"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Amen.

Both Jesus and Paul could have preached in the same Apostolic church in the first century. It wouldn't matter if anyone had a beard or not.

But these cats would tell Jesus Himself that he isn't worthy to serve on their platforms based on a man's preference.

Maybe Paul wouldn't want to preach on anyone's platform. Or in anyone's house church. It is funny how we all believe Paul would be always on our side of the argument. It is a sobering thought to find out that maybe he might tell us we were anathema.

[Evang.Benincasa]

How would you encourage family to quit smoking, EB? Would you disown them? Or would you help them see the dangers, encourage health, help them see how it isn't expedient, help them see how enslaving it is, how all the money spent on cigarettes hinders their prosperity and blessing, and help them see how the outcome of their addiction isn't loving or fair towards those who love them???

Ok, you are against cigarette smoking leadership.



The closest I can come to such a Scripture that would allow me to threaten Hell would be:


1 Corinthians 3:17 ESV
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

But I'd have to be careful. Because in context, this verse is about divisions within the body, destroying the church (seen as the temple of God). Also, I'd have to be just as hard on being overweight, drinking sodas, eating friend food, etc.

You are correct, the verse has noting to do with donuts, and Mountain Dew.



Perhaps I could argue that they are not loving those who love them as themselves. They wouldn't want to watch a loved one smoke themselves to an early death, therefore putting their loved ones through that very thing isn't loving, and is therefore sin. But, again, I'd have to employ the same logic towards everything that is not good for the body.

I smoked three packs of cigarettes a day, I rolled Bugler, smoked cigars. So, when the above was told to me I said it was all debatable. When i came to the church I shed all those things which were unacceptable to MY walk with Jesus.


I see encouragement to health,

Like I said, that's based more on genetics. Everyone is different when it comes to what is healthy or unhealthy. Milk is great for one guy, but it will kill another guy.


holistic living, loving others, loving one's self (in a healthy manner), identifying with Christ, and surrendering your body to Him as a healthy vessel for service as the best way to approach it. Because then this loving and holistic approach could be applied towards all things, based on the individual's health and disposition.

Bro, again you speak of a healthy choice. That's like saying me cooking in pork fat is bad for me. It is good for me. Medical Society would freak at the amount of eggs I eat. Yet, they live on grains, grains, and Hi Fructose corn syrup. Cigarettes are ecclesiastically socially unacceptable. there was a time when Churchers smoked pipes, and cigars. Yet, that faded out with the early separation movements. It is all about separation from the secular cultures around you.


Please understand, I'm not saying I'd do nothing. However, I don't see Scripture that would allow me to dangle them over Hell on account of it.

Causing your brother to stumble? Maybe, but we as Christians we should'nt have to have the barrel of a ecclesiastical shotgun placed in our mouths to be our brother's keeper.

[houston]

There's nothing wrong with shaving.

But, would you doubt one's salvation if they chose not to shave?

I found a quote of his and posted it some pages back

[houston]

Wow!!!!!!! That's a new one!

You think they plucked his 5 o’clock shadow?

[Michael The Disciple]

Wow!!!!!!! That's a new one!

New? You do know that the God of the Old Covenant (Lev 19:27) was manifest in the flesh, and that was Jesus? So it was HE who gave that command concerning beards.

[Tithesmeister]

New? You do know that the God of the Old Covenant (Lev 19:27) was manifest in the flesh, and that was Jesus? So it was HE who gave that command concerning beards.

I think maybe he was insinuating that (baby) Jesus was not born with a beard.

Not sure tho.

[n david]

I think maybe he was insinuating that (baby) Jesus was not born with a beard.

Not sure tho.
That's how I read the post, too.

[Michael The Disciple]

I think maybe he was insinuating that (baby) Jesus was not born with a beard.

Not sure tho.

Hmmm usually when one speaks how God came in flesh they are not specifying when he was a baby . BUT if thats what he meant cool. What I replied should still be taken VERY SERIOUSLY.

[Esaias]

Baby Jesus had a beard:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paddimir/3429772784/in/album-72157616589570764

[Evang.Benincasa]

Baby Jesus had a beard:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paddimir/3429772784/in/album-72157616589570764

Baby Jesus looks like me at the end of the day. :heeheehee

[n david]

Baby Jesus had a beard:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/paddimir/3429772784/in/album-72157616589570764
"Baby" Jesus looks like a toddler.

[consapente89]

Baby Jesus looks like me at the end of the day. :heeheehee

Hey I bet if you were in jail for a couple days you would have enough of a beard to pluck then, eh??

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hey I bet if you were in jail for a couple days you would have enough of a beard to pluck then, eh??

A couple of days? Bro, my beard would be longer than Steve Pixler's

[jediwill83]

New? You do know that the God of the Old Covenant (Lev 19:27) was manifest in the flesh, and that was Jesus? So it was HE who gave that command concerning beards.not only that but He was without sin...could He be without sin and violate Old Testament law?

[Tithesmeister]

not only that but He was without sin...could He be without sin and violate Old Testament law?

. . . Born of a woman, born under the law.

[Evang.Benincasa]

not only that but He was without sin...could He be without sin and violate Old Testament law?

Is Mike saying we all have to grow beards?

Weren't there Jedi with beards and Jedi without beards?

[Tithesmeister]

A couple of days? Bro, my beard would be longer than Steve Pixler's

I usually cut my beard every morning. By dark I have to cut it again. I use it to weave lariats for the calf ropers in the PRO-RODEO circuit. I usually have enough to turn out about three 30’ lariats a week.

I guess it grows so fast because I have so much testosterone. Eating rattlesnakes for breakfast probably helps.

It doesn’t hurt that I tend to exaggerate a little too.


Some people call it speaking evangelastically.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I guess it grows so fast because I have so much testosterone.

Then why aren't you taking an estrogen blocker? :lol

[1ofthechosen]

Imagine standing before this Judge... and reliving every word you've spoken when you've mocked, degraded, condemned, castigated, or segregated sincere and devout men with beards in the name of a tradition of man...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/52/f8/b4/52f8b439a0fa6cc0a1fe641091e0a5fc.jpg


All I can say is LOL this made my day!!

[Michael The Disciple]

not only that but He was without sin...could He be without sin and violate Old Testament law?

Again I say WOW! What devastating proof that this whole anti beard "Apostolic Standard" is fighting against God. They can be forgiven. Just let them tell the people the truth and there could be a real move of God. The "hardliners" have hardened themselves against the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet it would be like learning more truth about any other area where we were teaching error. Repent and move on.

[FlamingZword]

Brother, I'd like to ask you one question. I think we could all agree on your statements above. Jesus was not homosexual, white or European.

The question is did he have a beard.

Yes he did it is in the scriptures.

Do you believe that Jesus had a beard?

Yes I do believe he did, because the Bible says so.

I have noticed that you are really good at picking things that are on the periphery of the discussion and trying to deflect to that instead of addressing the issue.

When we were discussing the book of James, you would not address that the leaders were in sin, which James plainly stated. Instead you went off on a tangent about the rich man and the poor man being unsaved, which really was not even the issue. In regards to that discussion;

Did James say that the leaders of the church were sinning by showing favoritism to the rich man and discriminating against the poor man?

If you could just answer with yes or no to these two questions, and forego all the obfuscating and deflecting, I would really appreciate it. Otherwise I question if you are more interested in arriving at the truth, or winning an argument.

Not only Jesus had a beard, but a great number of godly men in the Bible did.

[FlamingZword]

Not true.

The Bible isn't good enough for you on the New Birth, a lady's uncut hair, fornication, soothsayers or any other issue I've seen you debate on here through the years. IF someone gave you a verse for a clean face, you would insist on a beard. If someone could provide a scriptural requirement for a beard, you would insist on a clean face.

But you can not provide a single scriptural requirement so why insist on it.

There is none, zero, zip, nada of scriptures for this man made tradition.

[FlamingZword]

You believe Pastors are sinning for having a set of ministry guidelines?

:nah

no it is because they have a set of ministry guidelines which thing is acceptable, but what is not acceptable is for them to teach their guidelines on the same level as the word of God. Their set of ministry guidelines are not in the scriptures, so no a thousand times no, they are not on the same level as the word of God, and that is what they imply when they say that a person is rebelling against God by not abiding with their guidelines.

They are actually sinning when they equate their set of ministry guidelines to the word of God.

In my ministry I have set reasonable standards in our church, but never have I dared to equate my standards on the same level as the word of God.

[Esaias]

Jesus is not homosexual. Most depictions and paintings of him are based on a homosexual model.

Also, he was not white or European.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/23/b2/0723b20c5ceb71bdd22672cfb0d9e259.jpg

[Amanah]

Some honesty now please from those of you who are damning Apostolics to hell for having platform standards.

If the beard ban was lifted from the churches including the platform, would that make a difference in where you would attend church? Or is this thread just the result of a contentious divisive spirit?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Again I say WOW! What devastating proof that this whole anti beard "Apostolic Standard" is fighting against God. They can be forgiven. Just let them tell the people the truth and there could be a real move of God. The "hardliners" have hardened themselves against the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet it would be like learning more truth about any other area where we were teaching error. Repent and move on.

You believe that all men should have a beard?

FZ already mentioned he couldn’t grow a decent one. So if he did it wold look like he had mange. Like I have been posting, I have known more pro beard wearers as much as anti beard. Both groups cannot make it mandertory. Yet, if a church FAMILY is pleased with what they are doing have at it. They don’t want Wilie Nelson look or shaved clean Fat Baby Face Aquila on their platform then get over it. Fighting God? Where is the New Testament whisker requirement?

Mike, get an umbrella and go outside.

[Amanah]

bearded men riding horses in church at FPC Palm bay :heeheehee

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6134&stc=1&d=1522412242

[Evang.Benincasa]

bearded men riding horses in church at FPC Palm bay :heeheehee

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6134&stc=1&d=1522412242

That's not a beard, that's 5 o'clock shadow.

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/23/b2/0723b20c5ceb71bdd22672cfb0d9e259.jpg

http://78.media.tumblr.com/8ca30efb074ff07aab0fe015aa1e594a/tumblr_inline_mhcljgnrPf1qz4rgp.jpg

This is the one I remember from Good Times, JJ used his father James as his model for Jesus.

[consapente89]

Mike, do you trim or groom your beard?

[Michael The Disciple]

You believe that all men should have a beard?

FZ already mentioned he couldn’t grow a decent one. So if he did it wold look like he had mange. Like I have been posting, I have known more pro beard wearers as much as anti beard. Both groups cannot make it mandertory. Yet, if a church FAMILY is pleased with what they are doing have at it. They don’t want Wilie Nelson look or shaved clean Fat Baby Face Aquila on their platform then get over it. Fighting God? Where is the New Testament whisker requirement?

Mike, get an umbrella and go outside.

Most men if they dont shave would grow a beard. If they cant they cant. I have never said anyone HAS TO.

[jediwill83]

bearded men riding horses in church at FPC Palm bay :heeheehee

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6134&stc=1&d=1522412242


Besides... Romans stopped wearing beards early on due to the tactical disadvantage of sooneone being able to grab it and introduce their blade to your throat...

[Amanah]

Besides... Romans stopped wearing beards early on due to the tactical disadvantage of sooneone being able to grab it and introduce their blade to your throat...

he is a backslid Roman.

[Tithesmeister]

he is a backslid Roman.

Paul was a backslid Roman.

He also backslid from Judaism.

It happened on the road to Damascus.

There was a bright light . . .

[Tithesmeister]

Some honesty now please from those of you who are damning Apostolics to hell for having platform standards.

If the beard ban was lifted from the churches including the platform, would that make a difference in where you would attend church? Or is this thread just the result of a contentious divisive spirit?

For me it is about truth, and whether we have a better idea than God. I believe ALL false doctrine has consequences. We are often unable to understand what they may be. I don’t believe that all false doctrine has equal consequences, but there are consequences nonetheless.

Paul talked about the Pharisees wanting to take away the freedom the churches had in Christ. I believe most extra-biblical doctrine is the spirit of the Pharisees being manifested in modern times. It is nothing new. It is not (IMO) something that should be defended either.

[Aquila]

I have a beard. No one ever refused my money. I guess that's all we're worthy to do in some churches.

[Tithesmeister]

I have a beard. No one ever refused my money. I guess that's all we're worthy to do in some churches.

Wait a minute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just checked.

Some of the dead presidents on my money,

Are wearing . . .



Beards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it"s true.

I promise.

This is a scandal.

Somebody needs to notify headquarters at once.

[Aquila]

Some honesty now please from those of you who are damning Apostolics to hell for having platform standards.

If the beard ban was lifted from the churches including the platform, would that make a difference in where you would attend church? Or is this thread just the result of a contentious divisive spirit?

Actually, it would. I've talked with my family about why we had to leave house church. Unbiblical teachings that hinder gifts, teach the Trinity, etc. I've also talked to them about the churches we could attend attend. I mentioned that several churches would require that I shave, if I wanted to do more than sit on a pew. I was asked if that was in the Bible. I said, "No." My son, who thinks my beard is cool then said, "Isn't that why we left Rennis's house church?"

I can't ethically resist false teaching on account of it not being in the Bible, and insist on a church that teaches things that aren't in the Bible.

I'm looking for a church that teaches the Bible, not the traditions of man. I'm looking for a church that draws the line in regards to sin, not the arbitrary whims of man.

Being house church Christians, we have a high regard for open participation, hospitality, unity in diversity. I've always tried to emphasize that we speak where the Bible speaks, and we're silent where the Bible is silent.

So, yes, a beard standard complicates things. Any standard without Bible to back it up complicates things for us.

[n david]

Wait a minute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just checked.
Some of the dead presidents on my money,
Are wearing . . .

Beards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes it"s true.
I promise.
This is a scandal.
Somebody needs to notify headquarters at once.

Two bills - $50 (Grant) and $5 (Lincoln)

None of the Founding Fathers or signers had a beard.
True story.

And now you know........

The rest of the story.

I miss Paul Harvey. (Who also didn't wear a beard.)

[n david]

Actually, it would. I've talked with my family about why we had to leave house church. Unbiblical teachings that hinder gifts, teach the Trinity, etc. I've also talked to them about the churches we could attend attend. I mentioned that several churches would require that I shave, if I wanted to do more than sit on a pew. I was asked if that was in the Bible. I said, "No." My son, who thinks my beard is cool then said, "Isn't that why we left Rennis's house church?"

:ohplease

[Aquila]

It pastors can arbitrarily set standards, what if a pastor required:

No pick-up trucks.
No motorcycles.
No voting.
No military service.
No high heeled shoes.
No red dresses.
No going without panty hose.
No nude panty hose.
No Facebook.
No internet.
No cell phones.

And the list could get ridiculously long.

The Bible is like the Constitution. It, when applied, limits the power of man over man.

The Bible warns against the traditions and doctrines of man.

[Tithesmeister]

Two bills - $50 (Grant) and $5 (Lincoln)

None of the Founding Fathers or signers had a beard.
True story.

And now you know........

The rest of the story.

I miss Paul Harvey. (Who also didn't wear a beard.)

Cleveland (one thousand) has a mustache.

And now YOU KNOW, the rest of the story.

Good day!

I miss him too. He was a great story teller.

[Aquila]

:ohplease

Roll your eyes all day. But it's true. The kids liked the house church.

[Tithesmeister]

Two bills - $50 (Grant) and $5 (Lincoln)

None of the Founding Fathers or signers had a beard.
True story.

And now you know........

The rest of the story.

I miss Paul Harvey. (Who also didn't wear a beard.)

It is highly likely that ALL of the Apostles (you know Apostolic?) had beards.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Most men if they dont shave would grow a beard. If they cant they cant. I have never said anyone HAS TO.

Bro, if we are God's people it sure sounds like you are advocating all of God's people who are males to grow whiskers.

I should have phrased LEVITICUS 19:27 as he commanded HIS PEOPLE not to mar the corners of their beards.

So God designed into men that they would grow beards. When he came in flesh he had one.

I still don't know where you come up with God design men to grow beards. Some men are incapable of growing a beard, also some women can grow more facial hair than you. So, what are you basing that "God designed" statement on? I understand that God designed women to give birth, which men are unable to do. But as far as God designing men to the only gender to sport facial hair, then you would be wrong. Nor can you find a prohibition against a woman growing facial hair, or a Bible verse which says that a beard is only male attire. So, I guess in your congregation everyone from male to female could sport beards.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It is highly likely that ALL of the Apostles (you know Apostolic?) had beards.

That is based on assumption that all apostles had to own beards because of some unwritten Judean ruling. Assumption based on a Hebrew Roots focus which these apostles didn't all have Hebrew names. Phillip having a Greek name, may of had a Hellenized Roman look. Shaul Paulos being a Roman Judean could of shaved, indicating His Roman freeborn citizenship. Aquila (name meaning Roman Eagle) the husband of Prisca being a freedman would of strived to show his Roman affiliation with his clean shaven look. Andrew and Peter, both Hellenized Judeans raised in Galilee of the Gentiles ROMANS. May have all sported the clean shave. Still even all that is assumption, but one must take into consideration all these individuals were in a very mixed Roman world.

[Amanah]

It pastors can arbitrarily set standards, what if a pastor required:

No pick-up trucks.
No motorcycles.
No voting.
No military service.
No high heeled shoes.
No red dresses.
No going without panty hose.
No nude panty hose.
No Facebook.
No internet.
No cell phones.

And the list could get ridiculously long.

The Bible is like the Constitution. It, when applied, limits the power of man over man.

The Bible warns against the traditions and doctrines of man.

My church does not teach against any of that.
And obviously they don't think beards are sin.

Chris, you have a huge responsibility to be a spiritual leader to your family. I hope you take them to the one the teaches the most truth even if you disagree with a few things.

[Tithesmeister]

That is based on assumption that all apostles had to own beards because of some unwritten Judean ruling. Assumption based on a Hebrew Roots focus which these apostles didn't all have Hebrew names. Phillip having a Greek name, may of had a Hellenized Roman look. Shaul Paulos being a Roman Judean could of shaved, indicating His Roman freeborn citizenship. Aquila (name meaning Roman Eagle) the husband of Prisca being a freedman would of strived to show his Roman affiliation with his clean shaven look. Andrew and Peter, both Hellenized Judeans raised in Galilee of the Gentiles ROMANS. May have all sported the clean shave. Still even all that is assumption, but one must take into consideration all these individuals were in a very mixed Roman world.

I think there is pretty strong evidence that the Jews were traditional beard wearers. On the other hand there is scant to no evidence of them being clean shaven.

Would you agree?

You are referring to Hellenized Judaeism. The Apostles were all Hebrews who zealously followed the law, were they not? Even the whole church of Jerusalem, apparently followed the (Mosaic) law.

It was part of the law to not round the corners of the beard nor mar the corners of the beard. It seems it would be difficult to do either, if you had no beard. It seems that there was generally shame associated with having your beard shaven.

On the other hand there is no evidence that I am aware of that being clean-shaven is considered a good thing or that God approved of it. This is where the part of it being extra-biblical comes to bear. The Apostolic churches, by and large fall on the side of it being a shame to be have a beard. The Bible falls on the side of it being a shame to be clean-shaven.

Overall the preponderance of scriptural evidence seems to be either wearing a beard was expected of a man, or that it would be a matter of personal choice. I think it should be a matter of personal choice. I have chosen for many years to NOT wear a beard. I certainly am not bothered by my brothers that do wear a beard. It would not bother me to have them in the pulpit.

What does bother me is that they (being bearded) are more likely to be in harmony with the scripture than they are with the standards of the church. This is the issue.

Why are the standards of the church in disagreement with the expectations of the scripture?

[Evang.Benincasa]

It pastors can arbitrarily set standards, what if a pastor required:

No pick-up trucks.
No motorcycles.
No voting.
No military service.
No high heeled shoes.
No red dresses.
No going without panty hose.
No nude panty hose.
No Facebook.
No internet.
No cell phones.

And the list could get ridiculously long.

The Bible is like the Constitution. It, when applied, limits the power of man over man.

The Bible warns against the traditions and doctrines of man.


Ar·bi·trar·i·ly

adverb
1. on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You guys come up with the most insane change agent rhetoric.

Anyone reading this forum (who hadn't a clue what an Apostolic Pentecostal church was would think you were out of your minds.) Seriously, because being ignorant doesn't give you a pass. I know this vividly, because my father was an atheist. Who loved his son, and wanted his son to understand his atheism. Especially when he caught me with a Bible. He looked at you people with one eyebrow raised because number one, he didn't believe that you could be as stupid as you make yourselves out to be. I would later find out that most of these stories on these forums were exaggerations and embellished to get more bang for your buck. The only ones who knew you were making it up were the Ultracons, but instead of getting a good chuckle, they engaged you all in honest debate.

I say all the above to say this? What were you thinking? None of this was a Jack in the Box pop up surprise when you walked into the church by no means. When you walked in the Church and saw all the guys with overalls and beards, and the sisters with long hair, long sleeves, long dresses, and long veils was the time of decision. You guys ever heard of buyer beware? Tithing surprise? Bros, you jokers were filling out checks since you set a foot through the door because the majority of churches from Baptist to Pennycost have tithing. Oh, but you studied and found out what? That you should support the ministry but just not with 10% Seriously? You all joined the club, you all knew how the cow ate the cabbage when you sat on the pew. But after a while a catalyst was introduced which was offense. The so called eye opener? If you walk into a church and you don't like everyone wearing a beard, and find out you just don't look good in overalls? Then turn around and walk out. But if they are the ones who have the TRUTH, and they are preaching it gun barrel straight. They can pray the house down and pray it back up again with tears and speaking in tongues. Then honey child I'll wear a beanie with propeller and long floppy clown shoes. Counting the cost is performed when you first get the list handed to you. At anytime you can hit the door or turn around and hit the floor with snot bubbles and tears.

In short, you all knew what you were getting yourself into from giddy up.
You see the difference with the Jim Joness of the world is that they slowly introduced crazy stuff. Branch Davidians through David Koresh slowly introduced crazy stuff, same with the 12 tribe community and Yoneq Sprigg. These groups didn't believe what they believe now in their beginning. They slowly evolved. Yet, those old members who didn't like the changes LEFT.

Any neophytes walking through the door accepted the new program because they were never around in the beginning. So, they thought what Jim was doing was cool, If Mr Koresh wanted multiple wives, great, if Yoneq was a special messenger from Yahweh, then thumbs up. Everyone knew the drill, everyone knew what they were signing up for. No complaints, no tears, no finding a forum where we can rip open our chest and bleed all over those who don't get what your problem is about. Just a bunch of people enjoying Jesus Christ because they already agreed to the rules and gotten pass all that. Now they focus on Christ and are moving forward. Do I agree with all the cults and strangeness religion bares? No, I just understand why people do what they do. Sometimes they have good reasons, sometimes they have no reasons, sometimes they have bad reasons. But as for me and my house we will worship Jesus Christ as we see it book, chapter, and verse. If someone is doing what there doing and doesn't want anything to do with me. Then oh well. But you won't see me curled up in the fetal position sucking my thumb and crying my self to sleep.

[Tithesmeister]

Ar·bi·trar·i·ly

adverb
1. on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You guys come up with the most insane change agent rhetoric.

Anyone reading this forum (who hadn't a clue what an Apostolic Pentecostal church was would think you were out of your minds.) Seriously, because being ignorant doesn't give you a pass. I know this vividly, because my father was an atheist. Who loved his son, and wanted his son to understand his atheism. Especially when he caught me with a Bible. He looked at you people with one eyebrow raised because number one, he didn't believe that you could be as stupid as you make yourselves out to be. I would later find out that most of these stories on these forums were exaggerations and embellished to get more bang for your buck. The only ones who knew you were making it up were the Ultracons, but instead of getting a good chuckle, they engaged you all in honest debate.

I say all the above to say this? What were you thinking? None of this was a Jack in the Box pop up surprise when you walked into the church by no means. When you walked in the Church and saw all the guys with overalls and beards, and the sisters with long hair, long sleeves, long dresses, and long veils was the time of decision. You guys ever heard of buyer beware? Tithing surprise? Bros, you jokers were filling out checks since you set a foot through the door because the majority of churches from Baptist to Pennycost have tithing. Oh, but you studied and found out what? That you should support the ministry but just not with 10% Seriously? You all joined the club, you all knew how the cow ate the cabbage when you sat on the pew. But after a while a catalyst was introduced which was offense. The so called eye opener? If you walk into a church and you don't like everyone wearing a beard, and find out you just don't look good in overalls? Then turn around and walk out. But if they are the ones who have the TRUTH, and they are preaching it gun barrel straight. They can pray the house down and pray it back up again with tears and speaking in tongues. Then honey child I'll wear a beanie with propeller and long floppy clown shoes. Counting the cost is performed when you first get the list handed to you. At anytime you can hit the door or turn around and hit the floor with snot bubbles and tears.

In short, you all knew what you were getting yourself into from giddy up.
You see the difference with the Jim Joness of the world is that they slowly introduced crazy stuff. Branch Davidians through David Koresh slowly introduced crazy stuff, same with the 12 tribe community and Yoneq Sprigg. These groups didn't believe what they believe now in their beginning. They slowly evolved. Yet, those old members who didn't like the changes LEFT.

Any neophytes walking through the door accepted the new program because they were never around in the beginning. So, they thought what Jim was doing was cool, If Mr Koresh wanted multiple wives, great, if Yoneq was a special messenger from Yahweh, then thumbs up. Everyone knew the drill, everyone knew what they were signing up for. No complaints, no tears, no finding a forum where we can rip open our chest and bleed all over those who don't get what your problem is about. Just a bunch of people enjoying Jesus Christ because they already agreed to the rules and gotten pass all that. Now they focus on Christ and are moving forward. Do I agree with all the cults and strangeness religion bares? No, I just understand why people do what they do. Sometimes they have good reasons, sometimes they have no reasons, sometimes they have bad reasons. But as for me and my house we will worship Jesus Christ as we see it book, chapter, and verse. If someone is doing what there doing and doesn't want anything to do with me. Then oh well. But you won't see me curled up in the fetal position sucking my thumb and crying my self to sleep.


EB, what is peculiar about your post above is that you and I have similar BELIEFS on tithing. (You seem to want to keep bringing up tithing for some reason.) You seem to want to take the position that once you darken the door of the church, you are locked into their beliefs on every single doctrine. This is certainly not scriptural. Maybe you should get over it.

Have you heard of the noble saints of Berea? How would they stack up with your doctrine of accept it all or reject it all, right now, hurry up, because your right of refusal runs out in twenty four hours. Where is your scripture to support this.

The Holy Ghost will lead and guide us into ALL truth. It is not a download that takes place in fifteen minutes. Seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Not sign up for a generic one size fits all plan that was drawn up by a pastor. I think you are going a little overboard with your strong opinions here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think there is pretty strong evidence that the Jews were traditional beard wearers. On the other hand there is scant to no evidence of them being clean shaven. Would you agree?

Bro, what strong evidence? the Bible is silent on any evidence that they were even involved in any Talmudic tradition of the sages, and pharisees. You first would have to understand that Judeans (even today modern Jews) are split. To understand how Talmud works, is that it isn't just commentary, but conflicting commentary of Rabbinical arguments. During the time of Jesus Christ it was always Q&A, but it ended up in long arguments like this forum. the only difference is that when Jesus spoke He nailed them down to the scripture, instead of the multiple traditions. Still Jesus said to leave them alone. If they were doing it their way they were already blind, and therefore would inevitably lead their pupils into a ditch. First thing, is that we have to shed the whole Hebrew Onlysim which teaches that everyone during the time of Jesus were ultra conservative Judians. When that wasn't the case, these guys worked hard to get around the law with their traditions. They also loved the Roman world, it was the Zealots who hated anything Roman. Hence that picture is what we have paraded before our eyes. Making us not only Hebrew Onlyists but actually Christian Zionists. Where our churches start adopting Kabbalah and thinking its Pentecostal. Anyway, you have to be able to see the easy stuff, the New Testament originally written in Greek. The Old Testament which the New Testament writers quote is the LXX, and Aramaic Targums. These people were under Gentile control and captivity since Babylon to Rome. Therefore they were extremely cosmopolitan, they spoke Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. They interacted with their relatives who lived in Alexandria Egypt which was amazingly Hellenized with Greek/Egyptian leadership. The names of the Judean children came right out of the LXX, as well as the Aramaic Targums. Look, the Apostle Paul didn't even recognize the High Priest and apologized to him because he disrespected him. A High Priest is a little hard not to notice, ya think? So, what was that guy dressed like? Did the High Priest Theophilus did he have a beard? Maybe, maybe not because he was a Roman sycophant. Again, we like to believe that during the time of Jesus everyone looked like they did in the Sunday school picture books. But alas that may not be the case.


You are referring to Hellenized Judaeism. The Apostles were all Hebrews who zealously followed the law, were they not? Even the whole church of Jerusalem, apparently followed the (Mosaic) law.

But, not all of Jesus' apostles were zealots. Jesus wasn't a zealot. Jesus or the Law has no prohibition against shaved faces. It is only assumed that everyone had to have a beard. Paul makes no prohibition against the shaved face. Because the lion share of his Diaspora Judean Roman churches would of had a huge mix of beards, and shaved clean Roman faces. Especially the clean shaved Roman faces, which was predominant. It would of been the best opportunity for Paul to take this issue to task.



It was part of the law to not round the corners of the beard nor mar the corners of the beard. It seems it would be difficult to do either, if you had no beard. It seems that there was generally shame associated with having your beard shaven.

Still, you would have to see this being taught to your Roman neophytes, and Diaspora Judean Roman neophytes. We have nothing being mentioned by anyone. Therefore the primitive church doesn't make any issue pro or con.


On the other hand there is no evidence that I am aware of that being clean-shaven is considered a good thing or that God approved of it. This is where the part of it being extra-biblical comes to bear. The Apostolic churches, by and large fall on the side of it being a shame to be have a beard. The Bible falls on the side of it being a shame to be clean-shaven.

then you fall under the same condemnation you launch against your clean saved brethren. We just don't have Paul, freeborn Roman telling other converted Romans CORNELIUS Legionnaire concerning his bald face. I can make up a good argument based on assumptions, but so can you. bottomline we are not taught through the apostles to grow or not to grow a beard.




Overall the preponderance of scriptural evidence seems to be either wearing a beard was expected of a man, or that it would be a matter of personal choice. I think it should be a matter of personal choice. I have chosen for many years to NOT wear a beard. I certainly am not bothered by my brothers that do wear a beard. It would not bother me to have them in the pulpit.

But, look at what you posted above, you actually make a case for argument sake that a beard was Godly, and not to have one is ungodly and shameful. You know how many churches believe you don't have a choice?


What does bother me is that they (being bearded) are more likely to be in harmony with the scripture than they are with the standards of the church. This is the issue.

That's pretty obvious, you would then have to grow an untrimmed beard.



Why are the standards of the church in disagreement with the expectations of the scripture?

Again, no epistles from Paul concerning a beard, ye or nay.

[n david]

It pastors can arbitrarily set standards, what if a pastor required:

No pick-up trucks.
No motorcycles.
No voting.
No military service.
No high heeled shoes.
No red dresses.
No going without panty hose.
No nude panty hose.
No Facebook.
No internet.
No cell phones.

And the list could get ridiculously long.

The Bible is like the Constitution. It, when applied, limits the power of man over man.

The Bible warns against the traditions and doctrines of man.

https://media.giphy.com/media/6yXNUjWveSC4w/giphy.gif

There must be some mold in your beard that somehow seeped into your brain.

[Evang.Benincasa]

EB, what is peculiar about your post above is that you and I have similar BELIEFS on tithing. (You seem to want to keep bringing up tithing for some reason.) You seem to want to take the position that once you darken the door of the church, you are locked into their beliefs on every single doctrine. This is certainly not scriptural. Maybe you should get over it.

Have you heard of the noble saints of Berea? How would they stack up with your doctrine of accept it all or reject it all, right now, hurry up, because your right of refusal runs out in twenty four hours. Where is your scripture to support this.

The Holy Ghost will lead and guide us into ALL truth. It is not a download that takes place in fifteen minutes. Seek out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Not sign up for a generic one size fits all plan that was drawn up by a pastor. I think you are going a little overboard with your strong opinions here.

Bro, you missing the point if you think I'm coming against study and research. I'm not, but the meat of what I'm posting is that I know people who have been in the Apostolic movement since they were babies. Some have been in it for generations. They aren't the ones I'm talking about, I'm talking about the ones who walk through the doors see the shopping list hang from the pulpit. They understand what they are getting into, and they LIKE what they are getting into. They came from the world, Trinitarian churches and they have moved on pass what you believe are stumbling blocks. Bro, making any doctrine a candy stick, be it eschatology, tithing, standards, or no tithing or no standards are only focused to YOUR followers. I bring up the tithing thing, because when it is all said and done, those who care about what you are saying will come to you. Those who don't, don't care what you say or how you say it, will move on down the line. Bro, this is religion baby, and in religion there is a rear end for every seat. We have to be real about this, and not somewhere off in the ecclesiastical ozone layer. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. But when people aren't ready the student will NOT hear!

[Tithesmeister]

Bro, what strong evidence? the Bible is silent on any evidence that they were even involved in any Talmudic tradition of the sages, and pharisees. You first would have to understand that Judeans (even today modern Jews) are split. To understand how Talmud works, is that it isn't just commentary, but conflicting commentary of Rabbinical arguments. During the time of Jesus Christ it was always Q&A, but it ended up in long arguments like this forum. the only difference is that when Jesus spoke He nailed them down to the scripture, instead of the multiple traditions. Still Jesus said to leave them alone. If they were doing it their way they were already blind, and therefore would inevitably lead their pupils into a ditch. First thing, is that we have to shed the whole Hebrew Onlysim which teaches that everyone during the time of Jesus were ultra conservative Judians. When that wasn't the case, these guys worked hard to get around the law with their traditions. They also loved the Roman world, it was the Zealots who hated anything Roman. Hence that picture is what we have paraded before our eyes. Making us not only Hebrew Onlyists but actually Christian Zionists. Where our churches start adopting Kabbalah and thinking its Pentecostal. Anyway, you have to be able to see the easy stuff, the New Testament originally written in Greek. The Old Testament which the New Testament writers quote is the LXX, and Aramaic Targums. These people were under Gentile control and captivity since Babylon to Rome. Therefore they were extremely cosmopolitan, they spoke Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew. They interacted with their relatives who lived in Alexandria Egypt which was amazingly Hellenized with Greek/Egyptian leadership. The names of the Judean children came right out of the LXX, as well as the Aramaic Targums. Look, the Apostle Paul didn't even recognize the High Priest and apologized to him because he disrespected him. A High Priest is a little hard not to notice, ya think? So, what was that guy dressed like? Did the High Priest Theophilus did he have a beard? Maybe, maybe not because he was a Roman sycophant. Again, we like to believe that during the time of Jesus everyone looked like they did in the Sunday school picture books. But alas that may not be the case.



But, not all of Jesus' apostles were zealots. Jesus wasn't a zealot. Jesus or the Law has no prohibition against shaved faces. It is only assumed that everyone had to have a beard. Paul makes no prohibition against the shaved face. Because the lion share of his Diaspora Judean Roman churches would of had a huge mix of beards, and shaved clean Roman faces. Especially the clean shaved Roman faces, which was predominant. It would of been the best opportunity for Paul to take this issue to task.




Still, you would have to see this being taught to your Roman neophytes, and Diaspora Judean Roman neophytes. We have nothing being mentioned by anyone. Therefore the primitive church doesn't make any issue pro or con.



then you fall under the same condemnation you launch against your clean saved brethren. We just don't have Paul, freeborn Roman telling other converted Romans CORNELIUS Legionnaire concerning his bald face. I can make up a good argument based on assumptions, but so can you. bottomline we are not taught through the apostles to grow or not to grow a beard.




But, look at what you posted above, you actually make a case for argument sake that a beard was Godly, and not to have one is ungodly and shameful. You know how many churches believe you don't have a choice?



That's pretty obvious, you would then have to grow an untrimmed beard.




Again, no epistles from Paul concerning a beard, ye or nay.

My assumption comes from the scripture posted below.

Acts.21
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law . . .

The thousands of Jews that believed ALL were zealous of the law.

I agree that there is no necessity to be clean-shaven.

I agree that there is no necessity to wear a beard.

I only said that the church of Jerusalem, which seemed to be pretty much exclusively Jews, were zealous followers of the law.

Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was a totally different matter. I agree that you are likely correct about that. Paul himself was a Pharisee before Damascus.
It is hard to imagine that he was clean-shaven. Traditions die hard, especially those that were based on the law.

[Evang.Benincasa]

My assumption comes from the scripture posted below.

Acts.21
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law . . .

The thousands of Jews that believed ALL were zealous of the law.

I agree that there is no necessity to be clean-shaven.

I agree that there is no necessity to wear a beard.

I only said that the church of Jerusalem, which seemed to be pretty much exclusively Jews, were zealous followers of the law.

Paul's ministry to the Gentiles was a totally different matter. I agree that you are likely correct about that. Paul himself was a Pharisee before Damascus.
It is hard to imagine that he was clean-shaven. Traditions die hard, especially those that were based on the law.

Still again, being zealous of the law in first century Jerusalem didn't require growing a beard. Or teaching Diaspora children to get rid of their togas, or start learning Hebrew. Again, to understand modern Judaism in a nutshell, we can see why a Judean would have his own interpretation on what was "zealous." The clean shaved face goes all the way to Judas Maccabeus' army. The Judeans were slowly accepting the hellenization. Antiochus Epiphanes caused an uprising of a zealot attitude (chip on their shoulder) against Hellenization. but, still we don't see an increase of beard growth, or prohibitions against beards.

[Aquila]

My church does not teach against any of that.
And obviously they don't think beards are sin.

Chris, you have a huge responsibility to be a spiritual leader to your family. I hope you take them to the one the teaches the most truth even if you disagree with a few things.

Would you eat a pie if I told you that it only has one teaspoon of human vomit in it?

[Aquila]

Ar·bi·trar·i·ly

adverb
1. on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

You guys come up with the most insane change agent rhetoric.

Anyone reading this forum (who hadn't a clue what an Apostolic Pentecostal church was would think you were out of your minds.) Seriously, because being ignorant doesn't give you a pass. I know this vividly, because my father was an atheist. Who loved his son, and wanted his son to understand his atheism. Especially when he caught me with a Bible. He looked at you people with one eyebrow raised because number one, he didn't believe that you could be as stupid as you make yourselves out to be. I would later find out that most of these stories on these forums were exaggerations and embellished to get more bang for your buck. The only ones who knew you were making it up were the Ultracons, but instead of getting a good chuckle, they engaged you all in honest debate.

I say all the above to say this? What were you thinking? None of this was a Jack in the Box pop up surprise when you walked into the church by no means. When you walked in the Church and saw all the guys with overalls and beards, and the sisters with long hair, long sleeves, long dresses, and long veils was the time of decision. You guys ever heard of buyer beware? Tithing surprise? Bros, you jokers were filling out checks since you set a foot through the door because the majority of churches from Baptist to Pennycost have tithing. Oh, but you studied and found out what? That you should support the ministry but just not with 10% Seriously? You all joined the club, you all knew how the cow ate the cabbage when you sat on the pew. But after a while a catalyst was introduced which was offense. The so called eye opener? If you walk into a church and you don't like everyone wearing a beard, and find out you just don't look good in overalls? Then turn around and walk out. But if they are the ones who have the TRUTH, and they are preaching it gun barrel straight. They can pray the house down and pray it back up again with tears and speaking in tongues. Then honey child I'll wear a beanie with propeller and long floppy clown shoes. Counting the cost is performed when you first get the list handed to you. At anytime you can hit the door or turn around and hit the floor with snot bubbles and tears.

In short, you all knew what you were getting yourself into from giddy up.
You see the difference with the Jim Joness of the world is that they slowly introduced crazy stuff. Branch Davidians through David Koresh slowly introduced crazy stuff, same with the 12 tribe community and Yoneq Sprigg. These groups didn't believe what they believe now in their beginning. They slowly evolved. Yet, those old members who didn't like the changes LEFT.

Any neophytes walking through the door accepted the new program because they were never around in the beginning. So, they thought what Jim was doing was cool, If Mr Koresh wanted multiple wives, great, if Yoneq was a special messenger from Yahweh, then thumbs up. Everyone knew the drill, everyone knew what they were signing up for. No complaints, no tears, no finding a forum where we can rip open our chest and bleed all over those who don't get what your problem is about. Just a bunch of people enjoying Jesus Christ because they already agreed to the rules and gotten pass all that. Now they focus on Christ and are moving forward. Do I agree with all the cults and strangeness religion bares? No, I just understand why people do what they do. Sometimes they have good reasons, sometimes they have no reasons, sometimes they have bad reasons. But as for me and my house we will worship Jesus Christ as we see it book, chapter, and verse. If someone is doing what there doing and doesn't want anything to do with me. Then oh well. But you won't see me curled up in the fetal position sucking my thumb and crying my self to sleep.

But would you take your family to such a church, with such arbitrary standards, if that was your only option?

Would you agree that the beard standard is an arbitrary standard with no biblical foundation?

[Aquila]

https://media.giphy.com/media/6yXNUjWveSC4w/giphy.gif

There must be some mold in your beard that somehow seeped into your brain.

You said you support pastors making arbitrary standards, not me. Lol

Would you support a pastors right to set the standards I listed, and would you attend their church?

[Aquila]

Who here would attend a church that accepts their money, but not their face?

[Amanah]

Would you eat a pie if I told you that it only has one teaspoon of human vomit in it?

if it was the only food I had to keep me alive, yes.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mike, do you trim or groom your beard?

My beard is so short at present its hardly noticeable. So yes it is trimmed short but that may change.

[Evang.Benincasa]

My beard is so short at present its hardly noticeable. So yes it is trimmed short but that may change.

You in your 70s?

[Evang.Benincasa]

But would you take your family to such a church, with such arbitrary standards, if that was your only option?

Would you agree that the beard standard is an arbitrary standard with no biblical foundation?

Chris, did you read my post? Did you notice the definition I enlarged and bolded? Can you tell me why I gave you first the definition, and what I was trying to say in my post?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Who here would attend a church that accepts their money, but not their face?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o751WrBMW01dJyyl2/giphy.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Would you eat a pie if I told you that it only has one teaspoon of human vomit in it?

https://rashmanly.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/1226794.gif?w=450&h=192

[FlamingZword]

It pastors can arbitrarily set standards, what if a pastor required:

No pick-up trucks.
No motorcycles.
No voting.
No military service.
No high heeled shoes.
No red dresses.
No going without panty hose.
No nude panty hose.
No Facebook.
No internet.
No cell phones.

And the list could get ridiculously long.

The Bible is like the Constitution. It, when applied, limits the power of man over man.

The Bible warns against the traditions and doctrines of man.

Well dear brother, I would not mind if someone required some of these things with the clear understanding and statement that they are not biblical standards but only things that we should abide in the spirit of unity.

Of course there should be a reasonable reason for such standards.

No pick-up trucks. if they are monster trucks.
No motorcycles. If they are too noisy or foreign.
No voting. more than once.
No military service. if you can't handle it.
No high heeled shoes. unless you sign a waiver for falling inside church.
No red dresses. if it is darn too bright.
No going without panty hose. unless you can not afford it.
No nude panty hose. if you have other colors available.
No Facebook. unless you befriend the pastor.
No internet. during church service.
No cell phones. not during preaching.
:D

[Amanah]

Eleven People filled with the Holy Ghost the first night of the Messiah Drama

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6136&stc=1&d=1522477663

[n david]

Would you eat a pie if I told you that it only has one teaspoon of human vomit in it?
http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/rofl-gif-2.gif

This is from the guy who spent years in a church which wasn't apostolic, was trinitarian and didn't believe in the new birth experience.

[n david]

But would you take your family to such a church, with such arbitrary standards, if that was your only option?

Would you agree that the beard standard is an arbitrary standard with no biblical foundation?
Now:
"I'M NOT TAKING MY FAMILY TO AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH THAT PREACHES AGAINST BEARDS!"

Also now:
"Hi, I'm Chris. We've spent the past xx years attending a trinitarian house Church which didn't believe in the new birth experience. But they liked my beard."

smh

[n david]

You said you support pastors making arbitrary standards, not me.
Nope. Didn't say arbitrary. You keep adding words.

[Godsdrummer]

That is the thing, we go around and around with out coming to a solution. Bringing in things that don't really deal with the subject at all. Oh well thought I would just bring out a couple of points myself. The new picture of myself is still about ten years old. LOL I was taken in 2007 when my wife and I went to see Peter Frampton in concert for his 30 year anniversary of his "comes alive" and my wife and I's 30 year anniversary.

Any way I have almost always have facial hair. My pastor growing up did not preach against it when I grew up But he was the only one in the state that did not.

When I carried ministerial license with UPCI was the only time that I shaved and kept clean shaven. I was young and did not have the knowledge I do now. Had I know what I do now I most likely would not have gone into the ministry at all.

Let me go on record and say that I do not believe any pastor has the right to set any standard for whatever reason, and if you cannot find anything to preach about but how not to dress or wear your hair, then you are not as good of preacher as you think you are.

This has been more than I have typed on this forum for a year, ever since I was really sick last year I have not been able to type as well or get my thoughts together and put them down on paper.

[Aquila]

http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/rofl-gif-2.gif

This is from the guy who spent years in a church which wasn't apostolic, was trinitarian and didn't believe in the new birth experience.

Ah, so, you're not happy with one wanting to go to a biblical church?

[Aquila]

Well dear brother, I would not mind if someone required some of these things with the clear understanding and statement that they are not biblical standards but only things that we should abide in the spirit of unity.

Of course there should be a reasonable reason for such standards.

No pick-up trucks. if they are monster trucks.
No motorcycles. If they are too noisy or foreign.
No voting. more than once.
No military service. if you can't handle it.
No high heeled shoes. unless you sign a waiver for falling inside church.
No red dresses. if it is darn too bright.
No going without panty hose. unless you can not afford it.
No nude panty hose. if you have other colors available.
No Facebook. unless you befriend the pastor.
No internet. during church service.
No cell phones. not during preaching.
:D

You know, a more biblical case can be made for some of those standards I listed than the beard standard, right?

[Aquila]

Eleven People filled with the Holy Ghost the first night of the Messiah Drama

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6136&stc=1&d=1522477663

And, see, beards on that platform didn't hinder a thing.

[Aquila]

Now:
"I'M NOT TAKING MY FAMILY TO AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH THAT PREACHES AGAINST BEARDS!"

Also now:
"Hi, I'm Chris. We've spent the past xx years attending a trinitarian house Church which didn't believe in the new birth experience. But they liked my beard."

smh

Now that I'm looking for an Apostolic church, I want to feel welcomed and not like a second class citizen.

[Aquila]

Nope. Didn't say arbitrary. You keep adding words.

If the beard standard isn't arbitrary, provide Scripture, please.

[Amanah]

And, see, beards on that platform didn't hinder a thing.

The young man playing Jesus is 3rd generation Apostolic, his Dad baptized me in Jesus name when I was a kid. His Mom is very elderly but still with us.
He never rebelled as a teenager, he has always walked closely with the Lord from a child till this day with utmost respect to his elders.

After the play he will shave because he is in ministry, his Father and Mother would expect it.

That there are beards on the platform shows that we don't think it a sin.

[Aquila]

So far, based on this thread, what I'm getting is this:

-Beards are NOT sin.
-There isn't a single Scripture that would prohibit beards.
-Teaching that beards are sin is a false doctrine.
-Good Holy Ghost filled men often have beards.
-Standards against beards are based purely on pastoral opinion.
-This does trouble many men with beards.
-A pastor should be able to set platform standards that alienate men with beards, though beards aren't sin.
-Men with beards are often suspected of pride, rebellion, and legalism.
-Some believe a pastor can set any standard in church, even without biblical foundation.
-Some believe a pastor has a responsibility to only set standards founded on Scripture.
-Men with beards seem to have a stronger impulse to turn to the Bible and abandon the unbiblical traditions of men, making them suspect to those who have sold out to the status quo.

[Aquila]

Pentecostal pioneers who were known to occasionally wore facial hair:

Frank Bartleman
R.E McAlister
Glenn Cook
William Seymour
Charles Parham
G.T. Haywood

And many others.

Today, these men wouldn't be permitted on most platforms unless they shaved.

[Aquila]

One passage of Scripture that has weighed upon me during the past few weeks follows:

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Indeed, straight is the gate, and narrow is the way. And truly few have found it.

This weekend all the local Apostolic churches not only hold to an unbiblical beard standard, but they are also honoring the pagan festival of Easter. Not as Passover, mind you, but as "Easter". Many churches have Easter egg hunts, Easter baskets, Easter candies, sunrise services, and even an Easter Bunny for the kids. All are pagan and unbiblical.

The issue is, the very same council that brought us the doctrine of the Trinity established the dating method by which we determine Easter today, divorcing it from the Jewish Passover.

I'm realizing that the closer to truth you desire to be, the more narrow the way becomes. Even to the point of ruling out at least 75% of "Apostolic" churches.

[Michael The Disciple]

So far, based on this thread, what I'm getting is this:

-Beards are NOT sin.
-There isn't a single Scripture that would prohibit beards.
-Teaching that beards are sin is a false doctrine.
-Good Holy Ghost filled men often have beards.
-Standards against beards are based purely on pastoral opinion.
-This does trouble many men with beards.
-A pastor should be able to set platform standards that alienate men with beards, though beards aren't sin.
-Men with beards are often suspected of pride, rebellion, and legalism.
-Some believe a pastor can set any standard in church, even without biblical foundation.
-Some believe a pastor has a responsibility to only set standards founded on Scripture.
-Men with beards seem to have a stronger impulse to turn to the Bible and abandon the unbiblical traditions of men, making them suspect to those who have sold out to the status quo.

Let us also consider this for the "platform standard" believers. They are admitting beards are not a sin. None of them even admit to EVER hearing it called a sin. So they reason someone can warm a pew that has a beard and he is not commiting a sin, he's just not "respectable" enough to set foot on the holy platform.

OK.

Next question is if they are not "respectable" enough to stand on the holy platform, how is it they ARE respectable enough to sit in one of their pews? If their is something about them that is NOT respectable, why should they even be allowed to stay in the Church?

[Michael The Disciple]

We just saw the movie "Paul". It was good, better than most Christian movies. Paul, Luke and all the Christian men had beards. The Romans had none.

[n david]

We just saw the movie "Paul". It was good, better than most Christian movies. Paul, Luke and all the Christian men had beards. The Romans had none.
Because everything you see in movies are real and 100% accurate.

:laffatu

[Esaias]

Emperor Marcus Aurelius:

https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/09/06/14/36/marcus-aurelius-2721712_1280.jpg

[Esaias]

Co-Imperator Lucius Versus:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Lucius_Verus_-_MET_-_L.2007.26_cropped.jpg/1200px-Lucius_Verus_-_MET_-_L.2007.26_cropped.jpg

[Esaias]

Emperor Hadrian:

https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/1306.jpg

[Esaias]

Clement of Alexandria, Paedogogus, Book III:

But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you would suppose them to be women. For although not allowed to wear gold, yet out of effeminate desire they enwreath their latches and fringes with leaves of gold; or, getting certain spherical figures of the same metal made, they fasten them to their ankles, and hang them from their necks. This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the women's apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts. For this is a meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts — a sign this of strength and rule. So also cocks, which fight in defense of the hens, he has decked with combs, as it were helmets; and so high a value does God set on these locks, that He orders them to make their appearance on men simultaneously with discretion, and delighted with a venerable look, has honoured gravity of countenance with grey hairs. But wisdom, and discriminating judgments that are hoary with wisdom, attain maturity with time, and by the vigour of long experience give strength to old age, producing grey hairs, the admirable flower of venerable wisdom, conciliating confidence. This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man's whole body. Whatever smoothness and softness was in him He abstracted from his side when He formed the woman Eve, physically receptive, his partner in parentage, his help in household management, while he (for he had parted with all smoothness) remained a man, and shows himself man. And to him has been assigned action, as to her suffering; for what is shaggy is drier and warmer than what is smooth. Wherefore males have both more hair and more heat than females, animals that are entire than the emasculated, perfect than imperfect. It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness. But the embellishment of smoothing (for I am warned by the Word), if it is to attract men, is the act of an effeminate person, — if to attract women, is the act of an adulterer; and both must be driven as far as possible from our society. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered, says the Lord; Matthew 10:30 those on the chin, too, are numbered, and those on the whole body. There must be therefore no plucking out, contrary to God's appointment, which has counted them in according to His will. Do you not know yourselves, says the apostle, that Christ Jesus is in you? 2 Corinthians 13:5 Whom, had we known as dwelling in us, I know not how we could have dared to dishonour.

[Michael The Disciple]

Clement

But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly!

Clement believed the shave-only Preachers were fighting against God!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Clement believed the shave-only Preachers were fighting against God!

Clement believed a lot thing. But, I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that all believers in Christ must grow beards?

[Truthseeker]

Clement is more right on this subject than the must shave crowd is.

[Michael The Disciple]

Clement believed a lot thing. But, I'm going to ask you. Do you believe that all believers in Christ must grow beards?

Dom,

I have answered this in the thread at least once. But you may have missed it. No I dont believe a man must wear a beard. Under the OT it seemed men were supposed to but unless one believes they are still under it I would say its not commanded to have or to not have.

Isnt that the point of this thread? Some of us believe there is liberty either way. Then the other side makes you into as Chris says a second class Apostolic at best, and at worst a rebel, likened to a hippie.

[Aquila]

Let us also consider this for the "platform standard" believers. They are admitting beards are not a sin. None of them even admit to EVER hearing it called a sin. So they reason someone can warm a pew that has a beard and he is not commiting a sin, he's just not "respectable" enough to set foot on the holy platform.

OK.

Next question is if they are not "respectable" enough to stand on the holy platform, how is it they ARE respectable enough to sit in one of their pews? If their is something about them that is NOT respectable, why should they even be allowed to stay in the Church?

Because while they are not respectable enough to grace the precious platform, they are respectable enough to give their money! Lol

[Aquila]

We just saw the movie "Paul". It was good, better than most Christian movies. Paul, Luke and all the Christian men had beards. The Romans had none.

They often paint Paul as a Hellenized Jew and claim he may not have had a beard, but wasn't he a member of the Sanhedrin, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews (phrase of one who was not Hellenist) more zealous of the law than his countrymen, trained at the feet of Gamaliel?

[Michael The Disciple]

They often paint Paul as a Hellenized Jew and claim he may not have had a beard, but wasn't he a member of the Sanhedrin, of the tribe of Benjamin, more zealous of the law than his countrymen, trained at the feet of Gamaliel?

Exactly. I have never imagined Paul without a beard.

[Amanah]

I never realized that some people felt so strongly about beards.

My Father was in the Army, so always shaved.

I work in Finance, people are clean shaven.

Men at church for the most part are clean shaven.

My husband has a beard, he worked as an engineer and college professor, professions where you typically have more leeway.

So, It's been really hard for me to understand that some people have a conviction about having a beard, or at least about not being told they have to shave.

But, I'm beginning to understand.

I still can't see the wisdom of separating from church over having a beard.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Dom,

I have answered this in the thread at least once. But you may have missed it. No I dont believe a man must wear a beard. Under the OT it seemed men were supposed to but unless one believes they are still under it I would say its not commanded to have or to not have.

Isnt that the point of this thread? Some of us believe there is liberty either way. Then the other side makes you into as Chris says a second class Apostolic at best, and at worst a rebel, likened to a hippie.

What does this comment below sound like to you?


Amen! And GOD created and designed the beard to be on a mans face. They are fighting against God!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Exactly. I have never imagined Paul without a beard.

You also never imagined that Jesus was reading, and speaking Greek and Latin either. :heeheehee

[Aquila]

I never realized that some people felt so strongly about beards.

My Father was in the Army, so always shaved.

I work in Finance, people are clean shaven.

Men at church for the most part are clean shaven.

My husband has a beard, he worked as an engineer and college professor, professions where you typically have more leeway.

So, It's been really hard for me to understand that some people have a conviction about having a beard, or at least about not being told they have to shave.

But, I'm beginning to understand.

I still can't see the wisdom of separating from church over having a beard.

Your empathy is appreciated. People rarely put themselves in the shoes of another. I commend you for this. Thank you. Such empathy is rare, especially in a church culture that mistakens holiness for hardness.

I have this strange conviction about our standards needing to be based on the Bible. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

I also have a conviction about not dividing the body unnecessarily. If something is sin, it should definitely be prohibited. But nearly everyone agrees that a beard isn't a sin, that Jesus and the majority of the Apostles wore beards, and it's agreed that such a standard is based on the whim of a pastor, it just sounds like a standard for a standards sake.

When men are passed by like they sinned over a beard, it's very troubling. When it's assumed they are rebellious, evil, or uncommitted, is like racism. Like I said, you feel like they are going to ask you to drink from another fountain, or ask you to sit only in the back pews so you don't hinder the ministry to the clean shaven chosen.

Imagine, you volunteer for choir, outreach, or drums, or Sunday school, and they fill all the spots and pull you aside saying in hushed tones, "Look, I know you were really fired up about helping, but, you don't understand, you have a beard, and that just isn't acceptable. Pastor -------------, said that if you had questions, you could talk to him. Please don't think I've said you've sinned, it's just our standard."

Then, you have those issues like women approaching your wife and "encouraging" her by saying she should pray for you, because if you were more "committed" to Jesus, your family could "be used mightily of God". Or kids in Sunday school making fun of you to your kids by nicknaming you, "Mr. Whiskers", or point blank telling them, "Your dad's going to Hell 'cause he don't shave."

Oh, and being called by brothers who assume that your not praying, or that talk to you like you're backsliden, saying you need to buy in 100% or you can fall away, and when you ask why they are talking to you like this, they say, "Well, pastor has a beard standard. And you need to get behind him 100%, is it too much to just shave for Jesus?"

Then it becomes an issue of do you compromise your choice to have a beard for their praise and approval, or do you just leave? Would you want the praise and approval of such people? Do you want to become like them? Are you willing to fake your support for the standard, when in your heart of hearts, you know there's absolutely NO Bible for it?

Who would want to attend a church after being treated that way? Lol I'm a vet. I believe in liberty. And I think I've earned the right to wear a beard if I wish. So what do you do? I would rather keep looking for a church that really loves people and has expectations based strictly on the Bible.

Yeah, you really feel like a welcomed and valued part of the body, let me tell ya. Lol

Oh, but they'll still tell ya that beards aren't sin. Lol

[Michael The Disciple]

You also never imagined that Jesus was reading, and speaking Greek and Latin either. :heeheehee

On this you are exactly right. Nothing indicates this to be true.

[Michael The Disciple]

What does this comment below sound like to you?

My point is that those who forbid the wearing of beards THEY are fighting against God.

[Michael The Disciple]

Amanah

I still can't see the wisdom of separating from church over having a beard.

Its not like I want to at all. As a young believer in Christ serving God among Trins Apostolics at times confronted me with doctrinal issues. It would come down to "do you love the truth".

When I did see the wonderful revelation of who Jesus is in a greater measure I greatly rejoiced. I looked forward to taking my young family to an Apostolic Church. How let down I was at what I found. People that had SEEMED so much loving truth actually were much like the Trins.

They were taught certain things and believed what they heard with little examination. Teaching as with the beard issue doctrines that sometimes had no scriptural backing period. Before this I had spent much time as a street evangelist with a great desire to proclaim Jesus and see souls saved.

Now I was ashamed to ask people to come to Church. How could I tell Trins they were lost because they didnt love truth when THEY themselves (many not all) seemed to have little concern for it beyond Acts 2:38.

Matter of fact A Preacher that I like just recently said , we must agree on Oneness and Acts 2:38. Beyond that we have liberty to disagree.

So really most Apostolics only love truth that they like. Not truth that is actually truth.

Of course the main issue on this thread is beards. I myself shaved and moved on in my first Apostolic Church. I thought that was it. How wrong I was. If it were JUST FOR MYSELF I could let it go and shave. But to bring people into a place where after having brought them there, I then have to explain "Our Church teaches some things that are scripturally false.....but we are the true Church, I cant seem to stomach.

[Truthseeker]

I never realized that some people felt so strongly about beards.

My Father was in the Army, so always shaved.

I work in Finance, people are clean shaven.

Men at church for the most part are clean shaven.

My husband has a beard, he worked as an engineer and college professor, professions where you typically have more leeway.

So, It's been really hard for me to understand that some people have a conviction about having a beard, or at least about not being told they have to shave.

But, I'm beginning to understand.

I still can't see the wisdom of separating from church over having a beard.


Or a church separating from a brother over a beard.

[Aquila]

If a church has enshrined an unbiblical tradition of man, like a beard standard... What other errors and traditions of man might they teach? How can such a church be said to have a high view of Scripture?

Sweet water and bitter water cannot flow from the same well.

[Aquila]

We need a BIBLE revival!

[Aquila]

Apostolic Identity can't save you. Infact, if your identity is found in anything, or anyone, but Christ alone, you're already firewood. Repent.

[Esaias]

So really most Apostolics only love truth that they like. Not truth that is actually truth.


If a person only loves truth they like, and not truth that is actually truth, they aren't really apostolic.

[Aquila]

Think about it. If you need to add an extra-biblical standard, like a beard standard, you're saying that the Scriptures aren't sufficient enough in and of themselves to produce Holiness.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Think about it. If you need to add an extra-biblical standard, like a beard standard, you're saying that the Scriptures aren't sufficient enough in and of themselves to produce Holiness.

Bro, you said you only have a beard because you have a fat face (a.k.a baby face) ? Hit the gym, eat red meat (lots of it) lift heavy. Then you can shed pounds and shed facial hair. :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Its not like I want to at all. As a young believer in Christ serving God among Trins Apostolics at times confronted me with doctrinal issues. It would come down to "do you love the truth".

When I did see the wonderful revelation of who Jesus is in a greater measure I greatly rejoiced. I looked forward to taking my young family to an Apostolic Church. How let down I was at what I found. People that had SEEMED so much loving truth actually were much like the Trins.

They were taught certain things and believed what they heard with little examination. Teaching as with the beard issue doctrines that sometimes had no scriptural backing period. Before this I had spent much time as a street evangelist with a great desire to proclaim Jesus and see souls saved.

Now I was ashamed to ask people to come to Church. How could I tell Trins they were lost because they didnt love truth when THEY themselves (many not all) seemed to have little concern for it beyond Acts 2:38.

Matter of fact A Preacher that I like just recently said , we must agree on Oneness and Acts 2:38. Beyond that we have liberty to disagree.

So really most Apostolics only love truth that they like. Not truth that is actually truth.

Of course the main issue on this thread is beards. I myself shaved and moved on in my first Apostolic Church. I thought that was it. How wrong I was. If it were JUST FOR MYSELF I could let it go and shave. But to bring people into a place where after having brought them there, I then have to explain "Our Church teaches some things that are scripturally false.....but we are the true Church, I cant seem to stomach.

I never had any problem bringing people to church. Well, the prayer room. There was this young brother who was bringing brand new visitors into the prayer room. Boy it gets hot in that prayer room with everyone praying, speaking in tongues, snot bubbles and tears. New visitors sure aren't thinking about your facial hair when they are in there. Anyway, a few times I have been interrupted for praying loudly, speaking in tongues in the prayer room. Had a young man come in the room and ask me to prayer softly because there where visitors. I wipe the sweat from my face and asked if he thought we should tell certain brothers and sisters if they would amen the preaching quieter. He replied "elder, that would be so good." Well, I tell you what, you go comfort the people you brought, and we will begin service. By the time music stopped, and the amen started, those guests were speaking in tongues like Cheetah talking with Tarzan. I went up to the young man and asked, do you think they'll mind now? He replied no elder, I don't even think they'll even notice.

[Truthseeker]

EB, sore would be nice to see some people get the real Holy Ghost, most here are just being told they got it.

[Michael The Disciple]

EB, sore would be nice to see some people get the real Holy Ghost, most here are just being told they got it.

Care to explain?

[Truthseeker]

Care to explain?

people cry praying but not really speaking in tongues. Sadly, they are told they got it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

EB, sore would be nice to see some people get the real Holy Ghost, most here are just being told they got it.

Bro, no one gets the Holy Ghost where you are at?

You think I'm talking about tears, and chattering teeth?

[Michael The Disciple]

How is that in a thread on beards? Are you saying men with beards dont have the Holy Ghost? If not that would be another thread would it not?

[Evang.Benincasa]

How is that in a thread on beards? Are you saying men with beards dont have the Holy Ghost? If not that would be another thread would it not?

Are you talking to me?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Dear Brother Keith McCann where ever you are, you were right about one thing.

[consapente89]

EB, sore would be nice to see some people get the real Holy Ghost, most here are just being told they got it.

A very unfortunate trend in Pentecost.

[Aquila]

people cry praying but not really speaking in tongues. Sadly, they are told they got it.

I've seen it too. Sadly, Apostolic Pentecost wants to be "respectable" to the world, and some churches act like the "speaking in tongues thing" is embarrassing. Time sure have changed since the days of Frank Bartleman,
R.E McAlister, Glenn Cook, William Seymour, Charles Parham, G.T. Haywood, etc.

Oh, those men sported facial hair quite often, by the way. :D

[Aquila]

I never had any problem bringing people to church. Well, the prayer room. There was this young brother who was bringing brand new visitors into the prayer room. Boy it gets hot in that prayer room with everyone praying, speaking in tongues, snot bubbles and tears. New visitors sure aren't thinking about your facial hair when they are in there. Anyway, a few times I have been interrupted for praying loudly, speaking in tongues in the prayer room. Had a young man come in the room and ask me to prayer softly because there where visitors. I wipe the sweat from my face and asked if he thought we should tell certain brothers and sisters if they would amen the preaching quieter. He replied "elder, that would be so good." Well, I tell you what, you go comfort the people you brought, and we will begin service. By the time music stopped, and the amen started, those guests were speaking in tongues like Cheetah talking with Tarzan. I went up to the young man and asked, do you think they'll mind now? He replied no elder, I don't even think they'll even notice.

... "like Cheetah talking with Tarzan"??? :lol

[Michael The Disciple]

Are you talking to me?

I was talking to Truthseeker.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I was talking to Truthseeker.

He definitely doesn’t think if you have or have not a beard you don’t have the Holy Ghost.

You don’t have to worry about TS thinking you are hell bound over whiskers. Or over not having whiskers.

[Evang.Benincasa]

A very unfortunate trend in Pentecost.

Since when?

[houston]

Since when?

I don’t know. Years ago an evangelist’s son told me of a prominent woman in pentecost getting caught telling someone to say “La la la.”

I told him she shouldn’t be in ministry (other than that she is a woman :girlytantrum ) He didn’t think it was that big of a deal.

No words.

[Aquila]

Who of you attend a church that has some form of "beard standard" but would rather they return to the Bible and end the unnecessary censure of males with facial hair?

[Amanah]

Who of you attend a church that has some form of "beard standard" but would rather they return to the Bible and end the unnecessary censure of males with facial hair?

Since it is an unbiblical standard, that really serves no purpose in advancing a person's holiness, I would like it dropped.

[Michael The Disciple]

Since it is an unbiblical standard, that really serves no purpose in advancing a person's holiness, I would like it dropped.

So perfectly reasonable.:highfive

[Aquila]

Since it is an unbiblical standard, that really serves no purpose in advancing a person's holiness, I would like it dropped.

Amen. That is very reasonable.

[aegsm76]

Who of you attend a church that has some form of "beard standard" but would rather they return to the Bible and end the unnecessary censure of males with facial hair?

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

[n david]

Who of you attend a church that has some form of "beard standard" but would rather they return to the Bible and end the unnecessary censure of males with facial hair?
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnfoldedDefinitiveCanary-max-1mb.gif

[consapente89]

Since when?

You haven't seen it? I have. I don't know when and where it started. Mostly in mainstream, numbers driven circles. The evangelist slaps the seeker on the head, shakes them a little and as soon as they stutter "THATS IT!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!". Game over. Move to the next one.

We pray them through where I'm from.

[consapente89]

Since it is an unbiblical standard, that really serves no purpose in advancing a person's holiness, I would like it dropped.

Sister, I understand your sentiments. I have to ask. Have you been around many churches where the beard standard is dropped completely? Does there seem to be a trend in those churches to drop other stands that are most certainly essential biblical principles?

I think it is extremely unfair to our elders when we move the landmarks they have set, without trying to go back and grasp their reasoning for setting them.

FTR, facial hair was non-issue to me, until I visited a service years ago at a church that decided to allow it on the platform. Unfortunately, that wasn't the only thing they were allowing.

I know this will provide ammunition for the pro-beard folks, but I don't care that much. Anyone who is hungering after the old paths will understand where I am coming from.

[Michael The Disciple]

You haven't seen it? I have. I don't know when and where it started. Mostly in mainstream, numbers driven circles. The evangelist slaps the seeker on the head, shakes them a little and as soon as they stutter "THATS IT!!!!! YOU GOT IT!!!". Game over. Move to the next one.

We pray them through where I'm from.

If you are not insinuating that believers with beards dont have the Holy Spirit start another thread for this. If you ARE insinuating believers with beards dont have the Spirit, make it plain.

[Truthseeker]

Bro, no one gets the Holy Ghost where you are at?

You think I'm talking about tears, and chattering teeth?


No, I think you're referring to the real deal.


We have some but most are told they got it without really getting it.

[Truthseeker]

How is that in a thread on beards? Are you saying men with beards dont have the Holy Ghost? If not that would be another thread would it not?



No way. God has used both clean and bearded men.

[Truthseeker]

Dear Brother Keith McCann where ever you are, you were right about one thing.



What was that?

[Amanah]

Sister, I understand your sentiments. I have to ask. Have you been around many churches where the beard standard is dropped completely? Does there seem to be a trend in those churches to drop other stands that are most certainly essential biblical principles?

I think it is extremely unfair to our elders when we move the landmarks they have set, without trying to go back and grasp their reasoning for setting them.

FTR, facial hair was non-issue to me, until I visited a service years ago at a church that decided to allow it on the platform. Unfortunately, that wasn't the only thing they were allowing.

I know this will provide ammunition for the pro-beard folks, but I don't care that much. Anyone who is hungering after the old paths will understand where I am coming from.

Brother, I don't know. I would not like to see a slippery slope either.
To answer your question, I have not been around churches that have dropped the Beard Standard.

[consapente89]

Brother, I don't know. I would not like to see a slippery slope either.
To answer your question, I have not been around churches that have dropped the Beard Standard.

Most of the facial hair I see in Pentecost comes from young guys trying to be trendy.

[Aquila]

Sister, I understand your sentiments. I have to ask. Have you been around many churches where the beard standard is dropped completely? Does there seem to be a trend in those churches to drop other stands that are most certainly essential biblical principles?

I think it is extremely unfair to our elders when we move the landmarks they have set, without trying to go back and grasp their reasoning for setting them.

FTR, facial hair was non-issue to me, until I visited a service years ago at a church that decided to allow it on the platform. Unfortunately, that wasn't the only thing they were allowing.

I know this will provide ammunition for the pro-beard folks, but I don't care that much. Anyone who is hungering after the old paths will understand where I am coming from.

There's the old paths, and the Bible.

Either the Bible is sufficient in itself to produce holiness, or it isn't and needs some assistance from the traditions of men.

I'd also like to address your concern. If a church begins dropping every "biblical" standard because they chose to allow beards... clearly the leadership is still failing to preach the Bible.

We need a Bible Revival.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Who of you attend a church that has some form of "beard standard" but would rather they return to the Bible and end the unnecessary censure of males with facial hair?

Bro, this is my point, that there are men who believe that returning to a Bible standard is THAT YOU ALL WEAR BEARDS. Listen, I will post this again. If someone wants clean shave on their platform, don;'t go to their church. Game over. You want to return to the Bible but make a case for holidays to be practiced in some degree? Therefore I'll say it again, there are people who be going to clean shave churches and never have a problem inviting anyone to church. Most men shave, therefore electric razors are big money multi blade razors are big money. So,, there isn't a lack of shaved dudes out there to fill the pew and not even notice a beard prohibition.

Again, Brother Keith McCann please accept my apologizes you were right on that one thing. :lol

[Aquila]

No way. God has used both clean and bearded men.

Amen.

If God didn't use men with beards... how much of the Bible would we be lacking??? lol

[Aquila]

Most of the facial hair I see in Pentecost comes from young guys trying to be trendy.

Yeah, me and Michael are so trendy. lol

[consapente89]

There's the old paths, and the Bible.

Either the Bible is sufficient in itself to produce holiness, or it isn't and needs some assistance from the traditions of men.

I'd also like to address your concern. If a church begins dropping every "biblical" standard because they chose to allow beards... clearly the leadership is still failing to preach the Bible.

We need a Bible Revival.

I'm sorry. Your extreme inconsistency disallows me from taking you seriously enough to converse with concerning anything Bible related.

[Aquila]

Bro, this is my point, that there are men who believe that returning to a Bible standard is THAT YOU ALL WEAR BEARDS. Listen, I will post this again. If someone wants clean shave on their platform, don;'t go to their church. Game over. You want to return to the Bible but make a case for holidays to be practiced in some degree? Therefore I'll say it again, there are people who be going to clean shave churches and never have a problem inviting anyone to church. Most men shave, therefore electric razors are big money multi blade razors are big money. So,, there isn't a lack of shaved dudes out there to fill the pew and not even notice a beard prohibition.

Again, Brother Keith McCann please accept my apologizes you were right on that one thing. :lol

No beard advocate who is grounded in NT truth will try to force men to wear beards. No man grounded in NT truth will try to force men to shave.

Relax, I pray you don't think Michael or myself would force you to shave. Because, my dear brother, we wouldn't.

However, we're contending with churches out there that will try to force us to shave with every underhanded trick and manipulative tactic you can think of. And there is no Bible for it.

Apostolic identity doesn't matter. The "old paths" don't matter. What matters is the Bible and what it actually does teach vs. what it doesn't teach. You can't find a more glorious identity outside of Christ Jesus. And, you can't find an "older path" than the Bible itself. A "beard standard" established in the 1950's is NOT an "old path". It's relatively recent. Now, the Scriptures... that's the REAL "old path".

[Aquila]

I'm sorry. Your extreme inconsistency disallows me from taking you seriously enough to converse with concerning anything Bible related.

I don't care if Ronald McDonald tells you something... if it is actually biblical truth, it's actually biblical truth.

You're CHOOSING to allow what you see as inconsistencies cloud the issue for you so that you can close your eyes and not look at the fact that you have no SCRIPTURE for your position.

If you have Scripture on prohibiting beards... stand and deliver.

If not, I strongly admonish you to get back to the book. Not for my sake, or Ronald McDonald's sake... or anyone else's sake that you can't take seriously... but for the sake of your own spiritual health.

Traditions of man are spiritual blood poison.

[Evang.Benincasa]

No beard advocate who is grounded in NT truth will try to force men to wear beards. No man grounded in NT truth will try to force men to shave.

That is assumption, based on personal opinion.



Relax, I pray you don't think Michael or myself would force you to shave. Because, my dear brother, we wouldn't.

First the above quote is irrelevant and a poor attempt at humor. Because you and Michael have no way of enforcing anything on me. Therefore I have no need to worry, or relax. I am just stating that if you don't like someone having a platform yea or nay on beard allowances or prohibition, it is all up to your prerogative to either attend or not. Churchanity is a virtual plethora of different thoughts on one book. With people who will shave to the grave, without batting an eye over what you deem to NT grounded. Also those who believe beards are Biblical and should be worn by all men who profess Christ also don't care if you don't think they are Biblically grounded. If they ever found out that you attended a Trinitarian house church they wouldn't give you air time anyway.




However, we're contending with churches out there that will try to force us to shave with every underhanded trick and manipulative tactic you can think of. And there is no Bible for it.

Honestly you aren't contending with anyone outside this thread. If you were contending with "churches" then you would have to venture outside your cubicle and go into the congregation. Up to the elders, and debate them. You most likely would be given the swift left foot of fellowship right in the tail end through the front doors of the church. Game over.



Apostolic identity doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter to you, and those who think like you. But it matters to others. So, when you set a foot in their churches you need to do an about face and walk out. In that way you don't waste their time, or yours.




The "old paths" don't matter.

Again, that's to you and those who think like you. That's why you will have a grand time with those who believe exactly like you.


What matters is the Bible and what it actually does teach vs. what it doesn't teach.

Seriously? That is all perception my boy. What is Biblical to you, isn't Biblical to the Presbyterian. So, on and so on.




You can't find a more glorious identity outside of Christ Jesus.

How many denominations and cults say the exact same thing? Therefore it gets hazy and you have to hope God straightens it all out at the judgement?

That's why you can hide out in a Trinitarian church and no one would ever think you weren't exactly like them.



And, you can't find an "older path" than the Bible itself. A "beard standard" established in the 1950's is NOT an "old path". It's relatively recent. Now, the Scriptures... that's the REAL "old path".

So, when I you going to start dressing like Michael Rood?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-fe1uHeyq7w/hqdefault.jpg

[n david]

If they ever found out that you attended a Trinitarian house church they wouldn't give you air time anyway.
Sometimes people focus on little things in others to try to ignore the bigger issues in themselves.

Honestly, beards are the least to be concerned about.

[houston]

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Context. :smack

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sometimes people focus on little things in others to try to ignore the bigger issues in themselves.

Honestly, beards are the least to be concerned about.

Ok, here it is. About 10 years ago on a preacher's forum Brother Kieth McCann and I were going back and forth over something in a thread. It was a bunch of us discussing something. Which I now don't remember. Anyway, Brother McCann brought up that during the Russian communist revolution that the Russian Orthodox clergy were busy debating the length of the tassels on their robes. This while maybe not a fact, but none the less, it stuck with me. Imagine arguing over something like this, while there are those who no longer believe Jesus' name should be even invoked in water baptism? That churches would no longer seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost to speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of the Lord gives the utterance?

How many pages are in this thread?

[Michael The Disciple]

Consapente

I think it is extremely unfair to our elders when we move the landmarks they have set, without trying to go back and grasp their reasoning for setting them.

NOW....we are final going to get the answer we have been seeking this entire thread. NOW please explain the reason THE ELDERS BANNED BEARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[Evang.Benincasa]

NOW....we are final going to get the answer we have been seeking this entire thread. NOW please explain the reason THE ELDERS BANNED BEARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Go ask them.

[Michael The Disciple]

Ok, here it is. About 10 years ago on a preacher's forum Brother Kieth McCann and I were going back and forth over something in a thread. It was a bunch of us discussing something. Which I now don't remember. Anyway, Brother McCann brought up that during the Russian communist revolution that the Russian Orthodox clergy were busy debating the length of the tassels on their robes. This while maybe not a fact, but none the less, it stuck with me. Imagine arguing over something like this, while there are those who no longer believe Jesus' name should be even invoked in water baptism? That churches would no longer seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost to speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of the Lord gives the utterance?

How many pages are in this thread?

Well since its not even worth discussing why are you still here 65 pages later? Maybe YOU will be the one 65 pages later to explain WHY BEARDS were ever condemned in the first place? What was the reason? Then you can move on.

[Aquila]

That is assumption, based on personal opinion.


First the above quote is irrelevant and a poor attempt at humor. Because you and Michael have no way of enforcing anything on me. Therefore I have no need to worry, or relax. I am just stating that if you don't like someone having a platform yea or nay on beard allowances or prohibition, it is all up to your prerogative to either attend or not. Churchanity is a virtual plethora of different thoughts on one book. With people who will shave to the grave, without batting an eye over what you deem to NT grounded. Also those who believe beards are Biblical and should be worn by all men who profess Christ also don't care if you don't think they are Biblically grounded. If they ever found out that you attended a Trinitarian house church they wouldn't give you air time anyway.





Honestly you aren't contending with anyone outside this thread. If you were contending with "churches" then you would have to venture outside your cubicle and go into the congregation. Up to the elders, and debate them. You most likely would be given the swift left foot of fellowship right in the tail end through the front doors of the church. Game over.




It doesn't matter to you, and those who think like you. But it matters to others. So, when you set a foot in their churches you need to do an about face and walk out. In that way you don't waste their time, or yours.





Again, that's to you and those who think like you. That's why you will have a grand time with those who believe exactly like you.



Seriously? That is all perception my boy. What is Biblical to you, isn't Biblical to the Presbyterian. So, on and so on.





How many denominations and cults say the exact same thing? Therefore it gets hazy and you have to hope God straightens it all out at the judgement?

That's why you can hide out in a Trinitarian church and no one would ever think you weren't exactly like them.

EB, the notion of prohibiting beards is rather widespread in Apostolic churches. Well, what troubles me is that if I choose to stick to my convictions on the matter, I'm pretty much out of luck in relation to Apostolic churches I can attend. And over what? A man made tradition that has absolutely no Bible to support it? I find that sad, seeing that the Apostolic church is supposed to be based on Scripture.

Those churches who would impose a beard standard requiring beards are few and far between. We're talking about a serious minority on the fringe.

So, when I you going to start dressing like Michael Rood?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-fe1uHeyq7w/hqdefault.jpg

No thanks. lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/26BGuJU4bZSCqWHu0/giphy.gif

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well since its not even worth discussing why are you still here 63 pages later? Maybe YOU will be the one 63 pages later to explain WHY BEARDS were ever condemned in the first place? What was the reason? Then you can move on.

Maybe I am still here 63 pages later because you still don't get it.

Bro, you walked around in a potato sack because you believed God told you to do it. Was it actual Biblical "sack cloth?" no, because the sack cloth found in the Bible is a hair shirt, and the same itching you get when you go to a barber is what you experience (maybe worse) from a hair shirt. So, burlap really doesn't create the same effect. Therefore it isn't the same thing. But you honestly and sincerely felt it was an admonition from God. While I may have my thoughts against such practices, I have to take some pause. Who knows who may of witnessed you walking around street preaching in that burlap bag? Who knows if it was used to touch someone in a positive way? I haven't the foggiest idea, but, to understand maybe why people do somethings could be half the battle won? But even if I don't understand it I don't have to practice it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Dom

Honestly you aren't contending with anyone outside this thread. If you were contending with "churches" then you would have to venture outside your cubicle and go into the congregation. Up to the elders, and debate them. You most likely would be given the swift left foot of fellowship right in the tail end through the front doors of the church. Game over.

Yes. Exactly right. In some cases this would probably happen. And YET....they say its not a sin! So why pray tell should these "elders" kick someone in the rear end and run them out of the Church over something they say IS NOT SIN?

PLEASE SOMEONE! This is the whole point!

[Aquila]

EB,

Do you know of any beard friendly churches, fellowships, etc. that might have a work in my neck of the woods?

[Aquila]

Dom



Yes. Exactly right. In some cases this would probably happen. And YET....they say its not a sin! So why pray tell should these "elders" kick someone in the rear end and run them out of the Church over something they say IS NOT SIN?

PLEASE SOMEONE! This is the whole point!

I don't think EB is agreeing with the idea. I think EB is just trying to relate to the reality of the idea.

I'd like to know if EB would go on record condemning such an act though.

[Evang.Benincasa]

EB, the notion of prohibiting beards is rather widespread in Apostolic churches. Well, what troubles me is that if I choose to stick to my convictions on the matter, I'm pretty much out of luck in relation to Apostolic churches I can attend. And over what? A man made tradition that has absolutely no Bible to support it? I find that sad, seeing that the Apostolic church is supposed to be based on Scripture.

Those churches who would impose a beard standard requiring beards are few and far between. We're talking about a serious minority on the fringe.



No thanks. lol

Out of luck? No, not looking hard enough.

Bro, we live in a country that you can find virtually every kind of church situation you could imagine.

It is out there.

But if they are preaching TRUTH, and a beard, or no beard is going to be an obstacle? Then that's totally your decision. Honestly, like I said, I pretty much removed my beard before I ever came to an Apostolic church, and I didn't have a starter kit like you guys. I had a beard. When I came to church I had a fu manchu (not the bull) which I would later get rid of. But I don't miss it. You have something about having a fat face that you want to hide under a beard. I guess that's a issue with you?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Dom



Yes. Exactly right. In some cases this would probably happen. And YET....they say its not a sin! So why pray tell should these "elders" kick someone in the rear end and run them out of the Church over something they say IS NOT SIN?

PLEASE SOMEONE! This is the whole point!

Bro, you are really hung up over this.

Sounds like you need to be set free.

[Michael The Disciple]

Maybe I am still here 63 pages later because you still don't get it.

Bro, you walked around in a potato sack because you believed God told you to do it. Was it actual Biblical "sack cloth?" no, because the sack cloth found in the Bible is a hair shirt, and the same itching you get when you go to a barber is what you experience (maybe worse) from a hair shirt. So, burlap really doesn't create the same effect. Therefore it isn't the same thing. But you honestly and sincerely felt it was an admonition from God. While I may have my thoughts against such practices, I have to take some pause. Who knows who may of witnessed you walking around street preaching in that burlap bag? Who knows if it was used to touch someone in a positive way? I haven't the foggiest idea, but, to understand maybe why people do somethings could be half the battle won? But even if I don't understand it I don't have to practice it.

LOL:heeheehee

65 pages and not one shave only advocate can even give a reason for this unbiblical nightmare. And I see now...there will not be one given. Dom is the boldest of the bold and even HE either cannot or will not answer why shave only Apostolic Pastors banned bearded men from their Churches.

As to sackcloth preaching it is in the Old and New Testament. I am not asking you to do it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don't think EB is agreeing with the idea. I think EB is just trying to relate to the reality of the idea.

I'd like to know if EB would go on record condemning such an act though.

Does anyone read my posts? Do you all just breeze through them?

Whatever.

I thought I made myself clear.

Crystal totally crystal. :lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

LOL:heeheehee

65 pages and not one shave only advocate can even give a reason for this unbiblical nightmare. And I see now...there will not be one given. Dom is the boldest of the bold and even HE either cannot or will not answer why shave only Apostolic Pastors banned bearded men from their Churches.

As to sackcloth preaching it is in the Old and New Testament. I am not asking you to do it.

Yes, sackcloth is OT, not burlap, two totally different things. But, emphasis is on God TOLD YOU. What if in that yard sale there was more than one burlap bag, and God TOLD YOU or inspired you, to give them out to your group? You would of then went to the Old and New Testament to build a case and to convince your group. Look, I brought up your bag, and you didn't hesitate to give an explanation that it is Biblical. Bugs on leaves can cause a lot of us to miss the forest falling down around us.

[Michael The Disciple]

Bro, you are really hung up over this.

Sounds like you need to be set free.

See? There will be no answer.

[Evang.Benincasa]

See? There will be no answer.

No, I gave a lengthy answer.

I used the brothers who want beards all around, remember?

[Aquila]

Out of luck? No, not looking hard enough.

Bro, we live in a country that you can find virtually every kind of church situation you could imagine.

It is out there.

But if they are preaching TRUTH...

If they are preaching "TRUTH"... there would be no doctrines and traditions of man. They'd only teach Scripture. ;)

So in short, if a church prohibits beards, they aren't preaching truth. In fact, they are preaching a muddled mixture of truth and dung, which makes the Word of God of no effect by their traditions.

And why would I want to go to a church that would make second class saints out of me and others with facial hair, or even kick us out???

In that circumstance, it becomes an issue of principle.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If they are preaching "TRUTH"... there would be no doctrines and traditions of man. They'd only teach Scripture. ;)

Yet, you know that's not necessarily so. They aren't teaching it as sinful to have a beard. They just have cultural reasons. Or platform standards.

[Aquila]

No, I gave a lengthy answer.

I used the brothers who want beards all around, remember?

Do you believe that a beard standard is "biblical"???

Not talking about anyone else, only you. Do YOU support such a thing?

[Evang.Benincasa]

So in short, if a church prohibits beards, they aren't preaching truth. In fact, they are preaching a muddled mixture of truth and dung, which makes the Word of God of no effect by their traditions.

And why would I want to go to a church that would make second class citizens in the church of me and others with facial hair, or kick us out???

No, because they have a standard of look, and they aren't teaching the beard is sinful. Why would you want to go to a church that makes you a second class citizen? Chris, you want me to answer that?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Do you believe that a beard standard is "biblical"???

Not talking about anyone else, only you. Do YOU support such a thing?


Guess, just take a guess.

If you get it wrong then you don't read my posts.

Good grief :heeheehee

[Aquila]

No, because they have a standard of look, and they aren't teaching the beard is sinful. Why would you want to go to a church that makes you a second class citizen? Chris, you want me to answer that?

I already know the answer. Jesus prayed that we be one. United. A body. But men have added human traditions that divides us. And instead of the most biblical among us mounting an effort to condemn such a thing... everyone wants accommodate and perpetuate the error of man made traditions.

And that leaves bearded men who don't believe in caving to human tradition in a pretty difficult place.

[Aquila]

Do we cave in to the traditions of man... or do we resist them???

[Aquila]

Guess, just take a guess.

If you get it wrong then you don't read my posts.

Good grief :heeheehee

I think you don't care personally. But you agree with the pastor having authority to set such unbiblical standards.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I already know the answer. Jesus prayed that we be one. United. A body. But men have added human traditions that divides us. And instead of the most biblical among us mounting an effort to condemn such a thing... everyone wants accommodate and perpetuate the error of man made traditions.

This is so funny, coming from you. :)

Please I mean no offense (seriously I mean no offense), but I think you understand.


And that leaves bearded men who don't believe in caving to human tradition in a pretty difficult place.

Chris, I think your SJW snowflake is coming through on this one. Bearded MEN aren't a minority group who need someone to hold them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Do we cave in to the traditions of man... or do we resist them???

No, don't cave in, don't lose your stance. But don't stay somewhere that your message isn't welcome. It is that simple. But, if you are so inclined to stay even if you don't agree with their standards. Then be a champ, and do the right thing and follow. Hey, this is nothing more than some simple logic, not even a lesson on ethics. But, if they hold certain beliefs if you don't agree then you don't stay. But if you stay, you are making contract nonverbally that you are cool with everything that is going on. So, when the lights are low, and you have some saints inviting you over for dinner, isn't an invitation to blow the house down. Because if you do, when you ride off into the sunset you leave them behind all messed up.

[n david]

Bearded MEN aren't a minority group who need someone to hold them.
Even the bearded cry . . .

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0ccbe122a53b35e6020290851fcce6e5/tenor.gif?itemid=5637955

[Amanah]

No, don't cave in, don't lose your stance. But don't stay somewhere that your message isn't welcome. It is that simple. But, if you are so inclined to stay even if you don't agree with their standards. Then be a champ, and do the right thing and follow. Hey, this is nothing more than some simple logic, not even a lesson on ethics. But, if they hold certain beliefs if you don't agree then you don't stay. But if you stay, you are making contract nonverbally that you are cool with everything that is going on. So, when the lights are low, and you have some saints inviting you over for dinner, isn't an invitation to blow the house down. Because if you do, when you ride off into the sunset you leave them behind all messed up.

This is an awesome post, thank you Elder :highfive

[Aquila]

Chris, I think your SJW snowflake is coming through on this one. Bearded MEN aren't a minority group who need someone to hold them.

Everyone needs a hug every now and then EB. :lol

[Aquila]

Even the bearded cry . . .

https://media1.tenor.com/images/0ccbe122a53b35e6020290851fcce6e5/tenor.gif?itemid=5637955

:lol

You beat me to it. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think you don't care personally. But you agree with the pastor having authority to set such unbiblical standards.

I totally agree with a pastor doing whatever he and his church family are cool with. You seem to not get this? But the saints in the church want it that way, these people aren't writing letters to Lois' website. Complaining that their pastor sleeps in a coffin during the day. That he has them locked in an attic feeding them cookies laced with arsenic. No, these people LOVE what is going on, and they love the pastor. Even the converts are making decisions when they come and like what they see. No buyers regret!!! They bought the car, and are going to drive it until the wheels fall off. I might not agree, I might not believe what they teach. But that isn't the bed I will lay my head. But if I take my wife, and children there then I need to accept my life choice. Can I discuss my beliefs? No problem, that is what an office or any place where it is I and the elders can speak privately. You see, because now they can choose whether I should stay or move it on down the line. If they say adios, then I already knew what they believed, and what I believed. Is there hard feelings that I should take to a forum? All so I can go wee wee wee all the way home? No, because that would already solidify that when I was told that my carriage would turn into a pumpkin, I through my own self delusion believed that pumpkins where really the same as horse drawn carriages. Which they are not.

[houston]

I totally agree with a pastor doing whatever he and his church family are cool with. You seem to not get this? But the saints in the church want it that way, these people aren't writing letters to Lois' website. Complaining that their pastor sleeps in a coffin during the day. That he has them locked in an attic feeding them cookies laced with arsenic. No, these people LOVE what is going on, and they love the pastor. Even the converts are making decisions when they come and like what they see. No buyers regret!!! They bought the car, and are going to drive it until the wheels fall off. I might not agree, I might not believe what they teach. But that isn't the bed I will lay my head. But if I take my wife, and children there then I need to accept my life choice. Can I discuss my beliefs? No problem, that is what an office or any place where it is I and the elders can speak privately. You see, because now they can choose whether I should stay or move it on down the line. If they say adios, then I already knew what they believed, and what I believed. Is there hard feelings that I should take to a forum? All so I can go wee wee wee all the way home? No, because that would already solidify that when I was told that my carriage would turn into a pumpkin, I through my own self delusion believed that pumpkins where really the same as horse drawn carriages. Which they are not.

gah :thumbsup

[n david]

I totally agree with a pastor doing whatever he and his church family are cool with. You seem to not get this? But the saints in the church want it that way, these people aren't writing letters to Lois' website. Complaining that their pastor sleeps in a coffin during the day. That he has them locked in an attic feeding them cookies laced with arsenic. No, these people LOVE what is going on, and they love the pastor. Even the converts are making decisions when they come and like what they see. No buyers regret!!! They bought the car, and are going to drive it until the wheels fall off. I might not agree, I might not believe what they teach. But that isn't the bed I will lay my head. But if I take my wife, and children there then I need to accept my life choice. Can I discuss my beliefs? No problem, that is what an office or any place where it is I and the elders can speak privately. You see, because now they can choose whether I should stay or move it on down the line. If they say adios, then I already knew what they believed, and what I believed. Is there hard feelings that I should take to a forum? All so I can go wee wee wee all the way home? No, because that would already solidify that when I was told that my carriage would turn into a pumpkin, I through my own self delusion believed that pumpkins where really the same as horse drawn carriages. Which they are not.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/icarly/images/7/7d/Standing-ovation-o.gif/revision/latest?cb=20120227013217

[Aquila]

I totally agree with a pastor doing whatever he and his church family are cool with. You seem to not get this? But the saints in the church want it that way, these people aren't writing letters to Lois' website. Complaining that their pastor sleeps in a coffin during the day. That he has them locked in an attic feeding them cookies laced with arsenic. No, these people LOVE what is going on, and they love the pastor. Even the converts are making decisions when they come and like what they see. No buyers regret!!! They bought the car, and are going to drive it until the wheels fall off. I might not agree, I might not believe what they teach. But that isn't the bed I will lay my head. But if I take my wife, and children there then I need to accept my life choice. Can I discuss my beliefs? No problem, that is what an office or any place where it is I and the elders can speak privately. You see, because now they can choose whether I should stay or move it on down the line. If they say adios, then I already knew what they believed, and what I believed. Is there hard feelings that I should take to a forum? All so I can go wee wee wee all the way home? No, because that would already solidify that when I was told that my carriage would turn into a pumpkin, I through my own self delusion believed that pumpkins where really the same as horse drawn carriages. Which they are not.

I understand what you're saying. No one is a captive and it is the way they want it. You're right.

I guess what I'm getting at is that such a standard isn't biblical. And those of us outside of such churches should not back down from denouncing such unbiblical teachings in those churches... even if the entire congregation in any one of those churches agrees with it. A congregation in agreement with a tradition of man doesn't make the teaching a Bible truth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I understand what you're saying. No one is a captive and it is the way they want it. You're right.

I guess what I'm getting at is that such a standard isn't biblical. And those of us outside of such churches should not back down from denouncing such unbiblical teachings in those churches... even if the entire congregation in any one of those churches agrees with it. A congregation in agreement with a tradition of man doesn't make the teaching a Bible truth.

Ok, but look at it this way. You and Mike say that the shaved say you aint saved. But, when I sign off from the forum, to ask my pastors and elders, they say no. Yet, give me their cultural or platform reasons. After I hear those reasons I then shut the both of you off. Hey, we take that risk when we are coming against anything. It is like all pastors who take tithes are making fat money. But then when we go to our church family, and watch our pastor pushing his truck home, we get a different picture. Or the starving young couple who are sucking on their wallets trying to dig out a home missions work. They sure aren't Creflo Dollaring it to sucess.

[houston]

I understand what you're saying. No one is a captive and it is the way they want it. You're right.

I guess what I'm getting at is that such a standard isn't biblical. And those of us outside of such churches should not back down from denouncing such unbiblical teachings in those churches... even if the entire congregation in any one of those churches agrees with it. A congregation in agreement with a tradition of man doesn't make the teaching a Bible truth.

Is this where you and the libs storm the church?

[Aquila]

Ok, but look at it this way. You and Mike say that the shaved say you aint saved. But, when I sign off from the forum, to ask my pastors and elders, they say no. Yet, give me their cultural or platform reasons. After I hear those reasons I then shut the both of you off.

If you'd do that knowing that those who informed you have no biblical foundation for their case, you've compromised the truth in favor of the praise of men.

Hey, we take that risk when we are coming against anything.

I agree.

It is like all pastors who take tithes are making fat money. But then when we go to our church family, and watch our pastor pushing his truck home, we get a different picture. Or the starving young couple who are sucking on their wallets trying to dig out a home missions work. They sure aren't Creflo Dollaring it to sucess.

In most cases, no, they aren't. I agree.

[Aquila]

Is this where you and the libs storm the church?

No. I'd just like to see a vehement condemnation over such a standard from those who don't hold such a standard.

We are supposed to be a Bible based people... not a tradition of man based people.

[FlamingZword]

NOW....we are final going to get the answer we have been seeking this entire thread. NOW please explain the reason THE ELDERS BANNED BEARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

It doesn't matter why they did it, it is not biblical therefore their reasoning is irrelevant.

[votivesoul]

I don't really get here on a daily basis anymore, so I can't keep up with the conversation. Almost thirty pages has gone by since I last contributed. I've caught up, however, and feel led to say this:

The believers in Corinth were a mess. Heresy, schism-induced factions, pride, fornication, abuse of the charismata, corruption of the Lord's Supper, and etc., and yet Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 1:1-2,

1. Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's...

Despite the mess of problems in Corinth, Paul still considered them God's church.

Later, in Revelation, we know the situation in Laodicea was also a mess, just as bad if not worse, than in Corinth. But our Lord said this:

Revelation 3:14,

14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God...

Jesus called these jokers a church, so guess what? They weren't "jokers" to Jesus. They were His bought with a price bride, even as messed up as they were. Same with the other churches in Revelation 2-3, with their major issues, like, for example, in Thyatira, where Jezebel seduced Christ's servants, or Pergamos and their doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, or perhaps worst of all, Ephesus leaving their first love.

Jesus calls each and every one of these assemblies a church. They every one of them had worse problems than a beard prohibition. The church in Jerusalem had to decide on circumcision for the Gentiles, a decision that affected the entire religion of Christianity forever. These are much weightier issues.

Still, they're churches, whether false in doctrines, puffed up in pride, divided by heresy, caught up in idolatry, or committing fornication. Any of us who have been bought with the same price Jesus paid for these, we, too, are of that same Body, which is the church. These failing and flailing assemblies were made up of our brothers and sisters, and they go a long way to show us how, today, local assemblies the world over are just as prone to the same problems.

But that doesn't strip them of their right to be called a church.

Nor does it make any of the mess right, or okay. In fact, just as our Lord does, or as Paul did, we, too, should denounce anything that's wrong or sinful, in the church.

But only on two conditions:

1.) We haven't abandoned Christ's church, that is, we ought not to be making accusations from afar with no real desire to remain in the Body of Christ so as to change it from within, instead of just tearing it down from the outside

2.) We have thoroughly purged our eyes of every beam of wood that might otherwise make us hypocrites when we decide to lay charges against the Body of Christ.

Two kinds of people lift up their voices to speak against the Body of Christ:

Those who hate Christ's church and those who love Christ's church.

Be sure that whatever you say against the Body to try and bring about change is only ever done out of love. You have to love Christ's Church even as Christ loves you, and It. If you are speaking from any less of a place, you and Jesus are at odds, and a beard prohibition is the least of your concerns.

But if you truly, deeply love Christ's people, those He has called and chosen, and you long for their perfection, and you fast and pray and abide in the secret place of the Most High and make intercession for the Body day and night, and you suffer long and bind the wounded, and give yourself no rest, until the spotted, wrinkled, blemished parts of the church become glorious, and you can stand in full confidence knowing you have espoused a holy bride unto the Lord, then yes, you may speak, and for His part, Jesus will love you for it, and He will honor your words, and give Himself the glory for how you have loved and helped and blessed His people, blessed, and not cursed, all those who are His and love Him at His coming.

Less than this, you stand in doubt, even if you are standing on the side of right when it comes to the "beard prohibition" issue.

[Aquila]

I don't really get here on a daily basis anymore, so I can't keep up with the conversation. Almost thirty pages has gone by since I last contributed. I've caught up, however, and feel led to say this:

The believers in Corinth were a mess. Heresy, schism-induced factions, pride, fornication, abuse of the charismata, corruption of the Lord's Supper, and etc., and yet Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 1:1-2,

1. Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's...

Despite the mess of problems in Corinth, Paul still considered them God's church.

Later, in Revelation, we know the situation in Laodicea was also a mess, just as bad if not worse, than in Corinth. But our Lord said this:

Revelation 3:14,

14. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God...

Jesus called these jokers a church, so guess what? They weren't "jokers" to Jesus. They were His bought with a price bride, even as messed up as they were. Same with the other churches in Revelation 2-3, with their major issues, like, for example, in Thyatira, where Jezebel seduced Christ's servants, or Pergamos and their doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, or perhaps worst of all, Ephesus leaving their first love.

Jesus calls each and every one of these assemblies a church. They every one of them had worse problems than a beard prohibition. The church in Jerusalem had to decide on circumcision for the Gentiles, a decision that affected the entire religion of Christianity forever. These are much weightier issues.

Still, they're churches, whether false in doctrines, puffed up in pride, divided by heresy, caught up in idolatry, or committing fornication. Any of us who have been bought with the same price Jesus paid for these, we, too, are of that same Body, which is the church. These failing and flailing assemblies were made up of our brothers and sisters, and they go a long way to show us how, today, local assemblies the world over are just as prone to the same problems.

But that doesn't strip them of their right to be called a church.

Nor does it make any of the mess right, or okay. In fact, just as our Lord does, or as Paul did, we, too, should denounce anything that's wrong or sinful, in the church.

But only on two conditions:

1.) We haven't abandoned Christ's church, that is, we ought not to be making accusations from afar with no real desire to remain in the Body of Christ so as to change it from within, instead of just tearing it down from the outside

2.) We have thoroughly purged our eyes of every beam of wood that might otherwise make us hypocrites when we decide to lay charges against the Body of Christ.

Two kinds of people lift up their voices to speak against the Body of Christ:

Those who hate Christ's church and those who love Christ's church.

Be sure that whatever you say against the Body to try and bring about change is only ever done out of love. You have to love Christ's Church even as Christ loves you, and It. If you are speaking from any less of a place, you and Jesus are at odds, and a beard prohibition is the least of your concerns.

But if you truly, deeply love Christ's people, those He has called and chosen, and you long for their perfection, and you fast and pray and abide in the secret place of the Most High and make intercession for the Body day and night, and you suffer long and bind the wounded, and give yourself no rest, until the spotted, wrinkled, blemished parts of the church become glorious, and you can stand in full confidence knowing you have espoused a holy bride unto the Lord, then yes, you may speak, and for His part, Jesus will love you for it, and He will honor your words, and give Himself the glory for how you have loved and helped and blessed His people, blessed, and not cursed, all those who are His and love Him at His coming.

Less than this, you stand in doubt, even if you are standing on the side of right when it comes to the "beard prohibition" issue.

Excellent post. :yourock

[Michael The Disciple]

No, because they have a standard of look, and they aren't teaching the beard is sinful. Why would you want to go to a church that makes you a second class citizen? Chris, you want me to answer that?

Ok with this we have the answer why the shave only groups preach against men having beards. They make brothers in Christ to feel ashamed and shut their doors to people who might be seeking more truth.

And Dom has explained their reasoning for it.

THEY HAVE A STANDARD OF "LOOK".

They dont like their looks! Their "look" is not a sin, nonetheless they dont like the way they "look".

If Jesus were to come to their Church they would not like his looks. Neither his Apostles.

People can be pure on the inside but a beard makes them "look" unrespectable at the least and impure at the worse.

Outsiders looking in can understand this and has probably shut many of them out from the Church.

Now that their reasoning is known and made public not much more can be said (by me) in this thread.

[Aquila]

I so wish there was an Apostolic house church network near me. After attending house churches, the thought of returning to a traditional church feels so institutional. As I shop around and look at websites and various churches, I feel like I'm a home school student returning to the public school system. It feels artificial, contrived, limiting, like a big production, an enterprise, like it should come in a box, like your expected to check your brain at the door, like you're going to be controlled simply for control's sake, like I'm trying to find a Sith Lord I can pledge loyalty to. lol

It's the strangest feeling! LOL

[jediwill83]

I so wish there was an Apostolic house church network near me. After attending house churches, the thought of returning to a traditional church feels so institutional. As I shop around and look at websites and various churches, I feel like I'm a home school student returning to the public school system. It feels artificial, contrived, limiting, like a big production, an enterprise, like it should come in a box, like your expected to check your brain at the door, like you're going to be controlled simply for control's sake, like I'm trying to find a Sith Lord I can pledge loyalty to. lol

It's the strangest feeling! LOL

*kneels* "What is the bidding my master.... I mean pastor?"

[Aquila]

*kneels* "What is the bidding my master.... I mean pastor?"

I know! That's exactly what it feels like I'm headed to! LOL

To come from house church elders who serve you like mentors, guides, and teachers of the faith, who assist you in your personal walk with Jesus... and then go to a structure of authoritarian "mini-popes" feels so... alien... so... wrong.

The thought of the inflection that sounds like fake crying, as a man turns the pages of his sermon, only to listen as he revs up into a vibrato of admonition is going to so make me roll my eyes. LOL It's going to take everything I have to not chuckle and say, "Look, let's be real. You ain't crying... and why is your voice all filled with vibrato? You sound like Aretha Franklyn, that ain't natural either. What gives, pastor?" I'm not sure how to handle the theatrics. LOL

The last time I attended a traditional church the pastor was directing the sound man to deepen his voice so that he could sound "prophetic". LOL I wanted to raise my voice and say, "I AM OZ! THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. WHO ARE YOU?" LOL

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4268081/the-wizard-of-oz-o.gif

[n david]

I so wish there was an Apostolic house church network near me. After attending house churches, the thought of returning to a traditional church feels so institutional. As I shop around and look at websites and various churches, I feel like I'm a home school student returning to the public school system. It feels artificial, contrived, limiting, like a big production, an enterprise, like it should come in a box, like your expected to check your brain at the door, like you're going to be controlled simply for control's sake, like I'm trying to find a Sith Lord I can pledge loyalty to. lol

It's the strangest feeling! LOL

https://envisionchurch.cc/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/mechurch.jpg

[n david]

I so wish there was an Apostolic house church network near me. After attending house churches, the thought of returning to a traditional church feels so institutional. As I shop around and look at websites and various churches, I feel like I'm a home school student returning to the public school system. It feels artificial, contrived, limiting, like a big production, an enterprise, like it should come in a box, like your expected to check your brain at the door, like you're going to be controlled simply for control's sake, like I'm trying to find a Sith Lord I can pledge loyalty to. lol

It's the strangest feeling! LOL

Obviously a lot of hyperbole in your post. Not sure what churches you've attended, but I've never felt the "check your brain at the door," and certainly can't compare any Pastor of a church I've attended to a SITH LORD.

Good grief.

[Aquila]

https://envisionchurch.cc/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/mechurch.jpg

A house church isn't about "me church". It's about being a spiritual family. It's about everyone having a voice, sharing, building one another up. It's about learning how to be an authentic human being who is a disciple of Jesus. I bet I can go to any of these churches, sit in the back, shake a hand or two and leave without saying a word or anyone reading my mail. However, in a house church... you can't hide. lol You'll be spoken to, asked questions, provoked to contribute, and if the Spirit is moving, someone will read your mail. Sometimes, the elders will stop everything and say, "Hey, Joe. You're dazing out and looking down. Share what's on your mind. Let's get it out here so we can help you out of that funk, my brother."

Bet anything, I can hide a roe of noses for couple services before anyone even tries to get close or ask me what I think beyond if I like their illustrious "church" or not.

The only "me church" I've come to know... are those churches built and designed to feed one man's ego at the expense of turning the body into drones and mental midgets who know only obedience to the traditions of man.

[n david]

I know! That's exactly what it feels like I'm headed to! LOL
You know what, Aquila, please read this post slowly and take it seriously:

Do yourself, your family, every Pastor, elder and saint a favor ...

DON'T GO TO A CHURCH! You don't have to go to one. You obviously don't really even want to go. You make it seem as though it's something awful. So don't go!

Start your own little Apostolic House Church where it can be all YOU want it to be. Because that's the key, right? It's all about YOU. You can set whatever standards (or not) your heart desires. You can make sure bearded men are welcomed and involved. You can make it the perfect, most biblical church on the planet.

But for goodness sake, do NOT attend a church.

I'm sorry to be rude, but you are every Pastor and church's worst nightmare of a saint.

You've called for protests and disruption of services over Pastors conservative views . . .
You've called for protests over churches not allowing beards in ministry . . .
You've suggested you would "minister from the rear," in effect subverting the leadership of the church and sowing division . . .
You've compared Pastors to demonic Sith Lords . . .
You don't even like churches, always complaining about how institutional and terrible they are . . .

So again, for everyone's sake -- just don't go.

[n david]

*kneels* "What is the bidding my master.... I mean pastor?"
Yes, Pastors are such demonic Sith Lords . . .

:smack

[aegsm76]

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

[Aquila]

You know what, Aquila, please read this post slowly and take it seriously:

Do yourself, your family, every Pastor, elder and saint a favor ...

DON'T GO TO A CHURCH! You don't have to go to one. You obviously don't really even want to go. You make it seem as though it's something awful. So don't go!

Start your own little Apostolic House Church where it can be all YOU want it to be. Because that's the key, right? It's all about YOU. You can set whatever standards (or not) your heart desires. You can make sure bearded men are welcomed and involved. You can make it the perfect, most biblical church on the planet.

But for goodness sake, do NOT attend a church.

And that's the spirit that troubles me about it. No free thought allowed.

I'm sorry to be rude, but you are every Pastor and church's worst nightmare of a saint.

You've called for protests and disruption of services over Pastors conservative views . . .

Lie. First, I don't think you're sorry for being rude. lol

Second, I only said that I think protest and disruption is called for if the pastor uses the PULPIT, which is supposed to be a sacred platform from which one might preach the Gospel, to preach his personal politics. And, I voiced that I support protest and disruption even if it were a liberal church doing the same. I firmly believe that pastors are allowing worldly politics to corrupt, divide, and compromise the church. I don't think the average member comes to church to be indoctrinated into the pastor's personal political views. GIVE US JESUS. Is that too much to ask??? If a man wants to preach politics that's cool, but maybe he should focus on starting a political radio talk show and move on from the ministry. I don't believe the church is the place for it. And I believe that if most people take time to really THINK about it, they will agree.

Besides, what has anyone to fear from protest, unless they are in the wrong and know it? Where are the leaders and men like Martin Luther today? Everyone's a brow beaten coward that is afraid to take a stand and speak up about the stench that everyone can smell, they just don't admit it or don't know how to verbalize it. I'm just saying, we should take a stand and not allow the pulpit to be abused by allowing some pastor to use it to promote his politics when he should be preaching Jesus.

You've called for protests over churches not allowing beards in ministry . . .

I think that if a preacher preaches anything that isn't grounded in Scripture, he should be called on it. We owe that to the office of the pastor and the pulpit. What Bible loving pastor wouldn't want to be shown if he begins drifting from the book???

You've suggested you would "minister from the rear," in effect subverting the leadership of the church and sowing division . . .

That's NOT what I suggested. What I suggested is ministering in the rear of the flock, serving those who are wondering, becoming entangled, discouraged. Where do you come up with this stuff???

You've compared Pastors to demonic Sith Lords . . .

I was only speaking in jest to try to communicate the emotion I'm feeling. Lighten up.

You don't even like churches, always complaining about how institutional and terrible they are . . .

No. I only mentioned how it "feels". Remember, feelings don't really matter in the long run. In fact, many of those feelings will change in time as one gets to know the people who attend a church. I will admit though... after being in house churches for so long... it feels like a show. A production. I can't deny it. The stage, the lights, the music, the fake tears, the fake vibrato in the voices of preachers, the fake preacher's cough, the piano chords that begin and tug at the heart strings as soon as the pastor says, "And now, in closing..." Yes. It is quite a show. It's quite a production. But that doesn't mean that it is "bad". Lives are often changed, people healed, families mended. It's not all bad. But, it is what it is, ministry through a production. Ministry though a show. And anyone who is unable to admit that is not being honest with themselves.

So again, for everyone's sake -- just don't go.

I think you're just frustrated because you know I'm right and you're not sure how to take it.

First, relax. Take a deep breath. Open your mind in order to actually understand what I'm saying, instead of jumping the gun and attacking.

Second, realize that though I indicated that church is a production, a show, and that there are theatrics, please understand that it isn't a "bad" show or production. Some shows and productions are designed to change lives. To open hearts and minds. To inform and teach about Jesus. Realize that God does use churches every Sunday. And realize that being honest about this isn't disrespect for the institutional church. In actuality, lying about it and insisting that it isn't a production would be to do it a far greater injustice.

[Aquila]

Yes, Pastors are such demonic Sith Lords . . .

:smack

No they're not. I was only using an allusion, a literary device, to convey an emotion. lol

If I honestly thought pastors were demonic Sith lords, I wouldn't be looking at local churches. Jeesh. Talk about being full of one's self. C'mon.

[Aquila]

And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Amen.

[Aquila]

Here's a little humor from the organic side to lighten things up... lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqaITA3IO0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piZq6aX4wDQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7_dZTrjw9I&t=96s

[Tithesmeister]

Ok, but look at it this way. You and Mike say that the shaved say you aint saved. But, when I sign off from the forum, to ask my pastors and elders, they say no. Yet, give me their cultural or platform reasons. After I hear those reasons I then shut the both of you off. Hey, we take that risk when we are coming against anything. It is like all pastors who take tithes are making fat money. But then when we go to our church family, and watch our pastor pushing his truck home, we get a different picture. Or the starving young couple who are sucking on their wallets trying to dig out a home missions work. They sure aren't Creflo Dollaring it to sucess.

Okay. I apologize in advance for what is, no doubt going to be a long post.

EB, you have repeatedly made reference to the tithe in your posts that are on a beard thread. I am going to do some analysis along these lines. Contrast and similarities.

The analogy that you make between conventional (non-biblical or extra-biblical) tithing and beard shaming is not without merit, however your justification for tolerating the teaching of false doctrine is suspect.

Both tithing and beard wearing are endorsed or, to put it more accurately, are statutory under the law. The difference is that having a beard still means pretty much the same thing, whereas the definition of tithing bears very little resemblance to the tithing ordinance in the Bible.

Neither are endorsed or condemned in the New Testament church.

The tithe is preached by some as salvational, whereas the beard is believed by many (although not necessarily taught as such) to be salvational.

One major difference that jumps out at me: Widows as a rule do not grow beards. Beards are mostly worn by men. In spite of the pictures that EB has posted, it is indeed unusual for a woman to grow a beard, or even want to. It is not unusual for widows to tithe. My point being sort of two fold. On the one hand men are bearing the brunt of the extra-biblical teaching of being clean-shaven. It will and has hurt some feelings, however there is a reason we commonly hear the phrase "man up" and not so much "woman up". On the other hand the disadvantaged (widows, orphans, and the very poor) are bearing the brunt of a blatantly false teaching (tithing one tenth of income) and the irony is that (in the specific case of widows) both the Old Testament and the new provide examples of God's people providing for them, instead of taking FROM them. Quite a contrast!

There is another point that I believe is valid that applies to both tithing and the beard issue. Many times the point is made in the New Testament by Peter, Paul, and others that we have liberty in Jesus.

Gal.5
[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

The scripture above is one of many examples exhorting us to esteem the liberty that is ours in Christ and reject the bondage of legalism. The context is truly Christ versus legalism.

We also have examples in the epistles of the apostles where the liberty of Christ is threatened by those who are jealous of our liberty and would like to take it away.

Gal.2
[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

I emphasized the false brethren above, not to be offensive, but to bring attention to the opinion of the apostles concerning they that would rob us of our liberty in Christ. The parallels here are too important to ignore, and we should be aware that the liberty that we have in Christ should not be taken for granted, and it should not be despised and squandered after the manner of Esau and his birthright. Neither should it be abused, because with freedom also comes responsibility.

1Cor.8
[9] But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

So in the context of beards or tithes, I applaud the spirit of Michael the Disciple, Aquila, and Votive Soul. They have made excellent posts and expressed a love for freedom (liberty in Christ). They do well to cling to the liberty of Christ and they instinctively are resisting being entangled in the bondage of legalism. This is a good thing because?

2Cor.3
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

If liberty is missing, we should question whether we truly have Christ.

Allow me to further expound on the scripture that supports valuing liberty. Just a couple more scriptures to reinforce this precept. This is found in 2 Corinthians 3:15-17 (I referenced verse 17 above)

[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

If you read this passage and ponder it you will notice an inverse relationship of legalism (represented by the vail) and being Spirit led (having liberty in Christ). There is no doubt that legalism is directly compared to the vail by Paul. When Moses is read (legalism is emphasized) the vail is upon their heart. However, when our hearts turn to the Lord, the vail is lifted. What this is saying is, that when we emphasize legalism, our sprituality is diminished. However when we turn to God in our hearts, legalism (the vail) will be lifted.

What purpose did the vail serve, and why was it rent upon the crucifixion of Jesus?

The vail (or veil if you prefer) was a separation of the Spirit of God, from the people of God. It is no wonder that we become more legalistic and less Spiritual, when we focus on the law and the traditions of men. This example is well demonstrated by the Pharisees. Paul is only reinforcing what was common knowledge among the early church. We would do well to remember the example that has been set before us.

So we should be very reluctant to give up our liberty that is a sign of our being in Christ. It really is a bigger deal that just giving authority to a pastor that is not found in the scripture. It is truly a sign of our Christianity, just as legalism is a sign of the lack of the same.

Legalism or being led by the Spirit?

Liberty or bondage?

We have a choice.

I choose liberty!

[n david]

I think you're just frustrated because you know I'm right and you're not sure how to take it.
You must be joking. That couldn't be further from the truth. If the truth is Earth, your statement is in the galaxy MACS0647-JD, 13.3 BILLION light-years away.

And that's the spirit that troubles me about it. No free thought allowed.
No free thought allowed? What are you talking about?

Lie. First, I don't think you're sorry for being rude.
You're actually right on this one. I'm tired of the constant whining about how much you seem to dread going to a church. Seriously man, just don't go. You're only going to make everyone miserable, including yourself and your family. It's not going to be what you want it to be. You're going to nitpick and complain about anything which doesn't meet your expectations.

Second, I only said that I think protest and disruption is called for if the pastor uses the PULPIT, which is supposed to be a sacred platform from which one might preach the Gospel, to preach his personal politics. And, I voiced that I support protest and disruption even if it were a liberal church doing the same. I firmly believe that pastors are allowing worldly politics to corrupt, divide, and compromise the church. I don't think the average member comes to church to be indoctrinated into the pastor's personal political views. GIVE US JESUS. Is that too much to ask??? If a man wants to preach politics that's cool, but maybe he should focus on starting a political radio talk show and move on from the ministry. I don't believe the church is the place for it. And I believe that if most people take time to really THINK about it, they will agree.
No, most people would NOT agree that disrupting a service and shouting down a minister is okay or appropriate or right or especially the Biblical thing to do. If you have ought against what a minister or Pastor is preaching from the pulpit, there is a Biblical pattern to follow. It does not include trying to incite a riot during a service.

I'm just saying, we should take a stand and not allow the pulpit to be abused by allowing some pastor to use it to promote his politics when he should be preaching Jesus.
Who died and made you the Pastor? If you don't like what the Pastor of the church you're visiting is preaching, don't go back! If it's the Pastor of a church you're regularly attending, then go to him (like the Bible says to do) and express your concerns. What is it with you wanting to cause division and strife in churches?

I think that if a preacher preaches anything that isn't grounded in Scripture, he should be called on it. We owe that to the office of the pastor and the pulpit. What Bible loving pastor wouldn't want to be shown if he begins drifting from the book???
Call him on it, as the Bible says. In private, not through disrupting a service. You want this big disruption and drama where you can be seen by everyone as someone professing to adhere to the Bible, scolding and rebuking a Pastor in front of his congregation. Ironic you talk rebuking a Pastor for not being grounded in scripture and drifting from the Bible, yet you're ignoring the Biblical example of how to confront those you have ought against.

I was only speaking in jest to try to communicate the emotion I'm feeling. Lighten up.
So you compare Pastors to a fictional, demonic Sith Lord. Not appreciating the humor there.

No.
This is funny. I post that you don't even like churches, that you complain about how institutional and terrible they are. You disagree and say "No." Then three sentences later, "I will admit though . . ." and start complaining about it being a show and production.... "But not a bad production."

I only mentioned how it "feels". Remember, feelings don't really matter in the long run. In fact, many of those feelings will change in time as one gets to know the people who attend a church. I will admit though... after being in house churches for so long... it feels like a show. A production. I can't deny it. The stage, the lights, the music, the fake tears, the fake vibrato in the voices of preachers, the fake preacher's cough, the piano chords that begin and tug at the heart strings as soon as the pastor says, "And now, in closing..." Yes. It is quite a show. It's quite a production. But that doesn't mean that it is "bad". Lives are often changed, people healed, families mended. It's not all bad. But, it is what it is, ministry through a production. Ministry though a show. And anyone who is unable to admit that is not being honest with themselves.
Again, what churches do you attend?

First, relax. Take a deep breath. Open your mind in order to actually understand what I'm saying, instead of jumping the gun and attacking.
Hey Aquila, take your pills. Maybe do some of your transcendental meditation/contemplative prayer. Funny how whenever someone disagrees with you, you tell them to relax, breathe and tell them they're not understanding what you're saying.

[Tithesmeister]

Ok, but look at it this way. You and Mike say that the shaved say you aint saved. But, when I sign off from the forum, to ask my pastors and elders, they say no. Yet, give me their cultural or platform reasons. After I hear those reasons I then shut the both of you off. Hey, we take that risk when we are coming against anything. It is like all pastors who take tithes are making fat money. But then when we go to our church family, and watch our pastor pushing his truck home, we get a different picture. Or the starving young couple who are sucking on their wallets trying to dig out a home missions work. They sure aren't Creflo Dollaring it to sucess.


Just a little further ranting in regard to your words in bold print above. First, I understand that you understand that the tithe taught in nearly all of our churches today is an extra-biblical doctrine. And, I know that we've plowed this ground before, but it has been awhile, long enough that you have felt to bring it up again, and again, .............. and again.

You seem to love to remind us of the pastor that is starting out a work, "sucking on his wallet", and how he is "not lighting his cigar with hundred dollar bills". By the words that you use it seems to me that you justify the teaching of a doctrine that you will not defend as coming from the Bible, as though if a starving preacher with a wife dressed in rags and children that are malnourished and dressed in the unmistakeable rags of paupers, makes the tithe doctrine somehow true, instead of false. It doesn't.

In the case of the picture you paint of preachers in abject poverty, where you want to pretend that it is okay if the false doctrine of the modern tithe is preached, or you seem to justify it at the very least, I have this to say: Are we somehow to believe that the tithe doctrine is working because preachers are being fed by ravens and widows? Brother, this is evidence that the tithe doctrine that is falsely taught is NOT working. Do you think I feel good about men of God starving to death while preaching the gospel? It seems that you think I and others who will point out the inconsistencies of the tithe doctrine would somehow feel justice was served by a preacher that is starving to death. Instead, I will point out (once more) that the tithe doctrine that is taught today is unscriptural, false, misleading, mendacious, and besides all of that, it really doesn't work very well.

It works FAIRLY well for a church of 100-200, but not so well for a church of fifteen people on the low end or fifteen hundred and above on the high end. In the vernacular of fairy tells, the church must be baby bear size. Not too big, not too small, but juuuuust right. Then the tithe doctrine works. It still is not true. It is no less false doctrine. It works, not because it is God's plan, but because it is a numbers thing.

There is one thing about it that will never work though. When pastors teach a doctrine that they realize is not the words of God, and they present it as the words of God, they have lied about the very words of God. Do we think, or do they think that they will go to heaven telling lies? I believe the Bible is very explicit about the destination of ALL liars.

Wouldn't it be bad to get to the gates of heaven and say. "But I told lies in your name, Aren't you proud of me? We even made the widows pay tithes. No one was exempt. If they were slow to pay we threatened them with the flames of hell. They are afraid to not tithe. We know that you said that the tithe was to be eaten, but we thought of a better way than tithing food. We made it money. We ran them off if they didn't tithe. Weren't we smart? Aren't we zealous for you? Don't you wish you had thought of that? Oh great omnipotent, omniscient and wonderfully wise God?"

What do you think the righteous Judge will have to say about that?

[Aquila]

You must be joking. That couldn't be further from the truth. If the truth is Earth, your statement is in the galaxy MACS0647-JD, 13.3 BILLION light-years away.

So, you deny that the traditional church service is indeed a massive production that is the result of the hard work and dedication of a lot of people who desire to put on the best "service" to you and your family? You think it all just falls out of the sky with the music playing and choir clapping? No, it's a production. Don't be frustrated by this fact. Just accept it.

No free thought allowed? What are you talking about?

Well, I was thinking freely, sharing some thoughts (and they weren't even directed at you personally) and you got all bent out of shape telling me not to go to church. lol Dude, you're not really a "minister" are you? Empathize, relate, broaden perspective, associate, and connect. Then lead me home. You know the drill. lol

You're actually right on this one. I'm tired of the constant whining about how much you seem to dread going to a church.

When did I say that I "dread going to church"? I did voice concern over unbiblical standards, which you vehemently defend. But, who needs biblical standards? Right?

Seriously man, just don't go. You're only going to make everyone miserable, including yourself and your family. It's not going to be what you want it to be. You're going to nitpick and complain about anything which doesn't meet your expectations.

Ndavid, you don't even know me, bro. I'll probably see some folks I know, catch up, enjoy a good sermon, and make some silly jokes about some of the things I saw happening in the background that I don't think anyone picked up on. My goodness, it's hilarious sometimes if you pay attention. This isn't a slam, or even an insult, silly things happen in the background of house church too. It's just that in a church service, it seems funnier. LOL

True story, the pastor of a church I visited happened to have a sign up sheet that was passed around the congregation after church one night. Being a visitor, I respectfully passed the clip board and pen, but I started laughing and couldn't stop. I desperately tried to keep it down, but when the pastor started making remarks about "standing firm", etc., I started losing it. Christina started elbowing me politely telling me to "shut up". She asked me what was wrong, and I struggled through trying not to laugh so hard, I was almost crying. What no one seemed to notice is that the pen being passed around was one of those promotional pens given by pharmaceutical companies...advertising Viagra. I'm sure my description doesn't give it justice. You really had to be there.

No, most people would NOT agree that disrupting a service and shouting down a minister is okay or appropriate or right or especially the Biblical thing to do. If you have ought against what a minister or Pastor is preaching from the pulpit, there is a Biblical pattern to follow. It does not include trying to incite a riot during a service.

I do understand what you're saying, and you're right. There is a biblical pattern to follow. But why do we deviate from the Bible on beards, but argue for the Bible when confronting a pastor who is abusing his authority? I mean, either the church is biblical or it isn't, right?

The statement in support of shouting down and protest is that when a pastor politicks from the pulpit, it's no longer a church service. And the building is irrelevant. You have a man using his position to preach his personal politics when his sacred obligation is to preach Jesus. And if the pastor is going to turn a church service into a "political rally", how do you address a "political rally" you disagree with? You protest. If the pastor can bring politicking into the church... why not those of us in the pews??? The pastor isn't a king. In fact, in most cases if it wasn't for the people in the pews supporting the man financially and through prayer and encouragement, he'd not have a building, pulpit, sound system, or anything. If he can take the sacred desk and turn it into a political bully pulpit... why not meet politics with politics? The only proper response in kind is a protest. If members standing up in protest, shouting down a pastor with opposition political statements sounds so horrible... imagine watching a pastor go down in flames as he degenerates into a political lap dog for either one of our political parties. Imagine feeling like you're obligated to continue sitting there as he rants about how great some candidate is when you and your family strongly disagree.

I have a news flash. The church doesn't belong to the pastor. It belongs to Jesus. That's a fundamental problem I'm seeing in many churches. Pastors think they own the church body. It's Christ's body, and they are charged with spiritually nourishing it and caring for it. Not to preach their personal politics.

Who died and made you the Pastor? If you don't like what the Pastor of the church you're visiting is preaching, don't go back!

That's reasonable.

If it's the Pastor of a church you're regularly attending, then go to him (like the Bible says to do) and express your concerns. What is it with you wanting to cause division and strife in churches?

Been there. Done that. It wasn't received the way it was intended. And the fallout essentially resulted in publically humiliating me over it. So, why bother? If the pastor thinks the church is now a political action committee... play politics from the pew. Protest.

But you know what??? If pastors (left and right) could set their politics aside and actually focused on preaching Jesus... there wouldn't be any concern, now would there? And shouldn't Jesus be the focus, not the politics and divisions of this world???

Call him on it, as the Bible says. In private, not through disrupting a service. You want this big disruption and drama where you can be seen by everyone as someone professing to adhere to the Bible, scolding and rebuking a Pastor in front of his congregation. Ironic you talk rebuking a Pastor for not being grounded in scripture and drifting from the Bible, yet you're ignoring the Biblical example of how to confront those you have ought against.

I think you're misunderstanding my take on it. If the pastor turns a service into a political rally... it's now a political rally. And political rallies invite protest from dissenters. They want to play politics in the pulpit like bullies until someone argues that perhaps politics should be played from the pews. Then they start wimping out and saying, "B-b-b but what about approaching me privately about it like the B-B-B Bible says?" Stop hiding behind the book. If you want church to be political, then man up and prepare for politics. Or... we can keep the church focused on Jesus. Which is what I so desire to see. Which is the entire purpose for the notion. But that is entirely overlooked and mischaracterized. Sad, isn't it?

But, I'm the bad guy, remember? Who am I to want to see politics set aside so that we can focus on the Lord in the one place in this nation where we should have unity of spirit?

So you compare Pastors to a fictional, demonic Sith Lord. Not appreciating the humor there.

Oh, you will be... you will be.. :p

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AwEXDnFN3xQ/hqdefault.jpg

This is funny. I post that you don't even like churches, that you complain about how institutional and terrible they are. You disagree and say "No." Then three sentences later, "I will admit though . . ." and start complaining about it being a show and production.... "But not a bad production."

It is a production. And a lot of people put a lot of work into it. It should be recognized as such. Why lie?

Again, what churches do you attend?

I've attended three different churches in my time. For about the past 8 to 9 years, I've been in house churches.

Hey Aquila, take your pills. Maybe do some of your transcendental meditation/contemplative prayer. Funny how whenever someone disagrees with you, you tell them to relax, breathe and tell them they're not understanding what you're saying.

And that is because you come out of the gate swinging, making personal accusations, blah, blah, blah. That's an indicator that one needs to calm down.

I might have light heartedly chided churches on some things. I might have remarked comparing some pastors to Sith lords in jest. But I never said anything personal about YOU. When you come out of the gate attacking someone personally over some very general statements that weren't even directed at you... you need to calm down.

[Tithesmeister]

Quote: nDavid
No, most people would NOT agree that disrupting a service and shouting down a minister is okay or appropriate or right or especially the Biblical thing to do.

Actually, this may be more Biblical than you realize.

1 Corinthians 14

[29] Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
[30] If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
[31] For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.


If you have ought against what a minister or Pastor is preaching from the pulpit, there is a Biblical pattern to follow. It does not include trying to incite a riot during a service.

This is the Apostle Paul explaining how to have church, this example is specific to prophesy. It appears that the proper thing to do would be for the one in the pulpit to yield the mic. Hence there would be no need to shout him down. Of course this is the Apostle Paul . . . What did he know about having church?

[Esaias]

There should be a resolution introduced at GC!!!

:)

[Aquila]

There should be a resolution introduced at GC!!!

:)

Lol

I think pastors should just repent and commit themselves to believing and teaching the Bible.

We need a Bible revival.

[votivesoul]

There should be a resolution introduced at GC!!!

:)

Imagine if such a thing happened and it passed?

WPF 2.0.

Then, a thread here called "The UPCI Is Dying 2.0..."

Oh the humanity!

[Michael The Disciple]

There should be a resolution introduced at GC!!!

:)

:highfive

[n david]

So, you deny that the traditional church service is indeed a massive production that is the result of the hard work and dedication of a lot of people who desire to put on the best "service" to you and your family? You think it all just falls out of the sky with the music playing and choir clapping? No, it's a production. Don't be frustrated by this fact. Just accept it.
I don't deny that there are megachurches in which their service is a massive stage show. Everything is staged, from the lighting and fog, the pre-service and service videos, the opening song and on down to the exact moment the Pastor finishes his message. I visited a church, which is now a Hillsong church, years ago to see an old friend who was singing there. I noticed there were two electronic displays facing the stage - one was a clock with the current time, the other was a countdown for each part of the service. When my friend took the stage, I saw the countdown was set to 10 minutes. My friend was still singing the final chorus of the last song when the sound booth faded the music and mic out. Awkward. But that's how most megachurches roll. They're more concerned with time and stage everything down to the second so much that the spirit couldn't move if it wanted to.

I would argue that most Apostolic church services are not staged or manufactured. Sure, there are music rehearsals and teacher meetings, but it's not as you make it out to be.

Well, I was thinking freely, sharing some thoughts (and they weren't even directed at you personally) and you got all bent out of shape telling me not to go to church. lol Dude, you're not really a "minister" are you? Empathize, relate, broaden perspective, associate, and connect. Then lead me home. You know the drill.
Gimme a break. Why all the hyperbole and drama? I didn't stop you from "freely sharing" your thoughts. I simply told you what likely a lot of people reading your posts were thinking. Certainly any Pastor and most saints would balk at the thought of you attending their church with the "free thoughts" you've shared on here. Protests, disruptions, division, strife. Seriously, who wants that?

(This is where you claim you've been playing devil's advocate or something the whole time and don't really mean you would do any of it.)

When did I say that I "dread going to church"? I did voice concern over unbiblical standards, which you vehemently defend. But, who needs biblical standards? Right?
You didn't say it outright, but your posts show you don't really want to go. And if you were honest, you'd admit you really don't want to go, but feel you have to do something.

Are there any non-UPC Oneness/Acts 2:38 churches in your area?

Ndavid, you don't even know me, bro. I'll probably see some folks I know, catch up, enjoy a good sermon, and make some silly jokes about some of the things I saw happening in the background that I don't think anyone picked up on. My goodness, it's hilarious sometimes if you pay attention. This isn't a slam, or even an insult, silly things happen in the background of house church too. It's just that in a church service, it seems funnier. LOL
You're right, the only things I know are what you post online here. My comments are based on your posts. And honestly, I shouldn't think much of it, because the likelihood of you actually following through with your protest is very small.

I do understand what you're saying, and you're right. There is a biblical pattern to follow. But why do we deviate from the Bible on beards, but argue for the Bible when confronting a pastor who is abusing his authority? I mean, either the church is biblical or it isn't, right?
When I was growing up, my father told me many times: "What people do and say to you cannot affect your salvation, but what you do or say to others can." The point is you're responsible to follow biblical principles, regardless of whether others do or not. Because what you do can and will affect your salvation.

The statement in support of shouting down and protest is that when a pastor politicks from the pulpit, it's no longer a church service. And the building is irrelevant. You have a man using his position to preach his personal politics when his sacred obligation is to preach Jesus. And if the pastor is going to turn a church service into a "political rally", how do you address a "political rally" you disagree with? You protest. If the pastor can bring politicking into the church... why not those of us in the pews??? The pastor isn't a king. In fact, in most cases if it wasn't for the people in the pews supporting the man financially and through prayer and encouragement, he'd not have a building, pulpit, sound system, or anything. If he can take the sacred desk and turn it into a political bully pulpit... why not meet politics with politics? The only proper response in kind is a protest. If members standing up in protest, shouting down a pastor with opposition political statements sounds so horrible... imagine watching a pastor go down in flames as he degenerates into a political lap dog for either one of our political parties.
You can try to apply your liberal political reasoning to it, but it doesn't matter. What you're posting is unbiblical. You do realize that if people don't like what the Pastor is saying, they can (at any moment) leave or stop paying tithes and offerings. They're not being forced to stay there. The fact that they remain and continue to attend the church should be enough for you to know they agree with the message being taught or preached.

Here's something of which you may not be aware: the church building is not public property. Should you wake up stupid one morning and actually do what you're describing here -- the Pastor and church have the legal right (and obligation) to trespass you. If someone is deranged enough to stand up in the middle of a service and start yelling at the Pastor, the church and Pastor can't/shouldn't take the chance of the next time the person bringing a gun and shooting people. (Which you've posted you would understand if that happened.)

Imagine feeling like you're obligated to continue sitting there as he rants about how great some candidate is when you and your family strongly disagree.
Obligated? Were you kidnapped and held against your will? The legs you want to use to stand and protest -- can they not also be used to simply walk out? Again, why are you so hell bent on causing division and chaos in church?

I have a news flash. The church doesn't belong to the pastor. It belongs to Jesus. That's a fundamental problem I'm seeing in many churches. Pastors think they own the church body. It's Christ's body, and they are charged with spiritually nourishing it and caring for it. Not to preach their personal politics.
I have a news flash -- start your own church. Make it the most biblical church on the planet.

That's reasonable.
Absolutely. You're making it seem as though you have to go and that you're being forced to give or attend. You're not. This is still a free country, somewhat. If you don't like the music or preaching or the color of the tie the Pastor is wearing -- go somewhere else.

Been there. Done that. It wasn't received the way it was intended. And the fallout essentially resulted in publically humiliating me over it. So, why bother? If the pastor thinks the church is now a political action committee... play politics from the pew. Protest.
Ah, now we're getting to the issue. You were "publicly humiliated" so now you want to stick it to the next Pastor. Where in the Bible is this "eye for an eye" you wish to do? You demand the Pastor be biblical in everything, what about you?

But you know what??? If pastors (left and right) could set their politics aside and actually focused on preaching Jesus... there wouldn't be any concern, now would there? And shouldn't Jesus be the focus, not the politics and divisions of this world???
Most do preach Jesus.

I think you're misunderstanding my take on it. If the pastor turns a service into a political rally... it's now a political rally. And political rallies invite protest from dissenters. They want to play politics in the pulpit like bullies until someone argues that perhaps politics should be played from the pews. Then they start wimping out and saying, "B-b-b but what about approaching me privately about it like the B-B-B Bible says?" Stop hiding behind the book. If you want church to be political, then man up and prepare for politics. Or... we can keep the church focused on Jesus. Which is what I so desire to see. Which is the entire purpose for the notion. But that is entirely overlooked and mischaracterized. Sad, isn't it?
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. You've made it very clear.

Yes, it's sad that instead of thinking Spiritually, you're thinking carnally using your liberal political beliefs.

But, I'm the bad guy, remember? Who am I to want to see politics set aside so that we can focus on the Lord in the one place in this nation where we should have unity of spirit?
HA! That's hilarious. You talking about "unity of spirit" in this paragraph when just sentences earlier you were talking about starting protests, division and chaos.

It is a production. And a lot of people put a lot of work into it. It should be recognized as such. Why lie?
It's not a staged production as you're making it out to be.

I've attended three different churches in my time. For about the past 8 to 9 years, I've been in house churches.
Only three? And yet you post as though you've attended many more.

And that is because you come out of the gate swinging, making personal accusations, blah, blah, blah. That's an indicator that one needs to calm down.
No, that's an indicator that I'm finished with your junk. I'm perfectly calm. What I've posted here to you I would say face to face in a coffee house, without causing any scene or raising my voice.

I might have light heartedly chided churches on some things. I might have remarked comparing some pastors to Sith lords in jest. But I never said anything personal about YOU. When you come out of the gate attacking someone personally over some very general statements that weren't even directed at you... you need to calm down.
Why are you saying you "may have." There's no "may have" about it. You "have" attacked churches, complaining about everything you could possibly imagine. And you "did" compare Pastors to Sith Lords.

Remember what you posted above: "If you want church to be political, then man up," well, if you want to attack churches and Pastors then man up and be prepared for the response.

[Aquila]

I don't deny that there are megachurches in which their service is a massive stage show. Everything is staged, from the lighting and fog, the pre-service and service videos, the opening song and on down to the exact moment the Pastor finishes his message. I visited a church, which is now a Hillsong church, years ago to see an old friend who was singing there. I noticed there were two electronic displays facing the stage - one was a clock with the current time, the other was a countdown for each part of the service. When my friend took the stage, I saw the countdown was set to 10 minutes. My friend was still singing the final chorus of the last song when the sound booth faded the music and mic out. Awkward. But that's how most megachurches roll. They're more concerned with time and stage everything down to the second so much that the spirit couldn't move if it wanted to.

That's an excellent example of a tightly staged church production. And that is something I really have a deep dislike for.

I would argue that most Apostolic church services are not staged or manufactured. Sure, there are music rehearsals and teacher meetings, but it's not as you make it out to be.

You're right, most smaller churches are not as staged as the mega church example you gave. When I say that they are a production, a show, etc., what I'm typically saying is that there is a program. There is a program to the music played and songs sung as rehearsed. There is typically the traditional two to three songs, an offering, and some announcements. Then the preacher is welcomed, or approaches the mic, and opens a "sermon" he's prepared complete with a text, a central point, and several supplemental points, and perhaps even an analogy or two. Then the music team will approach the platform and begin playing more emotional chords as he closes. Some preachers to the fake tear thing. Some don't. Then there is an altar call or a general time of prayer. Final song, final remarks, and dismissal.

It's a production. And it is the generally the same pattern, with minor deviations, from week to week. And of course, as we know being Apostolic, sometimes God shows up and interrupts the program.

In house churching, we don't know what is going to happen when we gather. No clue. We only know what food we brought to contribute. We don't know what others brought. We don't know if anyone brought a song (so we typically try to pray about one to bring ourselves, just in case). We don't know if the brothers or sisters with guitars will be there, or if they've had to work. And if they do show, we don't know for certain if they will bring their guitar. We pray about what God has done and shown us this past week that we can share that would be of value to the house church. We don't know what the elder's text or thought will be (unless we're reading through an entire book together). We arrive and eat together, breaking bread, passing the cup. Then we sing (music or not). Then the elder might have a passage to share or he might say, "The Lord didn't give me anything to share this week. Who might have something the Lord would like them to share with the group." Sometimes it's a passage shared, sometimes it's just a verse. Some folks have brought poems or songs they've written to share. Once the opening texts are shared, the one sharing those things expounds on how it affected their lives and understanding. Then the elder might build on their thought, or lovingly correct something that was off. Then the elder asks if anyone else has anything to add or consider on what was shared. Understandings of the text are shared, experiences on that topic or subject are shared. There is back and forth conversation and exchange. Sometimes the older folks lay out some bombshells, let me tell you. Often God moves as the Spirit leads the discussion. It's almost like watching everything unfold. We suddenly realize that the discussion is lining up with a song that a sister sung in the beginning, and the thoughts of a poem shared before discussion. Everything begins to fall into place and people begin realizing that Jesus is ministering to all of us through all of us. Sometimes the elders sit weeping in joy as they watch the Holy Spirit take over and the body begins ministering to itself. There are occasionally open confessions and weeping over sin. Forgiveness and grace offered as one repents. We've seen spouses confess to spouses before the group and emotions run very high... as we pray and minister healing to them as a body. Differences are mended, and forgiveness overflows. We've seen rebuke, and admonishment for counsel. We've all had our thoughts corrected or "pruned" by the elders to bring them into alignment to what is generally taught by the body. There's just telling how the gathering will end. And time flies as discussion flows. Sometimes we gather and the elder explains that we're not eating together that night. It's really not programmed much at all. It's like a family gathering. Only this is a spiritual family.

It's often said in house churching that a program is what you need when you don't know how to listen to Jesus.

Gimme a break. Why all the hyperbole and drama? I didn't stop you from "freely sharing" your thoughts. I simply told you what likely a lot of people reading your posts were thinking. Certainly any Pastor and most saints would balk at the thought of you attending their church with the "free thoughts" you've shared on here. Protests, disruptions, division, strife. Seriously, who wants that?

Bro., I was only talking about disruption or protest if the pastor politics from the pulpit. And that is of course not something that would be warranted over a mere political remark or short statement. I'm talking about actual "politicking" from the pulpit. Not just protest at anything like some hair-brained fanatic. And the only one bringing strife would be the pastor who abuses the sacred desk to prop up his candidate as though it is the will of God.

You didn't say it outright, but your posts show you don't really want to go. And if you were honest, you'd admit you really don't want to go, but feel you have to do something.

I would much prefer an Apostolic house church. But there are none that I'm aware of in my area.

Are there any non-UPC Oneness/Acts 2:38 churches in your area?

Yeah, but first, their all institutional. And that does turn me off to a degree. However, if I had to go to a local church, I'd probably choose a UPCI church. The non-UPCI churches around here are often way too worldly for my taste. But, I might visit a couple just to see the churches for myself.

You're right, the only things I know are what you post online here. My comments are based on your posts. And honestly, I shouldn't think much of it, because the likelihood of you actually following through with your protest is very small.

EXACTLY! LOL

You're right. The chances of me actually feeling the need to protest or disrupt a service is very small. But if a pastor goes overboard propping up some politician, be they liberal or conservative, I'm probably going to voice my disappointment. Even if it is just standing up, telling the pastor he should be preaching Jesus, and then walking out.

Now, if the politician actually showed up to church, I'm torn. I don't want to hear from a politician in church. However, as a token of respect for those who serve or served in public office, I can see giving them a few moments to speak. So, I'm torn on this one.

When I was growing up, my father told me many times: "What people do and say to you cannot affect your salvation, but what you do or say to others can." The point is you're responsible to follow biblical principles, regardless of whether others do or not. Because what you do can and will affect your salvation.

Frankly, I don't see the entire "Congregationalist" model of church that we inherited from the Calvinists as being very "biblical". Nor the single office of pastor in a church. Nor the sermonizing. Nor the sound systems, choirs, and steeples. None of those things were around in the NT church of Acts. I don't think it's "biblical" if a pastor politics for a candidate from the pulpit. I mean, could you see Paul digressing into a political rant explaining as to why the church should support Nero over Caligula? lol The way I see it, the pastor is out of order. The service is now a political rally.

http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/and-justice-for-all-movie-misquote-captioned.gif

You can try to apply your liberal political reasoning to it, but it doesn't matter. What you're posting is unbiblical. You do realize that if people don't like what the Pastor is saying, they can (at any moment) leave or stop paying tithes and offerings. They're not being forced to stay there. The fact that they remain and continue to attend the church should be enough for you to know they agree with the message being taught or preached.

Liberal? I'd support taking a stand against a pastor who politics for any candidate, regardless of philosophy or party. I think the right word for what I'm advocating is, "radical".

Here's something of which you may not be aware: the church building is not public property. Should you wake up stupid one morning and actually do what you're describing here -- the Pastor and church have the legal right (and obligation) to trespass you. If someone is deranged enough to stand up in the middle of a service and start yelling at the Pastor, the church and Pastor can't/shouldn't take the chance of the next time the person bringing a gun and shooting people. (Which you've posted you would understand if that happened.)

I think the person would be removed in most churches. I also think that things are getting so heated in the political debates of our nation, it is becoming more and more likely that some wacko will do the unthinkable during a church service that waxes political. That's another reason why I strongly believe that preachers preach Jesus, not their politics.

TO BE CONTINUED....

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Obligated? Were you kidnapped and held against your will? The legs you want to use to stand and protest -- can they not also be used to simply walk out? Again, why are you so hell bent on causing division and chaos in church?

I guess my experience in church is different from yours. If you attended, we were expected to stay seated and take whatever the pastor preached. If you dare remove yourself, temporarily or leave the building, you might not be in fellowship when you return.

I have a news flash -- start your own church. Make it the most biblical church on the planet.

I have no interest in starting any kind of church or ministry. Been there, done that too.

Absolutely. You're making it seem as though you have to go and that you're being forced to give or attend. You're not. This is still a free country, somewhat. If you don't like the music or preaching or the color of the tie the Pastor is wearing -- go somewhere else.

Well, when I was attending church back in the day, you had to be there when the doors were open, you were expected to give and tithe, or you weren't considered a member. It was very strict. Michael is familiar with the church I grew up in. Ultra-Con is the term most would use for it. You had to have the pastor's permission to go on vacation, buy a car, or even purchase an internet package. And when you did, you have to have B-SafeOnline installed with the Sr. Pastor, Pastor, and C50 (or was it C100?, can't remember) set up to receive emails on your internet activity.

Ah, now we're getting to the issue. You were "publicly humiliated" so now you want to stick it to the next Pastor. Where in the Bible is this "eye for an eye" you wish to do? You demand the Pastor be biblical in everything, what about you?

It's not so much that I want to stick it to anyone. I've just learned that if you have a serious issue, talking it out is never the way to go. The pastors I've known don't know how to do that. It's their way or the highway. And even after you have talked something out with them, and come to an agreement, all agreements are subject to change without notice. For example, I had to work and couldn't make required prayer meetings. I talked to my pastor about it and he released me from having to attend. But guess what... two months later his wife confronted my wife about us not being in prayer. So, I called for a conference with the pastor and his wife. When we had our meeting with him and his wife, I mentioned how the pastor and I discussed the issue and it was resolved that we weren't expected to attend. He lied through his teeth. He said, "I don't remember any such conversation." I was floored. Thank God there were several brothers sitting in the office with us. I called each of them on cell phone as I sat there and asked them about the conversation, and they ALL remembered the conversation. Right there on speaker phone I watched the pastor grow pale as after just two calls each brother remembered the conversation. I had maybe two more calls to go and he stopped me. He said, "I don't recall any such conversation. And even if we did have that conversation, I've changed my mind. My wife is right. Either attend 6am prayer or perhaps you can't serve on the minister's team." It was a kangaroo court. LOL There wasn't much I could do. When men have selective memories, total power, and they realize you aren't going to lick their boots, or kiss their papal ring... you're done. lol

Most do preach Jesus.

Amen. And I think we are both thankful for that, are we not??? We agree here. We don't have to disagree on everything.

I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. You've made it very clear.

Yes, it's sad that instead of thinking Spiritually, you're thinking carnally using your liberal political beliefs.

Why are you so fixated on this being a liberal idea? It isn't about liberal or conservative. It's about worldly politics in the pulpit. Solid conservatives have protested and disrupted many religious and political abuses down through history.

HA! That's hilarious. You talking about "unity of spirit" in this paragraph when just sentences earlier you were talking about starting protests, division and chaos.

In context, unit of spirit should come through our focus on Christ Jesus. No matter what our politics, Christ Jesus and the Gospel are the very things that we should be able to be united upon. During the election season, it's hard to escape the chaos, fake news, confusion, false accusations, conspiracy theories, debates, etc... church should be the one place we can go to that is not of this world and is not all caught up in the frenzy. When we come into fellowship, in a church building or a house church, we should be able to escape the chaos of this world and bring our focus on Christ Jesus. Is that too much to expect? Has the church really degenerated to the point that pastors have no tact, and should be expected to routinely abuse their pulpits to advance their candidates and politics? If so, the church is far far more compromised with this world than I thought.

It's not a staged production as you're making it out to be.

I explained this above.


Only three? And yet you post as though you've attended many more.

I've "attended' three as a member. I've actually been to a number of churches. I was born again over 29 years ago.

No, that's an indicator that I'm finished with your junk. I'm perfectly calm. What I've posted here to you I would say face to face in a coffee house, without causing any scene or raising my voice.

Fair enough. But if we were face to face, you'd probably have laughed at my initial remarks of protest in the church, and I would have laughed with you and made a remark like, "Yeah, probably not a good idea, huh?" And you would have said, "No sir. You'd just get thrown out." And I might have said, "I just don't want to hear about a man's politics. Give me Jesus, man." But you kinda took everything I said to the extreme. And as I was forced to has out my reasoning, there was never a moment in which we just kinda looked at it and understood one another. Instead, I'm just batting accusation after accusation. But that's cool. I can take it. lol

Why are you saying you "may have." There's no "may have" about it. You "have" attacked churches, complaining about everything you could possibly imagine. And you "did" compare Pastors to Sith Lords.

Oh, please. I've only voiced my thoughts on various things that I don't really relish about the church from my perspective of having been in house churches. It's like being a home schooled kid and suddenly finding yourself having to attend a public school again. Instead of getting your panties in a bunch over it, maybe ask me deeper questions, or perhaps give a word of encouragement, Jeesh. You could have said, "Yeah, coming from house churches, I can see where it all might be a bit strange or off putting to you. But give it a chance bro. I'm sure you'll find a decent church." But instead, just more accusatory attacks. C'mon man, try to look at things from my perspective here. It's not like I'm coming from a church across town and whining over the carpet. I'm having to embrace attending a traditional church that from everything I remember, they've never had the same level of intimacy, body ministry, or freedom I've experienced in house church. They are more like social clubs. A house church is like family.

Remember what you posted above: "If you want church to be political, then man up," well, if you want to attack churches and Pastors then man up and be prepared for the response.

That's fair. I guess I just expected you to be more reasonable. lol

[Aquila]

Ndavid,

I kinda covered the differences in church leadership and experience between house church and traditional churches in this post. I'd like to know your thoughts.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1525871&postcount=16

[n david]

That's an excellent example of a tightly staged church production. And that is something I really have a deep dislike for.
I do, too.

Most of the churches I've attended have a congregation of under 125. The last and current churches were/are around 80 in attendance. I'm not fond of the large churches where you can be lost in the congregation.

It's often said in house churching that a program is what you need when you don't know how to listen to Jesus.
https://i.imgur.com/AeWcB5r.gif

[Aquila]

I do, too.

Most of the churches I've attended have a congregation of under 125. The last and current churches were/are around 80 in attendance. I'm not fond of the large churches where you can be lost in the congregation.

We certainly have this in common. The larger a church gets, the more I typically take issue with it.

When it comes to house churching, most people know about the simple church desire to meet in a house or smaller, more intimate, venue for participative study and discussion. What many don't know is that a number of house church networks do have "church buildings". Yes, house church networks often have church buildings! LOL Ironic isn't it??? LOL

What differs is focus.

When house church networks own larger buildings it affords them the opportunity to have larger gatherings of the entire network. And most would assume it is just a traditional church by just looking at the outside of the building. It differs from traditional churching in that in the traditional church, the teaching agenda, church discipline, baptisms, appointment of elders, etc. takes place within the confines of the larger gathering, with the Sr. Pastor calling the shots. The care groups, cell groups, or Bible studies (or whatever we wish to call the smaller groups) are considered to be supplemental and largely optional. Many traditional churches don't even have small groups. Growth in the traditional church is measured in multiplying dedicated attendees in the larger gathering. The leadership in the traditional church is centralized, with the pastor typically having total control.

In house churching, the focus is often flipped. It is the small group gathering that is paramount. Each is largely autonomous. Each appoints their own elders, performs their own baptisms, has their own teaching agenda, has their own financial plan, and each carries out their own methods of church discipline in accordance to Scripture. Any gathering in the larger venue is more like a conference, be it weekly, monthly, or quarterly. It is the larger gathering that is considered "supplemental" and many house church networks don't even have buildings or permanent larger venue of brick and mortar. Growth in the organic church is measured by multiplying house churches as house churches within the network become too big to gather in their smaller venue. And so the house church network grows by multiplying house churches and elders to manage those house churches. And so, with this model, leadership is decentralized, with each house church maintaining its own unique identity and leadership. And overall government of the network is done through a collegiate style of leadership involving the elders of the house churches. Often speakers and pastoral leadership of the larger gathering is based on rotation. Sometimes there is a "Sr. Pastor" who leads the elders and leads the larger gathering and wider agenda of the network.

I think it is sad that the term "house churching" has become the term most widely used for this method of doing church. This gives the impression that house churches ONLY gather in homes. More accurate terms would include "organic church", "simple church", or "cell church". Personally, I like the term "organic church".

Now, you had mentioned that you too are not fond of larger churches where one can be lost in the crowd. In organic church, we put emphasis on what we believe to be the order of church service as outlined by Paul in I Corinthians 14. It reads:

I Corinthians 14:26-38 (ESV)
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

In this passage Paul illustrates that their gatherings should have the following elements and guiding principles:

- Anyone is free to bring a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation to share at the gathering. However, there must be order.
- There are to only be two or at most three utterances in tongues coupled with interpretation. If there is no interpreter, the one feeling the utterance should remain silent and pray to God about its meaning so that it might be shared with the group in a manner that can be understood.
- Two or three anointed teachers (NT prophets) are to speak and guide the meeting.
- If any saint attending has a revelation or something to share, whoever is speaking must stop and give them the floor so that all might be able to prophesy, learn, and be encouraged. Essentially meetings are to be discussion based with all able to participate.
- Those who address the group must realize that their spirits are subject to the anointed teachers (NT prophets) guiding the group.
- Women are to remain in submission. Most house church elders are more liberal with allowing women to speak and participate. However, women should not lead the meeting and remain in subjection.
- Those who think they are spiritual Christians should acknowledge that this order of gathering is a command from the Lord.

You mentioned that most churches you've attended have under 125 in attendance. To the organic church leader the concern becomes - At what point does a gathering get too large to allow the full participation and discussion Paul describes in this passage???

The conviction of organic church leadership is that if our "form of church" will not allow for the kind of meetings Paul lays out before us... we are failing to meet as the Apostle Paul admonished the early church to meet. It doesn't matter if it is in a house, a park, a coffee shop, a library, a book store, a bus stop, a town square, church building or wherever. The point is that the above elements should be present in the primary gatherings. This would mean that the primary gatherings would have to be much smaller. They are to be elder guided and interactive in nature. If a meeting is too big to facilitate this, it fails to allow for the "body ministry" Paul admonishes us to have. Most completely ignore that Paul states that this order of gathering is a "command from the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37). This becomes very troubling for a believer who believes in organic church if a larger church doesn't facilitate this command of the Lord through having smaller gatherings.

I Corinthians 14:37-38 (ESV)
37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Here we have a clear and plain commandment regarding how our regular and primary gatherings should be. However, it is treated by most today as though it is merely an option. I do respect how many (but not all) traditional churches provide for small group ministries wherein this kind of body life can be experienced in care groups and such. However, these small groups are typically regarded as being less significant and subordinate to the larger gatherings held in their church buildings. In fact, this should be reversed. Early Christians primarily met in homes and smaller venues. It was the larger gatherings were typically for a specific purpose and were supplemental in nature.

[Truthseeker]

It shouldn't be made so complex. Want to shave then shave, want to grow a beard then grow one. Real simple.

[Aquila]

It shouldn't be made so complex. Want to shave then shave, want to grow a beard then grow one. Real simple.

:thumbsup

[jediwill83]

We certainly have this in common. The larger a church gets, the more I typically take issue with it.

When it comes to house churching, most people know about the simple church desire to meet in a house or smaller, more intimate, venue for participative study and discussion. What many don't know is that a number of house church networks do have "church buildings". Yes, house church networks often have church buildings! LOL Ironic isn't it??? LOL

What differs is focus.

When house church networks own larger buildings it affords them the opportunity to have larger gatherings of the entire network. And most would assume it is just a traditional church by just looking at the outside of the building. It differs from traditional churching in that in the traditional church, the teaching agenda, church discipline, baptisms, appointment of elders, etc. takes place within the confines of the larger gathering, with the Sr. Pastor calling the shots. The care groups, cell groups, or Bible studies (or whatever we wish to call the smaller groups) are considered to be supplemental and largely optional. Many traditional churches don't even have small groups. Growth in the traditional church is measured in multiplying dedicated attendees in the larger gathering. The leadership in the traditional church is centralized, with the pastor typically having total control.

In house churching, the focus is often flipped. It is the small group gathering that is paramount. Each is largely autonomous. Each appoints their own elders, performs their own baptisms, has their own teaching agenda, has their own financial plan, and each carries out their own methods of church discipline in accordance to Scripture. Any gathering in the larger venue is more like a conference, be it weekly, monthly, or quarterly. It is the larger gathering that is considered "supplemental" and many house church networks don't even have buildings or permanent larger venue of brick and mortar. Growth in the organic church is measured by multiplying house churches as house churches within the network become too big to gather in their smaller venue. And so the house church network grows by multiplying house churches and elders to manage those house churches. And so, with this model, leadership is decentralized, with each house church maintaining its own unique identity and leadership. And overall government of the network is done through a collegiate style of leadership involving the elders of the house churches. Often speakers and pastoral leadership of the larger gathering is based on rotation. Sometimes there is a "Sr. Pastor" who leads the elders and leads the larger gathering and wider agenda of the network.

I think it is sad that the term "house churching" has become the term most widely used for this method of doing church. This gives the impression that house churches ONLY gather in homes. More accurate terms would include "organic church", "simple church", or "cell church". Personally, I like the term "organic church".

Now, you had mentioned that you too are not fond of larger churches where one can be lost in the crowd. In organic church, we put emphasis on what we believe to be the order of church service as outlined by Paul in I Corinthians 14. It reads:
I Corinthians 14:26-38 (ESV)
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.In this passage Paul illustrates that their gatherings should have the following elements and guiding principles:
- Anyone is free to bring a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation to share at the gathering. However, there must be order.
- There are to only be two or at most three utterances in tongues coupled with interpretation. If there is no interpreter, the one feeling the utterance should remain silent and pray to God about its meaning so that it might be shared with the group in a manner that can be understood.
- Two or three anointed teachers (NT prophets) are to speak and guide the meeting.
- If any saint attending has a revelation or something to share, whoever is speaking must stop and give them the floor so that all might be able to prophesy, learn, and be encouraged. Essentially meetings are to be discussion based with all able to participate.
- Those who address the group must realize that their spirits are subject to the anointed teachers (NT prophets) guiding the group.
- Women are to remain in submission. Most house church elders are more liberal with allowing women to speak and participate. However, women should not lead the meeting and remain in subjection.
- Those who think they are spiritual Christians should acknowledge that this order of gathering is a command from the Lord.You mentioned that most churches you've attended have under 125 in attendance. To the organic church leader the concern becomes - At what point does a gathering get too large to allow the full participation and discussion Paul describes in this passage???

The conviction of organic church leadership is that if our "form of church" will not allow for the kind of meetings Paul lays out before us... we are failing to meet as the Apostle Paul admonished the early church to meet. It doesn't matter if it is in a house, a park, a coffee shop, a library, a book store, a bus stop, a town square, church building or wherever. The point is that the above elements should be present in the primary gatherings. This would mean that the primary gatherings would have to be much smaller. They are to be elder guided and interactive in nature. If a meeting is too big to facilitate this, it fails to allow for the "body ministry" Paul admonishes us to have. Most completely ignore that Paul states that this order of gathering is a "command from the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37). This becomes very troubling for a believer who believes in organic church if a larger church doesn't facilitate this command of the Lord through having smaller gatherings.
I Corinthians 14:37-38 (ESV)
37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.Here we have a clear and plain commandment regarding how our regular and primary gatherings should be. However, it is treated by most today as though it is merely an option. I do respect how many (but not all) traditional churches provide for small group ministries wherein this kind of body life can be experienced in care groups and such. However, these small groups are typically regarded as being less significant and subordinate to the larger gatherings held in their church buildings. In fact, this should be reversed. Early Christians primarily met in homes and smaller venues. It was the larger gatherings were typically for a specific purpose and were supplemental in nature.


Aquila, I love this. It makes sense from a perspectice of compartmentalization as well.

Think of a ship that has sealing bulkheads in case of a flood that seals off an area in case of a breach of the hull.

The smaller the area the flood can be contained in, the better for the ship

The "cell church" allows for focused attention that can address issues a larger group cannot.

In the case of things slipping in, a smaller group setting is much more prepared to seal the breach and deal with what has intruded than a large centralized entity.

And for the nerd reference....think Hydra lol!

If the enemy wanted to take out a centralized church it's easier to destroy something with few heads....but a entity with MANY leaders and independent cells...much more difficult to destroy....cut off one head two others grow into place...

https://media.giphy.com/media/7RdHcI0SE2gp2/200.gif

If the "world" is indeed the great threat that is preached and we want to be separate and protect against it's invasion and influence , it's much easier to defend and maintain the decentralized church and it's also a better structure for growing and maturing believers.

[Aquila]

Aquila, I love this. It makes sense from a perspectice of compartmentalization as well.

Think of a ship that has sealing bulkheads in case of a flood that seals off an area in case of a breach of the hull.

The smaller the area the flood can be contained in, the better for the ship

The "cell church" allows for focused attention that can address issues a larger group cannot.

In the case of things slipping in, a smaller group setting is much more prepared to seal the breach and deal with what has intruded than a large centralized entity.

And for the nerd reference....think Hydra lol!

If the enemy wanted to take out a centralized church it's easier to destroy something with few heads....but a entity with MANY leaders and independent cells...much more difficult to destroy....cut off one head two others grow into place...

https://media.giphy.com/media/7RdHcI0SE2gp2/200.gif

If the "world" is indeed the great threat that is preached and we want to be separate and protect against it's invasion and influence , it's much easier to defend and maintain the decentralized church and it's also a better structure for growing and maturing believers.

That's so true.

It can also serve a good barrier to heresy.

I remember a house church meeting years ago with elder Scott (ex-Baptist become independent Apostolic). Of course, there are participative meetings. One person began bringing in some JW doctrines peppered into their comments. It wasn't 15 minutes before one brother said, "Wait, what you just said. Isn't that a Jehovah's Witnesses teaching?" Scott then said, "Can you elaborate on that?" And the brother (who had JWs in his family) began expounding upon the teaching and why it is considered error. The elder made a few remarks in support of calling out the error, and then offered to talk to the individual if they had questions after the gathering. Scott and the person talked for a little while and the person left. We never saw them again.

Now, imagine these large mega churches on TBN where heresy flies without challenge because the man with the mic is the only voice, and trusting members without discernment are eating it all up. Heresy can fly in one serve and effect thousands who are present, and perhaps millions over the duration of the television broadcast. If called on it, the network tries to clean up it's image as being a platform for many different views, and the charismatic offers no comment, accept statements against detractors who are "jealous" of his ministry. In two weeks, it's forgotten and now the public is primed to want to know more about it in the new book that is released on the topic.

House churches can snuff out heresy quick. And if it does take root... it only effects 15-20 people.

[BrainWashed]

watch your tone.

Must have some type of bionic hearing to hear tone in typed words!

[aegsm76]

That's so true.

It can also serve a good barrier to heresy.

I remember a house church meeting years ago with elder Scott (ex-Baptist become independent Apostolic). Of course, there are participative meetings. One person began bringing in some JW doctrines peppered into their comments. It wasn't 15 minutes before one brother said, "Wait, what you just said. Isn't that a Jehovah's Witnesses teaching?" Scott then said, "Can you elaborate on that?" And the brother (who had JWs in his family) began expounding upon the teaching and why it is considered error. The elder made a few remarks in support of calling out the error, and then offered to talk to the individual if they had questions after the gathering. Scott and the person talked for a little while and the person left. We never saw them again.

Now, imagine these large mega churches on TBN where heresy flies without challenge because the man with the mic is the only voice, and trusting members without discernment are eating it all up. Heresy can fly in one serve and effect thousands who are present, and perhaps millions over the duration of the television broadcast. If called on it, the network tries to clean up it's image as being a platform for many different views, and the charismatic offers no comment, accept statements against detractors who are "jealous" of his ministry. In two weeks, it's forgotten and now the public is primed to want to know more about it in the new book that is released on the topic.

House churches can snuff out heresy quick. And if it does take root... it only effects 15-20 people.

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.

[Aquila]

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.

Please elaborate. I'm interested in hearing you're experience.

[Esaias]

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.

What heresies? And how many of these "true house churches" do you know? Also, did you notice somebody became "the leader" and "led them astray"? Isn't that how heresies ALWAYS get going? somebody becomes a leader, and people follow? So then I don't see how meeting in homes vs meeting in a mortgaged auditorium makes any difference?

[Aquila]

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.

This is an important statement.

Can you elaborate on this?

What kind of heresies were they carried away with?

[houston]

What heresies? And how many of these "true house churches" do you know? Also, did you notice somebody became "the leader" and "led them astray"? Isn't that how heresies ALWAYS get going? somebody becomes a leader, and people follow? So then I don't see how meeting in homes vs meeting in a mortgaged auditorium makes any difference?

Quite the claim, isn’t it?

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.

Can you elaborate on the above accusation? :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is ironic.
Almost every "true" house church that I know has fallen into heresy, from someone who became their "leader" and led them astray.


This is ex-UPCI Pastor Rod Bryant. From his below testimony he was over a large UPC church in Texas. Now he has renounced Jesus Christ, and joined the religion of Judaism. I actually don't know what you are saying in your post above, and want to give you a chance to clarify your accusations. But, whether it is a Home Missions, or a huge congregation, doesn't safeguard anyone from being "led" astray.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn4sy72MjEE&ab_channel=KiruvMedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-8576w2L6E&ab_channel=TenakTalk

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn4sy72MjEE&ab_channel=KiruvMedia

At 4:23 he explains what he believes about BEARDS!!!!

[TJJJ]

I have known of many, yes many, pastors of congregational style churches that have went either into sin and or doctrinal heresy, so that is a broad brush to say that home churches are the criteria for that error.

We could spend all night naming names (we won't though) of men that have taken and created many, many problems for small, midsize, and large traditional style congregations. Just because Home Churches aren't your thing is the wrong reason to attack them.

I have pastored traditional style congregations for the last 25 years. They have their problems and their good points. But if I had to start anew and afresh somewhere else, I would go to a different format. More like multiple cell groups in homes for a while.

I have honestly thought about building more of a lodge style building, with fireplace and the whole thing with a large meeting are that would seat about 50. It would be more casual but would still be adequate for the smaller meeting style.

Just some thought.

[houston]

Go start your compound and let your son in law take over the church.
If he moves to the compound I will take over the church.

[Evang.Benincasa]

25 years.


Your hair must be white (wait, your hair was white when you were 12) nevermind.

We are old, we are so old. :tissue

[Evang.Benincasa]

Go start your compound and let your son in law take over the church.
If he moves to the compound I will take over the church.

Little too late for compound startin, we need to be thinking about learning Russian and Chinese. :kickcan