screaming.....

And no I did not miss your point. I agree. You have got to have a relationship with Christ. But all our kids get rules on top of rules.

[nytxn1971]

My point was that modesty does not equate to man's 'standards' or rules...

I'm not swaying from one side to the other, and I'm not double minded.

[bill]

Now third, for the first time, I think we are closer than we've ever been to agreeing on standards. Imagine that! haha

Whose fault is it that there is no relationship with Jesus? Is it really the leaderships fault? I think not! Every man will give account of himself before God. When you're heart is right, you want to please God and no "rule" is too hard for the spiritual man (only for the carnal man!)

And while it's true that pastors will also give account (Hebrews 13:17), I cannot see totally blaming everything on "rules" men of God set down. The bottom line is that rules are not the reason teens are leaving our churches.

I think you're emotions may be clouding your sense of reason and judgement here. You seem to be looking for a reason to escape holiness standards.

Consider this example: If you were to make a rule that your son had to pray a minimal time of 30 minutes each day, and that he HAD to read his Bible through each year, do you think he would follow easily? Of course he would kick and scream (if he's like mose kids) the whole way and not like it a bit. But, if you were to stress how that having a relationship with Jesus Christ is first and that we must talk to him, over time, he will develop a relationship with Jesus, a real relationship and not just a 'sunday' relationship. Know what I mean? When teenagers get a relationship right with God, all of these "rules" will follow easily. Teens are leaving the church because of a lack of a relationship with God, it has absolutely nothing to do with holiness.

[Truthseeker]

I think alot of kids leave due to parental skills or lack of them. we can't sit back and say they leave because of standards.
I was in a church that would be considered more conservative then any on this board. They don't believe in the internet, videos, and so on....., but they got the best youth group I ever seen for a church that size.

I've been to other churches that keep their standards and have globs of youth.

Third

You think about standards and youth is unfounded. Just say you don't believe in standards, but don't use youth leaving as an example.

I got saved when I was 19 and had no prob with the standards.and I was a little bondified heathen by 19.

Plus I think Parents can have poor parental skills, but then blame it on something. The biggest thing a parent can do is be an example and have a relationship with there kids. Anyhow that's another thread

[bill]

Bro Ron,

I stand with you, and I think most other people do too, when you say that we should look on the heart. But who can see the heart? Is it not desperately wicked and deceitful above all things? (Jeremiah 17:9) And if someone's heart is right, would they not want to dress in a way pleasing to Jesus (as you do)?

The old songs expresses it best, "Jesus on the inside working on the outside oh what a change in my life!"

As a side note, I would like to say that we have no business teaching things that we can't clearly back up with scripture. I feel, from my pesonal studies, that much of what is taught as far as "standards" are scriptural principles and must continue to be taught, in love.

[nytxn1971]

Unfortunately, bill, many times (and I'm not saying that is *most* of the time) they are not taught in love. Also, many people (again, not saying *most*) use them as a way to "judge" a person's walk with God and how "dedicated" or "consecrated" to God they are... This is a false way to do things.

Jesus said we need to pull the telephone pole out of our own eye before we can help our brother pull the splinter out of his eye.

Again, I'm not saying most people in apostolic churches do this, but you and I both know that many do. Unfortunately, those hypocrites ruin it for the ones who keep things in prespective and truly love God and people, and can see beyond the way a person looks and accept/love people who think and belive differently on things than they do.

[searching]

I want to post a little about my personal experience as a child that grew up in the church, then left as soon as I was old enough. I want to make the disclaimer that this is my experience in my church alone, and that I am not saying this happens in all or any other churches.

When I was a child, it was instilled into my brain that I was not allowed to do many things. Wearing pants, cutting my hair, and wearing makeup were the main points of what I was NOT to do. I did as I was told because my mommy said so, as she was also in the church.

At this period in my life, there were many young people 12-20 yrs. old. In a church of about 200, the young people who attended church at night filled about 4 pews. I was younger than they were, but I remember them all, and most of them didn't have parents that attended the church. They were Sunday School kids who came at night when they were old enough to drive themselves or had church friends that did.

As I got older, things got a little tougher. However, because I didn't know anything from the world, it wasn't that difficult for me as far as the "standards" went. Sad to say, there was more emphasis placed on how one appeared to the pastor, and not how the heart appeared to God. I was raised believing that men who wore beards were hell bound, women who wore sleeves higher than the elbow were immodest, and watching TV was just allowing the devil to rule your home.

As I entered my middle teens years, there were things that I wanted to do. It was about this time that the church started it's decline in numbers also. I would be invited to a bowling party, or roller skating, but wasn't allowed to go because of the "atmosphere" involved in those nasty vile places! There was nothing said about going to a restaurant that served alcohol, however.

I wore shorts under my skirts when I was in eighth grade so I could better fit in with my peers and take gym class. I had always sat out of gym class and was ridiculed my whole life because of that. After wearing shorts concealed underneath my clothes for about two weeks, my mother found out, and the beating I got for it was something I will never forget.

My pastor started a school at the church the year I graduated from elementary school, and my mom was so afraid that I would end up on drugs and pregnant while in ninth grade, that she put me in this school. It was the most horrific three years of my life! My mom now sees the error of what she did, but at the time, she was convinced by the pastor that if I didn't attend his school, I would probably end up in prison (this isn't a made up story, this is the truth).

The teens weren't allowed to do anything outside of church, and the church offered us nothing to do, except segregate us from each other (male and female), and my mother was blind to all of this.

I started working when I was 15, and if my mom thought that other teens would be a bad influence, she didn't see the adults in the working world aimed right at me! I had a good head on my shoulders though, and even though she didn't have enough faith in me to abstain from many things, although I did things behind her back, there were many things I didn't partake of because I chose not to.

I was a workaholic (it got me out of the house), and when I was 17, I was already out of school I graduated, but my diploma is only good for toilet use) and had five places of employment, two of them full time. On my off time, I would go to places I shouldn't have been and tell my mom I was working. She had no reason to believe otherwise, as I was always working anyway, and I always volunteered to work extra hours when the opportunity came along. It's only the grace and mercy of God that the things I engaged in didn't take over my life. Looking back, it was more a phase I was going through, and it only occured for about three years.

Just before I turned 18, I cut all my hair off, threw away all skirts and dresses, got my ears pierced not once, but three times each, bought makeup galore, became sexually active, started smoking and I did this change all in about one week! I quit church completely and wanted nothing to do with most of those people. The pastor informed everyone that they were not to have contact with me for any reason, and most of them didn't.

When I was 19, I landed in a mental ward at the local hospital for attempting suicide. I won't say that I really wanted to die permanently, but I did want to die and resume my life later. Seven months later, in the space of a month, I tried twice again, and was hospitalized both times. Nobody from the church visited me but a select few, and I made sure the pastor didn't find out, or he would have called them on the carpet (I know this because he had done it before to those who talked to me when they saw me on the street).

After having two children out of wedlock, I relocated and started once again attending church. I got rebaptised (I had gotten baptised at the age of six, and only because I saw other kids doing it, not because of repentence or understanding it) and spoke in tongues. Since I attended a UPC church, I believe that above all else, to obey my pastor, and I did. I was active in the choir and did all I could do for God.

I once visited my old stomping grounds, and asked a friend of mine who attended my old church long after I had left (I knew her through my mom) to attend a local church near her own, since they didn't have church that night, and I had friends I hadn't seen in many years there. She went with me, and when her pastor (my old pastor) found out, he told her that she wasn't to ever go to other churches with me, nor anywhere else for that matter. Now, he knew I was back into church, and to this day I have no idea why he said that to her. She no longer attends that church for other reasons.

There is so much more I could say, and I may have said too much already. I didn't say this to bash anyone in any way, so please don't take it as such. This is what I experienced, and I said all that to say this...

I have attended other UPC churches that are not as hard on standards as the one I attended. I am not saying that they don't uphold them, I am saying that it's not as important as having salvation. I attended a church in another state for a while, and I was amazed at the number of young people and young families that were there and living for God. The pastor NEVER preaches about standards, instead he has those who are new to the church (this means new in attending, not new to the concept) attend a class for six months, and in that class, standards and other things, such as tithing and the basics of salvation according to what the church believes, is taught at that time. The pastor also uses people who want a part in the church as soon as they are baptised and receive the Holy Ghost, even though they may not be "cleaned up" yet. This was also shocking to me, but he believed that God cleans folks up from the inside out, and I saw that happen to folks without the browbeating that I had happen to me. That church continues to grow due to other ministries they have, and I miss them all.

Ok, I got off the point a little bit, but what I have personally seen is that the Holy Ghost will lead us into all truth, and that's a promise in the Bible. If we place more emphasis on what one should look like instead of the salvation issues, it's not only children who leave when they get older, it adults who, after realizing that how holy you look is more important than speaking in tongues, leave because they can't compete with the "holier than thou" people who remain.

I also want to add that females aren't the only ones affected. My brother was active in the church, went to Bible school for a year, and taught Sunday School when he came back. My mother, who never had a TV most of my life, rented a TV to watch the war in Iraq 12 yrs. ago. Once, while my brother and I were watching all that was going on, the preacher happened to come by. When he saw my brother in front of the TV, he called him in the office the next church night, and removed him from his class and everything else he was doing for God. My brother struggled for a while, but what the pastor did hurt him so deep, that to this day he doesn't attend church. He won't go anywhere else, as all he knows is the UPC, and believes the way they do. He is now 31, and wants to find favor with God. I believe that day is coming, as he lives in another state now, and I believe his family will be saved someday.

TO ADMINS:

I will remove this post if I have overstepped any bounds.

Me...

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Sis.Cooper, you said/asked, "I do not disagree with you Hebrews but I have to ask
How is it that if the woman is a type of the church that the men who are also a part of the bride have to cut their hair? I believe the Lord said in Ephesians that marriage is this type:

Eph 5:30-33
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
(KJV)

Big difference...I teach proper roles for men and women.Men with long hair toss their hair in a very effeminate way.They take on the walk and vanity of a woman.Women also take on the masculine role very easy and we need to guard against it.Also history teaches us that in the U.S.Of A women did not cut their hair until rebellion hit the scene.I do not want to ever identify with rebellion.We can teach this stuff without a bunch of types and shadows.What we need is to make the word plain and not blame the women when they question the teaching if we do not.
lv sis.c"

I want to agree with you that "we can teach this stuff without a bunch of types and shadows." You have no debate or disagreement from me here.

HOWEVER, there are those, who appear to follow after the radical, left-wing, bleeding-heart liberal perspective and view point who challenge ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that moderate conservatives perceive as VALUES, just for the sake of Politics. There is a SPIRIT behind the radical, left-wing, bleeding-heart liberal; and that SPIRIT is a spirit of REBELLION. The Bible says that "rebellion is a the sin of witchcraft; and stubbornness as iniquity." Witchcraft was a sin that carried with it the sentence of death.

I'm not saying that we don't challenge or debate anything. We need to "study, and show ourselves approved." I am thankful that we do have that liberal perspective because it does actually force me to study, and keeps me in check as a moderate conservative; otherwise, knowing myself, I'd probably go off the perverbial radical, right-wing, ultra conservative end.

I am saying that the LOGIC that liberals use is flawed. They make dogmatic assertions, ad haminem attacks to make in reality a character assassination of any and every one who opposes their view point, or tries to follow their logic all the way out to its natural conclusion.

For example, liberals will argue that anyone who might assert that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is just "parroting" what someone else has taught them and not come to the conclusion themselves. When you then try to demonstrate and show them that indeed 2 plus 2 does equal 4, rather than trying to disprove that 2 plus 2 equals 4, liberals resort to aguementative statements like, "that's not what that means," "you're a lobomitized, mindless, atomiton-pitard, parroting around what your choir director has told you to sing." They will never admit the error of their way, because try as you may, they will never raise up their two hands, with two fingers up on each hand and count for themselves to either prove or disprove what 2 plus 2 really equals. When it actually comes down to that, they will just say, "no, you're doing it all wrong; you've made it to be the way you want it to be" without ever demonstrating what it really is.

They build themselves up with fluff and hot air to make themselves look like something that they aren't, which is a rational, thinking, studying human being. Instead, they hide behind their dogmatic assertions, character assassination mascarading as ad haminem attacks to make themselves appear as if their intelligent creatures. (Sorry, I got off on a tangent there; back to your question/comment Sis.C).

That being said, in order to PROVE my view point, I believe in hitting in from all sides. Much like a war. You can't always win a war with a one sided attack. You have to have multiple plans of attack, multiple means of attack; more than just one armed force. You have to have special forces too. (Sorry, too much following Fox News and Talk Radio about the war in Iraq; it's a guy thing I guess :D ).

(cont. with part 2)

God Bless!

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

(part 2):



The question being, "but I have to ask How is it that if the woman is a type of the church that the men who are also a part of the bride have to cut their hair?"

That question/statement reminds me of some denomination (I can't remember which one off the top of my head) that teaches that ONLY women can be a part of the Church/Bride of Christ.

The typology is between the relationship of a husband and wife and the relationship between Christ and the Church. The husband is a typology of Christ while the wife is a typology of the Church.

A man has short/cut hair (not have his head covered) because he is "the image and glory of God" (1 Cor. 11:7).

Hebrews 1:3, describing Jesus, says, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..."

As men, being a type of Christ, being the "image and glory of God,", if we didn't cut our hair, or had long hair, we would be COVERING that glory, being our head: "...the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." (1 Cor. 11:3-4).

Having long/uncut hair (a covered head) on a man breaks the typology and dishonors our head, which is Christ; dishonoring Christ is the same or equivalent to dishonoring God. A man's covering is typified as being the glory of God; the glory of God is man's covering.

I know some have said, "hair is just hair." But, think about this: A rock is just a rock. God had ALREADY told Moses on one occasion to smite or hit a specific rock for water to come out of. This second time, God told Moses to speak to the rock for water to come out of. Moses, being impatient and upset with the people for their constant murmurings and complainings, smote the rock instead of speaking to it. Why was that such a big deal? Why was Moses FORBIDDEN to enter into the Promised Land for one simple act of disobedience? Moses had done worse before. What was so wrong with what he did? It was JUST A ROCK! Moses had NO IDEA he was being used as a typology; he probably didn't even know what a typology was. God had never before told him to just SPEAK to a rock for water. What was the big deal? Why was God being so hard on Moses? Afteral, Moses HAD hit a rock before for water; why was this time so different and so important? How cruel and mean God must be to punish Moses for one little act of disobedience. I can't believe God would do something like that to an individual just for hitting a rock instead of talking to hit; the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Well, that is the attitude and parroting of those who oppose Sis.Rieder's book on hair. But, IT'S OKAY for Moses to be reprimanded of God for breaking typology; something Moses was totally unaware of too. But IT'S NOT OKAY to say that women today who break the typology could face impending judgment themselves. That's a little bit of hypocracy there, don't you think.

A woman has long/uncut hair because "the woman is the glory of the man."

Some may say, "wait a minute, I thought you said a man's covering was the glory of God, and now you're saying that the woman is the glory of the man; you're contradicting yourself." So, hold on and wait a minute while I tie this all together.

Ezekiel 28:11-18, "Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Son of man, take up lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God: Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was THY COVERING, (caps added) ...Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom be reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thy iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick...

Isaiah 14:12-14, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Satan was the anointed cherub that covered the glory of God, as pictured in Ps. 80:1, 99:1, and Is.37:16. Satan's covering was every precious stone. For the lack of a better mental picture, Satan REFELECTED the glory of God like a disco ball reflects light. We know that man cannot look upon the glory of God and live, but Isaiah 6:1-4 gives us a picture that not even angels of heaven can look upon the glory of God either. Satan REFLECTED the glory of God so that the angelic host could see the glory of God through his reflection. By the reason of his make up and genetics (figure of speach), Satan brought glory to God by reflecting His glory to the angels. To loosely put it: Satan was the glory of God.

But Satan staged a revolt, a rebellion. Remember, Satan sealed up all that was beautiful and wisdom. But his beauty corrupted his wisdom. He thought he would reverse roles with God, so that he could exalt his throne above the thone of the Most High. In other words, Satan wanted God to serve him. Thus, God cast him out and down to the ground.

By typology, women's hair "is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Cor. 11:15). "The woman is the glory of the man" (1 Cor. 11:7).

By typology, a man "is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor. 11:7) and the head of the woman (1 Cor. 11:3).

By position of headship, man's glory is the glory of God, thus man has no covering of his own.

As Satan, who had every precious stone as his covering, covered the glory of God, and protected the rest of the angelic host from the glory of God by refecting God's glory with his covering of every precious stone, thus bringing glory to God by his beauty and his wisdom, and by inciting worship to God; the woman, who's covering is her hair, covers the glory of God that God has placed on men (by position of headship) through her submission, thus offering a hedge of protection around her family by reflecting the glory of God in her life of submission to God, reflected by her life of submission to her husband, thus inciting reverence to her husband and father of her children. By typology, women have assumed the position of the anointed cherub; by typology, the Church has assumed the position of the anointed cherub by being the reflection and glory of God to this lost and dying world; because sinful man cannot look upon the glory of God and live, the Church covers the glory of God through it's submission to God, protecting humanity from direct contact to the glory of God, but instead REFLECTING the glory of God to a lost and dying world, so that they might come to find and know the God of the Universe, and win a soul for God, thus inciting worship to God and bringing glory back to God through worship.

And a woman cutting her hair BREAKS the typology, like Moses did in the Wilderness. This is the reason that UNCUT hair on women is so important. It's MORE than just hair. It's more than just men being men and women being women. If hair was just hair, 1 Cor. 11 would have never been written in the first place.

I know this is long, Sis. Cooper; and I know you don't like long posts. I apologize for being so long winded, but your question required a detailed answer.

Sis. Cooper, I just want to say that I mean no disrespect to you with any attacks on liberalism I made in the beginning of this post(s). I was in no means trying to insinuate that you might be a liberal. I know the attacks that are going to come back to me from those who hold to a liberal perspective with my answer to you, and I was only trying to point out that I know what they're going to, and have already said.

Sis. Cooper, I deeply respect you and the ministry that you and your husband have. If I have offended you by anything I've said here, I humbly ask your forgiveness. I am very firm in my faith and beliefs; and I know I can come across very strong sometimes without really considering some people's feelings. I meant no attack or disrespect on you in any way, shape, or form.

God Bless!

[searching]

Hebrews posts:
Also history teaches us that in the U.S.Of A women did not cut their hair until rebellion hit the scene.

I want to say that the same history you find that in also had men with hair LONG by today's standards, and even ponytails! They also wore wigs to make their hair appear longer if they chose not to naturally grow it that way, curls and all. They also wore knickers, something that the UPC preaches against for a man. You also make the statement that men who have long hair are effeminate. This may be the case with some, but not in most cases. Willie Nelson has had a braid all my life, but I would never say he is effeminate in his walk or manner. There are men I personally know with long hair that do not have those features either. To make a broad statement like that, you would also have to say that women who cut their hair short act manly after doing do, and that's not a true statement either.

Customs and dress change all the time in this country. The way our women dress in church is immodest compared to the standards of yesterday, yet it's ok now. I am not implying that the day will come when we should be able to cover ourselves with a hankie and still be modest, but the point I am making is that you cannot judge today by yesterday's standards, or we are all in error, even the men.

Me...

[ddc101]

Hebrew I stand unoffended.I have not as of yet read Sis.Reiders books only discussed them with Forever.She was actually there for the taping of the videos.I also want to add that the part of your post about liberalism was not a quote from me.Thank you this is much to ponder on.lvsis.c

[bill]

Bro Ron,

I agree with you brother. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Many people are downright mean spirited regarding baptism in Jesus Name, but we know that Truth does not change with people's bad attitude. We just know they have a bad spirit. :)

[nytxn1971]

Well... I have to disagree slightly. Knowing the truth in your head doesn't change the bad attitudes, BUT Living the Truth should change them. Right?
Walking in the Spirit keeps us from being carnal... people with mean spirits are carnal people.

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just expressing my opinion about people putting the emphasis on the wrong things...
:)

[bill]

Okay, I was misreading you. I thought you were saying that standards should go out the window because "some" people are mean spirited. That's bogus thinking.

[nytxn1971]

As long as you don't equate someone keeping standards with them having a salvation experience, I'm ok with you teaching your standards as guidelines, in love. The moment you cross that line, however, I'm against your doctrine.

Othodox Jews keep standards too... some even more strict than normal apostolics do, but they are not saved. The same is true of hard line muslims.

Well, I think I'm going to drop out of the conversation for now because I think we've about kicked this horse to death.
:)

Love y'all.

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Bro.Ron, I have a question for you. Do you equate SIN with having a Salvation Experience?

In otherwords, do you think/believe that after having a salvation experience, that if we continue in a life of SIN, will that causes us to loose out with God in the end if we die in that state?

God Bless!

[nytxn1971]

Hebrews, I'll answer your question...

No... I do not think that those who continue to LIVE in willful sin will make it to heaven.

I'm out of the thread... I won't be checking it anymore.
Have a great day!

[Xerf]

Hebrews116, your analogy of "2 plus 2 equals 4" was well done. I, as yourself, have faced proponets of anti-standards that start their parroting of the parroting theme, accusing holiness-minded individuals of just repeating some brain-washed ditty and never understanding that those individuals have truly experienced a holiness revelation that they themselves are clueless to.

The carnal mind is far more inclined to accept human logic than it is to understand spiritual precepts (being foolishness to them). I am thankful for those that have not allowed the encoraching spirit of compromise to soil their walk with God. "Be ye holy for I am holy" is the God with whom we have to face.

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

You know, Xerf, when I encounter those who oppose "standards" (as we seem to call them), and they start in on their little "anti-standard" song and dance, I'm reminded of a Scripture in Romans:

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image image made like to corruptible man."

When it says they became fools, and as these people who start parroting their "anti-standard" spill, I start seeing in my mind's eye standing before me, a clown, with the white face, red nose, big smile painted on, big red shoes, funny costume, telling me how we don't need to adhere to "old fashioned, out dated, relic of the past."

I busted up laughing when a employee of mine, who was a pastor of an Apostolic church who left the Apostolic Assemblies of the Faith in Christ Jesus organization some years back over standards, while he was saying all the "anti-standard" stuff. Right before my eyes, I saw him transform into a clown, and I couldn't help but laugh. He and I had spent many a day discussing this, and every time I thought I had him convinced, he would go home, then come back to work re-hashing what we discussed the day before.

Anyways, God Bless!

[foreverblessed]

Hebrews,

You know you just enjoy a good argument! :p Soo do you see me with a clown face too? :goof:

I have to agree with Nytxn, I don't agree that standards are salvational.

I also believe that they are and can be used as guardrails in our Christian walk when they are taught in love. They should never be used as a security blanket that insures your salvation by works.

I think I remember posts from the old Cafe, that you used to believe they were guardrails also, now what has happended to you Hebrews? You have gone off and joined the Ruth Reider Fan club, and gone Ultra conservative on us. :eek:

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Sis.Cooper, I just wanted to apologize for associating the liberal quotes with you. That was an error on my part for not making it more clear that those were liberal remarks and not your remarks. I got off on a tangent and ran with it; like when the preacher in the pulpit says, "I'm off my notes." I should have been more clear. I humbly ask your forgiveness.

God Bless!

[Nathan]

And standards equal relationship?

That's what a lot of our young people subconsciously think. People are the products of the theological systems they grow up under, and we're no exception.


And yes, many denominations are reporting losses. It's for the same reason we are -- there's a bunch of people in leadership who mistake progress for compromise.

Times change. Cultures change. Generations change. Philosophy changes. What reached teens in the '40s won't work anymore.

(And btw, we don't have to dress like women in the '40s did either ;))

A lot of leadership doesn't realize that, and it's why you have people whining about Christian rock, contemporary music in the churches, innovative youth ministries, etc., etc.

They're so stuck on doing things the way grandpa taught them that they can't even see the forest for the trees.

The church today is trying to reach Generation X on the WRONG terms -- and we're losing them because of insensitive, blundering leadership who doesn't know how and when to let go.

Of course, that's a WHOOOOOOOOOLE other can of worms ... nytxn might remember me posting QUITE a bit on that whole subject a while back. :)

[Hebrews116]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Sis.Forever, do you believe that living in sin after you've been saved is a salvational issue? Are we ensuring our salvation by works by striving to live without sin in our lives? If our "standards" (as we call them) are Biblical (which I believe they are), are we sinning by disobeying them? If they are Biblical, and we deliberately disobey them habitually, does that constitute living in sin?

You just think I've gone off the Conservative deep end because you've gone from being Moderate-Conservative to being Sis.3rd's pitard :D parroting the radical, left-wing, bleeding-heart, Liberal arguments; therefore, you're just THINKING that I've changed, when indeed, you've changed fence sides yourself, challenging the "old paths" now.

It's not my fault that Sis. Rieder's position is the same position I came to WITHOUT reading her book. The same goes for Bro. Bill; he and I started having it revealed to us approximately the same time BEFORE we ever read her book.

The problem I have with the Liberal spin on things is that the Liberal perspective takes the EFFECTS of things and tries to make them the ROOT CAUSE. This is why the Liberal perspective is so full of holes and can't hold water. The proper order is CAUSE then EFFECT; not the other way around.

God Bless!

[Xerf]

Someone has said:

"Times change. Cultures change. Generations change. Philosophy changes. What reached teens in the '40s won't work anymore."


Am I to conclude that we are waiting around for an X-generation Bible to come rolling off the press soon?

What reached the teens in the 40's was the GOSPEL! ANd now you are saying that the gospel is outdated, passe' and out-of-pace with today's generation?

How soon can we expect this new and revised edition from God? This edition that can reach the masses and bring salvation---When will the Almighty's new and revised edition be completed? What will He call it---The Erased Holiness And New Worldliness Version? EHNWV

His WORD is FOREVER setttled!!

[foreverblessed]

Hebrews,

Actually, I think we have both changed. Don't forget my friend, I have been posting with you on forums longer than anyone here, and my memory is tooo good.

I looked up the word liberal, and I guess maybe I do lean a little that way. I think I prefer to think I can think outside the UPCI box that I have been raised with.

Liberal Noun
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.



As far as parrotting or being like Third, your just being plain mean! :realmad: I don't agree with everything she stands for, or believes. I do admire her ability to get in the word of God and stand for what she believes is right. She makes me think, and it was because of her that I was challenged to look further into the Word of God to see exactly what it did have to say instead of "parrotting" Ruth Reider and being so dogmatic about some things.

Ok your majesty, I will let you win this one for now! :bow:

[Nathan]

Xerf,

The message NEVER changes. Our approach DOES.

Jesus told us to be wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves. Chew on that for a while, meditate on it, and you might just understand what He was saying. :)

Again, the Gospel NEVER changes.

As for the standards, none of them are scriptural, so I have no problem not teaching them. If they were scriptural, I would. It's that simple.

[Xerf]

So the approach changes...well, well, how interesting. Speaking of chewing on something (so that you might by chance understand), the gospel is the gospel and all your ideas of new approaches (as if you can teach God something) is pure foolishness. It says "God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." I don't see any time frames and time related indicators there, so perhaps you may think you have discovered some new method,,,as for me I'll stay with the ROCK that was established by Jesus Christ.

[Nathan]

I think you're misunderstanding me.

It's not about changing the message or "teaching God" anything -- it's about becoming all things to all men, it's about doing whatever it takes (within the bounds of doctrinal integrity and holiness) to "win some."

You expect the world to come to you, but Jesus went to it.

I'm done with this discussion ... God bless. :)

[Xerf]

And HOW may I ask do you know what I expect?
Now your speaking for me. Sorry champ but your little discourse is as off base as a blind man on a tightrope.

[Faithchild]

Not that anybody asked but I do believe in lifestyle standards. When Jesus said, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc." The Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) and Paul's praise to the Corinthian church regarding their obedience to ordinances he had previously established fulfill the litmus test of two or three witnesses. However I believe the Bible teaches principles of holiness, moderation, etc. What we generally call standards are actually applications of those biblical principles.

As society changes it's attack on righteousness, we also change our application of those biblical principles to counter Satan's fresh approach. Otherwise we're left fighting a phantom warrior that no longer exists. If the standards are fluid and based on biblical principles and are presented as church practice or tradition, great!
If they're taught as written-in-stone, preached as Heaven-or-Hell
issues, I'm against them.

I have an great aunt that backslid and possibly went to Hell because her "holiness" pastor preached at her as looking like a harlot for wearing the color red. That was the issue in the '40's as well as listening to the ungodly radio. That is an excessive application of "Without holiness no one will see the Lord!" Without holiness, yes! But is the axe you're currently grinding a timeless Bible principle? Or a contemporary application that you choose to adhere to but would repel possible converts because they don't have your tradition of blindly following whatever Bro. Billy Bob teaches? It's more the "equating" of personal convictions with the Bible that I strongly object to.

I probably adhere to every standard that Bro. Bill blathers about
everytime he gets a chance. But I only follow church leaders as they follow Christ. I'm not going out on that same limb of adding to the biblical requirements of salvation that they do. Follow Christ and I'm with you! Otherwise you'll walk away from me alone.:angel:

[Xerf]

I never knew anyone could send anyone else to hell! Musta been a Catholic your speaking of because in the real truth no one has the power to condemn another to hell that responsiblity is a personal one---go figure~

[ThirdGeneration]

Ah.... Hebrews- What is this suppose to mean?

".... to being Sis.3rd's pitard parroting the radical, left-wing, bleeding-heart, Liberal arguments"

Come on brother. You asked me a question and I started a whole new thread for you which you; haven't even had the COURAGE to address! :laugh:


Foreverblesssed- I hope that what I stand for is absolute faith in God's Word. I also hope that I stand for loving God with all one's heart and loving others as we love ourselves.

I thought that was what you stood for too! :angel:

[Nathan]

Bro Yohe,

Great post.

You know, just another example of how shallow Apostolics can be at times ...

"Without holiness no man shall see the Lord" is NOT talking about being holy enough to go to heaven. A simple contextual reading shows that Paul is talking about keeping a good witness with unbelievers, and he's continuining his thought here.

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness ..."

Following peace with others and living a holy life show Christ IN YOU to OTHERS around you. It's about being a witness, not earning your way into heaven.

Of course, with the hard liners shoving a performance oriented, dress code Gospel down our throats, that's what it's always quoted as.

"Without holiness no man shall see the Lord!" means to most Pentecostals, "Without the standards, you can't please God and won't go to heaven!"

What tragedy. We completely lose the meaning of a Scripture ....

[Faithchild]

Amen!

[bill]

Nathan,

The passage in Hebrews instructs us to "follow...Holiness". Surely Paul was telling us that we should follow things that are holy and clean. Righteousness and Holiness has two parts. The first part is what God does IN us, the second part is what we are to do, and that is keep the vessel that God has cleansed, free from the sin and corruption that we were once enslaved to. Let us not follow the "cheap grace" fallacy.

Look at Hebrews 12:14 in context, specifically the following few verses.

15: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16: Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Paul is instructing us to beware, and to follow holiness. Note "follow" holiness. Are we following True Holiness? True Holiness only does what Jesus would do. I know it's simple, but WWJD is really what True Holiness is all about. "Follow" in His steps and you will be "following" holiness. We should not follow our flesh, or the evil influence of this world. It is holiness we are to follow. The stress of our salvation is laid upon our holiness. In short, you best be following holiness or you won't see the Lord!

Holiness, according to Strongs is Hagiasmos (#38)

consecration, purification
the effect of consecration
sanctification of heart and life

Notice, "the effect of consecration". True Holiness is not mere outward conformance to a dress code. True holiness is the effects of a consecrated heart! When you have true holiness in your heart, you will seek to please God in actions, thought, dress, and conversation.

Apostolics are eager to quote Duet 6:4 "Hear o Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord."

But forget the rest of the passage!

Deut 6:5
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The commandment to believe in One God is synonimious with love Him with all the heart, soul, and might. That is true holiness. The One True God demands holiness.

It seems your post shows the typical contempt that liberals seem to have toward people who teach standards of seperation. I sincerely hope you're not joining that camp. :)

In Love

Bro Bill

[foreverblessed]

Thirds quote:

Foreverblesssed- I hope that what I stand for is absolute faith in God's Word. I also hope that I stand for loving God with all one's heart and loving others as we love ourselves.

I thought that was what you stood for too!


Third, I do stand for that. I don't like anyone implying that I am unable to think for myself. Hebrews was just trying to get to me.:)

I've been around long enough to hear your take of 1Cor 11, and I don't agree with your views on it. I believe it does deal with submission, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that you didn't.
While I admire you and your ability to search the Word of God, I don't agree with you on all things. Your still my friend though, hopefully.

[ThirdGeneration]

Foreverblessed- Yeah, I think Hebrews was just trying to get your goat too!

You are correct. I do not believe the passage means that wives must have uncut hair or veils to show submission to one's husband in our culture today. I do believe that the custom of long hair and veils was representative of submission to one's husband in the Corinthian culture that Paul was addressing in particular.

Thus, he taught that they should be careful how they were perceived by their culture (1 Cor 10:32-33) [esp when they flaunted its norms/ 1 Cor 9:19].

Paul was mindful that other churches were going to read this letter (1 Cor 1:2) and thus clarified that his instructions were not being mandated to all the churches (1 Cor 11:16).

Hey Foreverblessed- Are you not a blood-bought, Spirit-filled, tongue-talkin, holy-rollin, born again, Heaven bound believer in the liberated power of Jesus name?

Are you not a dedicated mom who loves the Lord with all her heart? Are you not one who seeks God's truth?

How could I not want to be your friend just because we honestly see something differently? You know that you are in my heart and prayers.

[foreverblessed]

Third,

I know you are my friend, and you'll always be special to me! :)

Love ya,

[Nathan]

ThirdGeneration,

That was one of the most powerful revelations God ever gave me, because it transformed the way I viewed holiness. I've never been the same since. :)

I studied that passage for approximately 4 hours a night one week from all angles -- contextual, historical, cultural, hermeneutical -- and I must've done more Greek word studies, looked in more Bible encyclopedias, read more commentaries, and did more critical thinking that I've ever done in my life. LOL



bill,

Paul didn't say to follow holiness. He said to "follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."

I agree that he is using a grammatical construction that ultimately means "follow peace and follow holiness," but it sort of helps you realize what he's saying when you actually quote the whole verse. :)

I'm not saying anything against "following holiness" at all -- I'm saying that I've always grown up hearing preachers yell this verse when they're preaching about jewelry or some other such nonsense.

Here Paul is saying that without holiness and a good witness, others will be be able to see the Lord in you.

[ThirdGeneration]

Nathan- What was your conclusion? Did you come to the same place I did, nearly the same place, or do you see it differently altogether?

[Nathan]

ThirdGeneration,

I forgot to mention that I studied post-Apostolic (mainly ante-Nicene) writings on the subject.

Did you know that more than one post-Apostolic writer quoted 1 Cor. 11:10 as, "A woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels?" Interesting, huh? :)

There are several interesting excerpts I found in writings ranging from the death of John to the fifth century. Interestingly enough, NO ONE in church HISTORY has EVER taught the uncut hair doctrine -- apparently until the 20th century. Weird. :)

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that we are horrendously over- complicating a simple admonition to not be offensive to societal custom and turn would-be believers away.

Pentecostal leaders applied the principle Paul was talking about years ago when red was only worn by immoral women and associated with immorality, and they preached against women wearing that color for the sake of propriety. It wasn't that there was anything inherently wrong in wearing red, it's just that societal practice made it a stumbling block and a bad witness to unbelievers.

Same thing here. Nothing at all wrong with a woman cutting and taking care of her hair -- in fact, I think God wants women to do so.

And the passage has nothing to do with wives submitting to their husbands, because it speaks in generalities -- men and women. It's not about some timeless spiritual principle having to do with hair (which strangely enough is mentioned nowhere else in Scripture, any of the 613 Mosaic Laws, extra-biblical Jewish sources, or anywhere else for that matter.. hmm... :)), it's just Paul continuing his discussion on the Christian witness (see chapter 10 for context).

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the "uncut hair" position is extremely hypocritical (we refuse to consider the clutural considerations behind 1 Cor. 11, yet we don't "just take it for what it says" when it comes to 1 Cor. 14:35 or the NT teaching against braided hair!), breaks just about every hermeneutical rule there is, and doesn't abide by any of the principles of proper biblical exegesis. I could go on for hours about some of the things I found.

Anyway, I'm making a short story long -- or something like that. :)

[bill]

Nathan,

Your are reinterpreting the passage. The passage does teach we need to follow peace with all men, but it then equates holiness with salvation. Plain and simple. No man will see the Lord without holiness. I'm not saying this is specifically speaking of the Biblical standards the true apostolics will continue to teach, but Heb 12:14 does say no man will see Jesus w/o holiness.

[bill]

Nathan said, "There are several interesting excerpts I found in writings ranging from the death of John to the fifth century. Interestingly enough, NO ONE in church HISTORY has EVER taught the uncut hair doctrine -- apparently until the 20th century. Weird."

Nathan Nathan Nathan. First off, we don't get our doctrine from history. And secondly, you are wrong my friend! Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all spoke of long UNCUT hair. There were others also. Just because it may not have been the major belief doesn't mean it's not correct scripturally. Oneness wasn't the "major doctrine" after the 3rd or 4th century, and we have very little writings on the subject in almove 2,000 years of church history, yet when we go to the Bible there it is in black and white!

You may try reading Tertullian's "On the apparrel of women" and see how he felt about women painting their faces and wearing jewerely.

[searching]

Pssst, Bill, look what that word is above Nathan's avatar and just below his name.

Me...

[ThirdGeneration]

Bill- You wrote. "Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all spoke of long UNCUT hair. "

I would love to see that. Can you point me in the right direction?

[bill]

Ooops. My bad.
:o

[bill]

Third, I'll look up my reference tonight.

[nytxn1971]

http://www.tertullian.org/works.htm
Works of Tertullian...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html
Clement of Alexandria writings...

http://www.chrysostom.org/writings.html
Writings of John Chrysostom...

[bill]

Also, the regional Council of Gangra (300s) and the Council of Chalcedon (400s) took a stand against women cutting their hair.

[bill]

Third,

I am quite convinced that even when faced with facts that you will still be blind to this issue. Nonetheless, from the thread Bro Ron supplied, here is an excert from John Chrisostom's commentary on I Co 11. (Thank you bro ron)

Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, "let her be covered." And he said not, "let her have long hair," but, "let her be covered," ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. "For it is one and the same thing," saith he, "as if she were shaven." But if any say, "And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?" we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. Andif it be not bare of tresses, that is nature's doing, not her own. So that as she who isshaven hath her head bare, so this woman inlike manner. For this cause He left it to natureto provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

END OF QUOTE.

BTW, I'll have my sources for you on Monday. I look forward to it! :) Be blessed and have a great weekend.

[ThirdGeneration]

Nytxn- Thanks for the links. Without reading every single word, I still haven't come to any references about long uncut hair; although I saw where all married women wore veils.

I guess I will have to wait for Bill to show me where this information is on Monday.

Bill- I do not believe that cut hair and a shaven head are in the same league. I am looking for the information that confirms your original statement, "Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all spoke of long UNCUT hair. "

Btw- If there were any statements like this; don't you think the long, uncut hair proponents would have already quoted them in their books?

[ddc101]

I wonder if the person who started this thread would consider discussing every individual chapter of this book.We could go indepth on the subject and study it objectivly that way.It would be more fun than just agreeing or disagreeing.I would like to critique it since I have not read it yet.Forever is loaning me her copy.lv sis.c

[Cherokee]

When I fell in love with Jesus behold old things passed away and all things became new. I wanted to please Jesus and I wanted Him to be pleased with me. Have I always batted a 100? No, but as long as I keep my eyes on Him I get up and get going again. I find that as long as I stay with a broken,tender,contrite spirit, He guides me in the way I should dress and look and present myself to others. I have always taught the youth I worked with that no one ever lost if they over ran the goal line but many fell when they aimed just short of it. If I live this life for Jesus and put off the things that my heart through prayer and His Word teach me and even though it may be more zealous and I look a little plain and be adorned by the Holy Ghost and know that I have pleased Him and I over shoot the pearly gate and get deep inside Heaven I will have made it. But if I have allowed anything to stop me just short of the gates then I won't get another chance to do it over. Besides the inner beauty will shine on the outside. By their fruits ye will know them. Try the spirits and see if they be of God. If the inside were turned outside would they match? There is an anointing on the child of God that is walking in the Truth. That's what makes the difference. Just thinkin"....Love Ya' in Jesus!!!....Cherokee

[ddc101]

Yahooooooo!!!!!Amen to that Sis.Denver...lv sis.c

[ThirdGeneration]

BTW, I'll have my sources for you on Monday. I look forward to it! :) Be blessed and have a great weekend. [/B]
Bill- I have missed you. I have been waiting for those sources you promised to produce a few days ago (8 days ago to be exact)!

Any luck finding support for your statement that " "Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and John Chrysostom all spoke of long UNCUT hair "?

No. :shrug:

Keep looking....... surely they will turn up, no?

[ThirdGeneration]

Bill- Good morning. Ignore yesterday's post.

We would much rather have you spending your time here with us rather than going through tons of hay looking for the provervbial needle!

Hey, why would anyone ever find a needle in a haystack? :eek:

[ddc101]

Third,
The best way to find a needle in a haystack is to jump around in the hay for a while...it will find you.lv sis.c

[ThirdGeneration]

Ouch!!! :yeah:

[pastor r]

My wife has all of Sis. Reider's books and loves them. My 11 year old daughter has read them and loves Sis. Reider, as a matter of fact my daughter was very honored to sing right before Sis Reider spoke a couple of months ago.. It was a high light in my daughter's life. I am a pastor and have used Sis. Reidr's books in bible sutdies.
THANK GOD FOR PEOPLE LIKE SIS. REIDER.

[BroRutledge]

Welcome to GNC pastor r. I appreciate your post. I don't want this thread revived so I locked it. There is enough information on the thread for anybody to see the viewpoints and never ending comments and arguments from all directions that will never end. If people would like to discuss this subject I asked that it be done on the standards thread. Even that thread is close to being locked.

If some of the posters over there don't stop making personal remarks toward one another I may have to lock it for awhile so I can clean house and then open it again when all those that cannot be nice to each other are no longer around.

You did nothing wrong. I just don't want this thread revived because of past issues two years ago that have been dealt with and placed behind us on the GNC.

God bless
BroRutledge