Wading through the wedding rings

[OP_Carl]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

[Brother Strange]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

[OP_Carl]

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by. I'm not asking for another clothesline "discussion." I'm just asking for folks to sound off, kind of like a poll, on what their reasons are.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.
I agree with you brother. I am just left wondering because I know people that own wedding rings, but don't wear them. I met another one yesterday. People who give each other bibles as their token of their wedding vows, I can understand why they don't wear wedding rings, because they decided from day 1 that they weren't going to. But people who use rings as the token in their wedding ceremony, and then later decide not to wear them, that seems a little confusing.

[Steve Epley]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Then the wedding ring itself is pagan in nature and was christianized by the Roman church thus it is not pleasing to the Lord. Rome is not only the Mother of Harlots, she is also the Mother of Abominations.
I realize jewelry was suffered in the OT as was polygamy-divorce-vengence-etc. but in times of consecration both personally and nationally they ridded themselves of their jewelry. Jewelry has a long association with Idolatry & pride in Scripture datign back to the fall of Lucifer.
NO Apostolic child of God should wear ornamental jewelry and every true man of God should teach against it.

[COOPER]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

yOU GO BOY

[Steve Epley]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

Taking off jewelry brought revival to your Pastor's church so he said. Revival is NOT dispicable. He never bought her a ring. I am in compnay with him.

[OP_Carl]

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none. . . .

Brother Epley,

Thank you for your response. This is a little more than what I had in mind.

May I infer that you take a literal meaning of these verses? How do you deal with the admonition against wearing clothing, (yikes) or the fact that they only mention women, in a single-verse literal meaning?

The word 'jewelry' isn't in there, either.

[Steve Epley]

Brother Epley,

Thank you for your response. This is a little more than what I had in mind.

May I infer that you take a literal meaning of these verses? How do you deal with the admonition against wearing clothing, (yikes) or the fact that they only mention women, in a single-verse literal meaning?

The word 'jewelry' isn't in there, either.

Gold & pearls are mentioned and the clothing there is costly elaborate clothing not just clothes. Paul makes clear in 1Tim. what is being addressed he and Peter are saying the same thing.

[AGAPE]

I'm with Elder Epley on this (surprise, surprise)

[Steve Epley]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

[ReformedDave]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

But if you add a ticking mechanism and wear it around your wrist it's alright.....

[Steve Epley]

But if you add a ticking mechanism and wear it around your wrist it's alright.....

It the band is ornamental I concur. I wear a belt ot hold my pants up it is not ornamental and my band I promise is not the least bit ornamental nor my time piece. I do not even carry a gold pen in my pocket.

[ReformedDave]

It the band is ornamental I concur. I wear a belt ot hold my pants up it is not ornamental and my band I promise is not the least bit ornamental nor my time piece. I do not even carry a gold pen in my pocket.

At least you're consistent unlike many I could name....starting with me.

[freeatlast]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

My question has always been how can folks miss the fact that Paul and Peter both were adressing adorning the hidden man of the heart.

The 400 year old language of the KJV probably trips some up. people who do not take into account the idoms of the KJV laguage misss the fact that both passages were had the emphasis on the adorning with the love of God. To let Christ in you be what is shining in your lives, not your ornamanets/clothing and fancy hair doos.

This was also addressed because of people of so many economic levels.
Peter and Paul both desired that the poor could worship together with people of great wealth and not feel like they "went to the prom wothout a tux or a formal"

The wealthy could hire hairdressers to fix their hair elaboratly and don lavish costly clothing and addorn themselves with the jewelry that the hebrews were accustommed to wearing in that day.

The scriptural admonition was to admonish the rich that is was Christ, the hidden man of the heart, that counted in their lives, NOT how fancy they got dolled up for church.

This a lesson we can all apply in our lives today.

It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore.
It was NEVER about being able to dress nice
It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.

It was abouting adorning with Christ.

If you don't believe it that way. Well, I pray for you...cause you ar ejust plain wrong ! :winkgrin

[OP_Carl]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

I think I see how you are getting here. Thanks again for explaining your position.

I look at it like they were not to esteem costly clothing and jewelry, or to use it to attempt to draw people to Christ. In other words, try not to stand out in the crowd or draw attention to yourself, but let the focus be on God, and let the adorning of your heart with a meek spirit full of the fruits of the Holy Ghost be what draws men to God.

Even the poorest among us can manage to scrounge up a simple wedding band. I do not see it as a great divider between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' These days, many men are choosing jewel-encrusted wedding rings for themselves. What I haven't seen is people braiding gold into their hair.

I believe my simple, smooth gold wedding ring does more good than harm. People that see me with my kids on the weekend on an outing with "just Daddy" can see that I'm not just another poor slob with weekend visitation rights and a heap-o'-child-support payments to make. Hey look, some people can stay married after they have children!

It also prevents the lion's share of "conversations" that might lead to temptation. Well, maybe not in my case . . . . :killinme

Brother Epley, what do the bride and groom exchange as a token in weddings in your church?

[OP_Carl]

My question has always been how can folks miss the fact that Paul and Peter both were adressing adorning the hidden man of the heart.

The 400 year old language of the KJV probably trips some up. people who do not take into account the idoms of the KJV laguage misss the fact that both passages were had the emphasis on the adorning with the love of God. To let Christ in you be what is shining in your lives, not your ornamanets/clothing and fancy hair doos.

This was also addressed because of people of so many economic levels.
Peter and Paul both desired that the poor could worship together with people of great wealth and not feel like they "went to the prom wothout a tux or a formal"

The wealthy could hire hairdressers to fix their hair elaboratly and don lavish costly clothing and addorn themselves with the jewelry that the hebrews were accustommed to wearing in that day.

The scriptural admonition was to admonish the rich that is was Christ, the hidden man of the heart, that counted in their lives, NOT how fancy they got dolled up for church.

This a lesson we can all apply in our lives today.

It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore.
It was NEVER about being able to dress nice
It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.

It was abouting adorning with Christ.

Very interesting. You make a lot of assertions. How do you know:

1) It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore?
2) It was NEVER about being able to dress nice?
3) It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.?

What have you used as a basis to reach your position?

[Esther]

My question has always been how can folks miss the fact that Paul and Peter both were adressing adorning the hidden man of the heart.

The 400 year old language of the KJV probably trips some up. people who do not take into account the idoms of the KJV laguage misss the fact that both passages were had the emphasis on the adorning with the love of God. To let Christ in you be what is shining in your lives, not your ornamanets/clothing and fancy hair doos.

This was also addressed because of people of so many economic levels.
Peter and Paul both desired that the poor could worship together with people of great wealth and not feel like they "went to the prom wothout a tux or a formal"

The wealthy could hire hairdressers to fix their hair elaboratly and don lavish costly clothing and addorn themselves with the jewelry that the hebrews were accustommed to wearing in that day.

The scriptural admonition was to admonish the rich that is was Christ, the hidden man of the heart, that counted in their lives, NOT how fancy they got dolled up for church.

This a lesson we can all apply in our lives today.

It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore.
It was NEVER about being able to dress nice
It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.

It was abouting adorning with Christ.

If you don't believe it that way. Well, I pray for you...cause you ar ejust plain wrong ! :winkgrin

Good post.

This is an area where a lot of diversity is seen.

[OP_Carl]

Good post. On what basis or principles have you decided this was a good post?

This is an area where a lot of diversity is seen. Yessss.

[Felicity]

Good posts by OP Carl and FreeAtLast!

[Esther]

On what basis or principles have you decided this was a good post?

Yessss.

He hit what the principal of the message of that scripture is. WE, me included had missed it for years.

[NLYP]

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Then the wedding ring itself is pagan in nature and was christianized by the Roman church thus it is not pleasing to the Lord. Rome is not only the Mother of Harlots, she is also the Mother of Abominations.
I realize jewelry was suffered in the OT as was polygamy-divorce-vengence-etc. but in times of consecration both personally and nationally they ridded themselves of their jewelry. Jewelry has a long association with Idolatry & pride in Scripture datign back to the fall of Lucifer.
NO Apostolic child of God should wear ornamental jewelry and every true man of God should teach against it.

Most of the time I like to jab at you just for kicks...But Bro...The bolded part smells of arrogance, judgementalism and pride!

So are you saying that those that wear wedding rings are not apostolic and men that do not preach against are not "True Men of God"
CAN I THROW UP NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you wear a watch???????
Guess what...its ornamental jewelry!!!!!
I dont care how plain or leather band whatever...its still ornamental jewelry.
YOU cannot get around that fact.
Ill Quote you...."Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Since you have no idea what kind of watch to wear and not be in violation of scripture then I assume you wear none at all.
If not you are a hypocrite and once again preaching a bunch of legal poppey cock just to fit your stand.
If you dont wear a watch...I retract my statement.
Also...
The above mention scriptures are NOT...NOT...NOT a forbiddence of jewelry, they are simply saying dont let your "Gold" make you who you are...let it me the inward heart!!!!!!!!
We could go around on this all day!
But I would HOPE you are smart enough to actually not believe that ONLY men of God preach against wedding rings.

[NLYP]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

And THIS is why I love you as an elder in my life, friend and confidant.

[OP_Carl]

He hit what the principal of the message of that scripture is. WE, me included had missed it for years.

I don't know . . . I Timothy 2:9 seems to be pretty direct, to me.

Are you saying that the true meaning of the passage as a whole DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the plain meaning of I Timothy 2:8-10?

Let your adorning be this . . . NOT that . . .

[crakjak]

But if you add a ticking mechanism and wear it around your wrist it's alright.....

Add the ticking mechanism and embed it in your chest and your have a pacemaker.:slaphappy:slaphappy

[NLYP]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

Kinda like my question......
Womens exposed legs to the knee.....is considered holy....
Yet a man in knee length shorts is not.....

Unreal!

[NLYP]

It the band is ornamental I concur. I wear a belt ot hold my pants up it is not ornamental and my band I promise is not the least bit ornamental nor my time piece. I do not even carry a gold pen in my pocket.

so you are saying there is NO SHINE whatsoever on your belt buckle or your watch?

[NLYP]

I think I see how you are getting here. Thanks again for explaining your position.

I look at it like they were not to esteem costly clothing and jewelry, or to use it to attempt to draw people to Christ. In other words, try not to stand out in the crowd or draw attention to yourself, but let the focus be on God, and let the adorning of your heart with a meek spirit full of the fruits of the Holy Ghost be what draws men to God.

Even the poorest among us can manage to scrounge up a simple wedding band. I do not see it as a great divider between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' These days, many men are choosing jewel-encrusted wedding rings for themselves. What I haven't seen is people braiding gold into their hair.

I believe my simple, smooth gold wedding ring does more good than harm. People that see me with my kids on the weekend on an outing with "just Daddy" can see that I'm not just another poor slob with weekend visitation rights and a heap-o'-child-support payments to make. Hey look, some people can stay married after they have children!

It also prevents the lion's share of "conversations" that might lead to temptation. Well, maybe not in my case . . . . :killinme

Brother Epley, what do the bride and groom exchange as a token in weddings in your church?

Tithe envelopes.:killinme:killinme

[Brother Strange]

so you are saying there is NO SHINE whatsoever on your belt buckle or your watch?

Ohhhhhh how perceptive is my young friend... It IS the shine that must be avoided.:killinme Hence his HAT. Wonder if he wears it in the pulpit too?

Elder Epley. I think we are about to have a little fun here. :D

[OP_Carl]

If not you are a hypocrite and once again preaching a bunch of legal poppey cock just to fit your stand.

Pretty tough words coming from an undertaker. You are an undertaker, right? Undertakers aren't just the world's best hypocrites, but they are PROFESSIONAL hypocrites.














They earn their living by standing around for hours looking really, really sorry about a $25,000 funeral ! ! !
:killinme

But theriouthly, folkth. I am interested in people's reasons and biblical backing for their reasons in this thread, not the same old verbal jousting. I know it is a lot to expect from this crowd . . .

[Truly Blessed]

I wear a wedding ring because it is the morally correct thing to do in a culture where the accepted practice distinguishing a married person from an unmarried person is the wearing of a ring.

I also believe God is in favor of this symbol of the covenant relationship I entered into with my wife almost 34 years ago. There is no evidence in Scripture that God is against gold, silver, and precious jewels. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. He enthusiatically embraces these things. He simply doesn't want this to be the adornment that distinguishes us as individuals.

I definitely don't want my wife running around without a wedding ring on. I think it's a disgrace for married women to be out and about without a wedding ring on, when this is the accepted cultural way of designating her marital status in our society. When I see a woman with children my first thoughts are that she is a single mother.

I think this teaching against wearing of rings is one of the most ridiculous teachings in Pentecostal circles.

[OP_Carl]

Is this thread a contender for the title of fastest devolvement into base humor?

[Ferd]

I wish someone versed in Brother Treece's teaching on the subject could elaborate.

he is quite conservitive on most matters and is often quoted on the subject of uncut hair. However, he teaches that one SHOULD wear a wedding ring.

[OP_Carl]

I wear a wedding ring because it is the morally correct thing to do in a culture where the accepted practice distinguishing a married person from an unmarried person is the wearing of a ring. I can appreciate the merit of this argument.

I also believe God is in favor of this symbol of the covenant relationship I entered into with my wife almost 34 years ago. There is no evidence in Scripture that God is against gold, silver, and precious jewels. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. He enthusiatically embraces these things. Please oh please oh please help me out here: How do you know? Where are the scriptures, and how do you put them together to form this principle?

He simply doesn't want this to be the adornment that distinguishes us as individuals. Yes.

I think this teaching against wearing of rings is one of the most ridiculous teachings in Pentecostal circles.

And you think this because of the bible teaching you have received on the topic in the book and verse of . . . .

what?

Thanks!

Carl

[Truly Blessed]

I can appreciate the merit of this argument.

Please oh please oh please help me out here: How do you know? Where are the scriptures, and how do you put them together to form this principle?

Yes.



And you think this because of the bible teaching you have received on the topic in the book and verse of . . . .

what?

Thanks!

Carl


There is more Scripture against the preoccupation of most Pentecostals with eating and drinking than there is on this issue of rings. Yet, I hear not a word about the obvious sin of many preachers sitting on Pentecostal platforms looking as if they could go into labor almost any minute. Tackling this issue could actually save lives! A preacher who looks nine months pregnant, although he wouldn't wear a ring is rather inconsistent I think.

[OP_Carl]

There is more Scripture against the preoccupation of most Pentecostals with eating and drinking than there is on this issue of rings. Yet, I hear not a word about the obvious sin of many preachers sitting on Pentecostal platforms looking as if they could go into labor almost any minute. Tackling this issue could actually save lives! A preacher who looks nine months pregnant, although he wouldn't wear a ring is rather inconsistent I think.

Please don't take offense, but I am now going to disregard your voice for your stance. Rather than answer my questions, you have taken an ethereal leap to a new topic.

I'll address your concerns in my next thread, which will be titled 'Are fat preachers gluttons and do skinny preachers have the big head?'

[bdlooney]

I don't wear a wedding band becuase it something that is not necessary to keep me married and I feel that it is just better if I don't.

Scriptural Support:
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

[AGAPE]

Kinda like my question......
Womens exposed legs to the knee.....is considered holy....
Yet a man in knee length shorts is not.....

Unreal!

Says who????????????:drama

[OP_Carl]

I don't wear a wedding band becuase it something that is not necessary to keep me married I should hope this is obvious.

and I feel that it is just better if I don't. Could you elaborate? Do you own a ring, and just not wear it, or did you not exchange rings to begin with?

Scriptural Support:
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

How does wearing a wedding ring obstruct the spiritual growth of children?

[AGAPE]

I wish someone versed in Brother Treece's teaching on the subject could elaborate.

he is quite conservitive on most matters and is often quoted on the subject of uncut hair. However, he teaches that one SHOULD wear a wedding ring.

I was told of a tape, may be one of those "mystery" tapes, where Bro Treece destroyed the "need" to wear a wedding band....He preached it in Kentucky for Bro Tingle in the 80's??? Is this real???

[OP_Carl]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin

Would you be okay with a wedding ring made of silver or platinum, made to be as plain or even as ugly as possible? How about if it was made of jade or plastic?

What about gluing a dot between the eyebrows like they do in India?

[bdlooney]

My wife and I did not exchange rings in the ceremony. We had bible bearers that walked down a bible that had special meaning to her and one that had special meaning to me. I do not own a band but I did buy my wife a simple, inexpensive band to wear on our honeymoon cruise because she wanted to have something. I am fine with that. She does not wear it anywhere now.

Why I used this reference.
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Paul said to be all things to all men. It is better for me not to wear a ring and allow a larger circle of fellowship than wear a ring and offend the more conservative brethren.

Just me opinion on the matter

[Ferd]

I was told of a tape, may be one of those "mystery" tapes, where Bro Treece destroyed the "need" to wear a wedding band....He preached it in Kentucky for Bro Tingle in the 80's??? Is this real???
Agape, as far as I remember, elder Treece taught that you SHOULD wear a wedding ring. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure this is the case.

I went to college with some guys that went there and one of my college buds from MTs church was in my wedding.

I seem to recall several conversations on the subject and I was somewhat supprised as I know MT to be pretty conservitive on most issues reguarding Standards. I wish there was someone around who could shed some light on the subject.

[OP_Carl]

Why I used this reference.
Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Paul said to be all things to all men. It is better for me not to wear a ring and allow a larger circle of fellowship than wear a ring and offend the more conservative brethren.

THANK YOU ! ! ! :thumbsup

[Scott Hutchinson]

I do wear a simple wedding band ,myself I proudly belong to a awesome Holy Hottie.But if I go to a church that doesn't condone such I'll take it off.

[OP_Carl]

But if I go to a church that doesn't condone such I'll take it off.

And if a member of that church bumps into you in a store, restaurant, or airport while you are wearing the ring, what then? Won't they stumble, be confused, question whether you're a hypocrite?

[Scott Hutchinson]

OP CARL I don't think so.I can't please everybody if I did I would go crazy ,but if I go into an assembly knowing what they teach ,I would respect their teaching in their church.

[Scott Hutchinson]

OPCARL I love you and bless you in Jesus Name.

[BlackForest]

My mother was convicted of her wedding ring in the late 60's shortly after she came into the truth. No one preached against it or even spoke to her about it, God dealt with her about it. She has never wore one since. My father didn't like it but never made a big issue of it and he is still not in church today.

I grew up under the teaching of no rings and the church I attend believes it this way.

When I was married over 20 years ago we did not have wedding rings nor did we have token bibles, etc.

I do not need a ring to know I am married nor does my wife want one. We act married when we are at work or else where. There have been very few times we have had to tell anyone the "I am married" line because of not wearing a ring.

One thing leads to another, whether it is on the spiritual side or whether it is on the carnal side. Wearing a wedding ring opens a door to the thought process of "if it is ok to wear a wedding ring then surely it is ok to wear..."

As one of the pastors I have had in my life teaches "what womb did it come out of and where will it take you"

[HangingOut]

The moderate practice of wearing a wedding ring has to include the perception of the culture in which it is worn. There is no way that the scripture is speaking in broad brush terms on the subject.
Example, does the world question a person’s Godly, Christian character based on the wearing of a wedding ring. Absolutely not. Their witness is not tarnished one bit.
For the record, I don’t wear one.

[Tech]

I wear a wedding ring and have felt no conviction for it.If i did i would remove it.I was raised not to wear jewelry ,but i have abandoned my raising and seek after the will of God rather than the traditions of man.

[OP_Carl]

My mother was convicted of her wedding ring in the late 60's shortly after she came into the truth. No one preached against it or even spoke to her about it, God dealt with her about it. She has never wore one since. My father didn't like it but never made a big issue of it and he is still not in church today.

I grew up under the teaching of no rings and the church I attend believes it this way.

When I was married over 20 years ago we did not have wedding rings nor did we have token bibles, etc.
. . .
One thing leads to another, whether it is on the spiritual side or whether it is on the carnal side. Wearing a wedding ring opens a door to the thought process of "if it is ok to wear a wedding ring then surely it is ok to wear..."

As one of the pastors I have had in my life teaches "what womb did it come out of and where will it take you"

Thank you! :thumbsup

The slippery slope counts as a principle with me . . . :D

The vast majority of the secular people I know wear just the one wedding ring, or the set for the ladies. It is seriously not an issue and certainly not the cause for pride, vanity, jealousy and stumbling, at least among the secular/denominal men I know. Occasionally you'll meet somebody that has multiple rings or one on every finger, but then they've usually got other indicators about them that cause everybody to discern that there is a different class represented in that case.

It just makes me wonder if the Apostolic world is the only place where a simple wedding ring can get between a believer and his God.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not going to approach this any differently than I do other similar issues, i.e., what are your eyes resting on when you think about the issue. My test is this: Are you looking at God, wanting to live for him, give the issue to him, and please him fully, or are you looking at the things of this world, and attempting to decide which of them you can fit into your life without letting go of God?

So I'm sitting here looking at my wedding ring, and I think, this is not nor has it ever been the slightest issue for me. I wear it because my cherished bride gave it to me. I wear it to proudly show that I'm the one and only for my one and only. I wear it night and day. I don't envy the sculpted or jeweled bands of other men, because I frankly don't see the appeal. I find elegance in simplicity. I don't secretly desire a signet ring or such. I take it off when I use files and work on electrical devices. Otherwise, I just don't think about it.

I think I might feel hypocritical if I were take it off prior to a visit to a 'no-rings' church. I certainly don't know how I would explain that act to my children. "I'm still married to your mother even when we're visiting here." But I certainly wouldn't want to cause offense or others to stumble.

I'm trying to challenge my own paradigms, but I don't feel like I'm getting very far with this one. I've had my sins under the blood and the Holy Ghost for all these years, more years than I've worn the ring, and now, all of a sudden, *poof* I'm sinning by wearing a ring? I'm open minded but I'm still not sure I see it.

[OP_Carl]

OPCARL I love you and bless you in Jesus Name.

Thanks, brother Scott, I'll take all the blessings I can get. You're not so bad yourownself! :D

OP = Oneness Pentecostal

[Brother Strange]

My neighbor said that his aunt received the Holy Ghost in a local Assemblies of God church. Immediately afterwards, she took off her expensive rings and threw them in the Neuches river?

I said, "WHAT??? WHERE?"

He said, "Under the highway 69 bridge."

"WHAT?????" I shouted, "WHEN."

"Oh that was more than 40 years ago," he replied.

I said, "oh. 40 years ago"

[RandyWayne]

So I'm sitting here looking at my wedding ring, and I think, this is not nor has it ever been the slightest issue for me. I wear it because my cherished bride gave it to me. I wear it to proudly show that I'm the one and only for my one and only. I wear it night and day. I don't envy the sculpted or jeweled bands of other men, because I frankly don't see the appeal. I find elegance in simplicity. I don't secretly desire a signet ring or such. I take it off when I use files and work on electrical devices. Otherwise, I just don't think about it.

I think I might feel hypocritical if I were take it off prior to a visit to a 'no-rings' church. I certainly don't know how I would explain that act to my children. "I'm still married to your mother even when we're visiting here." But I certainly wouldn't want to cause offense or others to stumble.


Excellent points. And I would personally NOT take it off if I knew I was around some who were offended simply because it is a symbol of my marriage. And since I would be unwilling to denigrate my wife, I am unwilling to hide anything that represents her, even a little.

[OP_Carl]

Brother Strange,

:killinme :slaphappy

I've heard (in the distant past) of evangelists taking up ring and/or watch offerings. I always wondered (a) how I would react at such a moment, and (b) who gets the loot. :D

My wife has strict instructions should this ever happen in her presence.

Part of the masonic initiation ritual is the removal of the wedding ring. This is done to symbolize that you won't let your marriage get in the way of your vows to the lodge.

Call me a Laodicean skeptic if you must, but I would question anybody that would want to abruptly come between me and this well-accepted symbol of my wife's fidelity to me, especially when he looks like the cat who will be holding the bag at the end of the deal. :drawguns

[Ferd]

I have HEARD of the slippery sloap but as yet I have NOT SEEN the slippery sloap.

silly if you ask me.

[OP_Carl]

I have HEARD of the slippery sloap but as yet I have NOT SEEN the slippery sloap.

silly if you ask me.

I didn't ask you.

Here's a slippery slap: :smack

[Brother Strange]

Brother Strange,

:killinme :slaphappy

I've heard (in the distant past) of evangelists taking up ring and/or watch offerings. I always wondered (a) how I would react at such a moment, and (b) who gets the loot. :D

My wife has strict instructions should this ever happen in her presence.

Part of the masonic initiation ritual is the removal of the wedding ring. This is done to symbolize that you won't let your marriage get in the way of your vows to the lodge.

Call me a Laodicean skeptic if you must, but I would question anybody that would want to abruptly come between me and this well-accepted symbol of my wife's fidelity to me, especially when he looks like the cat who will be holding the bag at the end of the deal. :drawguns

:killinme

If my wife dumped her rings in such a collection, I would be following the dude with the bag ducking out the back door. :slaphappy

[OP_Carl]

The moderate practice of wearing a wedding ring has to include the perception of the culture in which it is worn. Perhaps. But the 'cultural' stuff can get us into trouble, too.

There is no way that the scripture is speaking in broad brush terms on the subject. How are you certain?

Example, does the world question a person’s Godly, Christian character based on the wearing of a wedding ring. Absolutely not. Their witness is not tarnished one bit.

Yeah. What he said! My experience has been that a potential convert doesn't see my wedding ring and think to themselves, 'hey what a fancy-pants, he couldn't lead a hamster to God on a log-chain leash!' like they might if I had strands of gold braided in my long, luscious shimmering locks.

[RandyWayne]

There is an interesting observation to be made here. The subject is wedding rings but it can really apply to any "standard" or conviction.

And that is that one side is usually able to say "Lets agree to disagree" and let it be while the other is not. Guess which side is what?
I very proudly wear my ring, as does my wife. They are not ubber expensive, but just nice enough as to not appear cheap. I think she paid about 500 for mine and I paid 650 for hers.
Now, when I meet someone or someone came into our church who did NOT wear wedding rings and was opposed to it, it would not offend me or anyone else in the building. However, is the reverse true? Would I not offend the living daylights out of the whole congregation if I we walked into a church that preached against rings?
If someone had a conviction against TVs and walked into a church that did not actively preach against them, I doubt they would offend anyone by not having one. Yet, let someone who HAS one walk into a church that actively preaches against them and it is a whole nudder ball game! (Assuming it was made known that they DID have one.)

The point is do you hold to you own convictions and beliefs or are you busy being offended by others?

[Ferd]

I didn't ask you.

Here's a slippery slap: :smack

Ha!

OP_C, let me say that on this subject I fall very much in the middle. (how is that???)

I do not wear a ring, watch, pin in the pocket. I dont have a money clip or any other object that men might carry. I dont even have a tie tack.

my wife wears both a wedding ring and a watch. we did not have rings in our wedding or any other token. when we moved to this location our new pastor told me to get my wife a ring. he said it was something she needed for protection and to aviod being hit on.

I obeyed his wish. My wife did see guys hitting on her stop.

im not trying to argue any scripture listed here. but that notion of a slippery sloap is nonsense. My wife as 1 ring and 1 watch. she has never wanted any other form of jewlery. there is no slippery sloap.

[OP_Carl]

There is an interesting observation to be made here. The subject is wedding rings but it can really apply to any "standard" or conviction.

And that is that one side is usually able to say "Lets agree to disagree" and let it be while the other is not. Guess which side is what?
I very proudly wear my ring, as does my wife. They are not ubber expensive, but just nice enough as to not appear cheap. I think she paid about 500 for mine and I paid 650 for hers.
Now, when I meet someone or someone came into our church who did NOT wear wedding rings and was opposed to it, it would not offend me or anyone else in the building. However, is the reverse true? Would I not offend the living daylights out of the whole congregation if I we walked into a church that preached against rings?
If someone had a conviction against TVs and walked into a church that did not actively preach against them, I doubt they would offend anyone by not having one. Yet, let someone who HAS one walk into a church that actively preaches against them and it is a whole nudder ball game! (Assuming it was made known that they DID have one.)

The point is do you hold to you own convictions and beliefs or are you busy being offended by others?

You make it seem rather shallow. I daresay there is much more to it than simply offense and shunning. There is belief, belief in principle, belief in following the man of God, and God-given personal convictions. I further daresay that the majority of the 'no-rings' people would not be offended, but that you are far more likely to notice the few that are.

[OP_Carl]

OP_C, let me say that on this subject I fall very much in the middle. (how is that???) That's fine. I suspect that's where I'm landing, too.

im not trying to argue any scripture listed here. That's too bad. That's what I'm interested in.

but that notion of a slippery sloap is nonsense. My wife as 1 ring and 1 watch. she has never wanted any other form of jewlery. there is no slippery sloap. All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." :killinme I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

[RandyWayne]

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense".
I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature.

[OP_Carl]

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense". Do you mean, God-given personal convictions are NOT cause for offense?

I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature. I like this!

[RandyWayne]

Do you mean, God-given personal convictions are NOT cause for offense?


I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

However, if it is not TRUE conviction than I need the validation of others doing the same thing I am.

[OP_Carl]

I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

That's what I thought you meant. I agree.

[Ferd]

That's fine. I suspect that's where I'm landing, too.

That's too bad. That's what I'm interested in.

All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." :killinme I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

let me clarify. the wedding ring is NOT a slippery sloap.

there is a slippery sloap. it has to do with those that start rethinking old time holiness standards and then decide the concept is a lie. the go from questioning the rules they were raised with to abandoning seperation in total and that is just sad.
Bro, I suspect we are pretty close on these issues. I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to justify anything else.

[Pragmatist]

All we really know is that a slippery slope is nonsense for you. Have you ever seen a holiness woman about 2 years after she starts experimenting with make-up? It's usually somewhere between "Vegas showgirl" and "raccoon." :killinme I say the slippery slope exists for this stuff, and I've seen it!

Some may have issues like this, but don't broad brush everyone. I experimented with make-up. I still do occasionally. 99% of the time I wear none because it requires too much effort. You only notice the ones that go to the extreme.

[OP_Carl]

let me clarify. the wedding ring is NOT a slippery sloap.

there is a slippery sloap. it has to do with those that start rethinking old time holiness standards and then decide the concept is a lie. the go from questioning the rules they were raised with to abandoning seperation in total and that is just sad.
Bro, I suspect we are pretty close on these issues. I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to justify anything else.


How about this, instead?

I just believe that a wedding ring is something covanant related and thus cannot be used to logically justify anything else. :D

[OP_Carl]

Some may have issues like this, but don't broad brush everyone. I experimented with make-up. I still do occasionally. 99% of the time I wear none because it requires too much effort. You only notice the ones that go to the extreme.

You probably still attend an Apostolic church, don't cut or trim your hair, etc.

I meant, and should have specified, when they backslide, and are no longer interested in "the way" for the principles of it or the cultural conformity.

[Ferd]

How about this, instead?

:D

lol! logic. you got me.


well, where sound teaching abounds silliness has trouble growing.

[ChTatum]

Did someone on here actually mention that rings were an offshoot from Catholicism?

I know they didn't, since the way most OP's celebrate the Lord's supper is a Catholicized version.

[Pragmatist]

You probably still attend an Apostolic church, don't cut or trim your hair, etc.

I meant, and should have specified, when they backslide, and are no longer interested in "the way" for the principles of it or the cultural conformity.

You're half right. I do attend an Apostolic church but I also trim my hair. And I wear a wedding ring so people know I'm married, but no other jewelry, again, because it's just too much effort. I'm a low maintenance woman. :)

[OP_Carl]

Did someone on here actually mention that rings were an offshoot from Catholicism?

I know they didn't, since the way most OP's celebrate the Lord's supper is a Catholicized version.

Careful there, bub. Whatever The Pope says, goes! :club













Actually, somebody did mention it earlier. I've got an idea, let's wrap our ENTIRE LIVES around being NOT CATHOLIC.

Oh wait, it would be a third of the reading to just be Christian!
:killinme

[OP_Carl]

You're half right. I do attend an Apostolic church but I also trim my hair. And I wear a wedding ring so people know I'm married, but no other jewelry, again, because it's just too much effort. I'm a low maintenance woman. :)

She's the Maytag of Missusness, the Honda of Holiness.

[Pragmatist]

She's the Maytag of Missusness, the Honda of Holiness.

Hey, I drive a Honda. :)

[OP_Carl]

. . . I've got more questions now than I had when I started! Oops.

[Truly Blessed]

Please don't take offense, but I am now going to disregard your voice for your stance. Rather than answer my questions, you have taken an ethereal leap to a new topic.

I'll address your concerns in my next thread, which will be titled 'Are fat preachers gluttons and do skinny preachers have the big head?'I said what I did to make the point that folks go around and around on ridiculous issues that make no difference to anything, while neglecting other more important issues. I know of no one who has come to Christ because of someone's position on rings.

[Trouvere]

Kinda like my question......
Womens exposed legs to the knee.....is considered holy....
Yet a man in knee length shorts is not.....

Unreal!

ahem....most really conservative apostolic churches frown upon women
wearing dresses with their legs exposed to the knee.You are to wear
them a foot below the knee, twelve inches, so that is the end to
the shorts controversy.So it would depend on your measuring guide.

[Trouvere]

I wish someone versed in Brother Treece's teaching on the subject could elaborate.

he is quite conservitive on most matters and is often quoted on the subject of uncut hair. However, he teaches that one SHOULD wear a wedding ring.

ahem....I disagree.We have been to the Treeces church and I did not
notice that they were ultra cons.He's pre trib anyway and most ultracons
are post.He did have a great doctrine on UFO's my last prophecy conference trip there though.:sshhh

[Trouvere]

I do wear a simple wedding band ,myself I proudly belong to a awesome Holy Hottie.But if I go to a church that doesn't condone such I'll take it off.

ahem...get a room.

[Trouvere]

My mother was convicted of her wedding ring in the late 60's shortly after she came into the truth. No one preached against it or even spoke to her about it, God dealt with her about it. She has never wore one since. My father didn't like it but never made a big issue of it and he is still not in church today.

I grew up under the teaching of no rings and the church I attend believes it this way.

When I was married over 20 years ago we did not have wedding rings nor did we have token bibles, etc.

I do not need a ring to know I am married nor does my wife want one. We act married when we are at work or else where. There have been very few times we have had to tell anyone the "I am married" line because of not wearing a ring.

One thing leads to another, whether it is on the spiritual side or whether it is on the carnal side. Wearing a wedding ring opens a door to the thought process of "if it is ok to wear a wedding ring then surely it is ok to wear..."

As one of the pastors I have had in my life teaches "what womb did it come out of and where will it take you"


Adam and Eve realized they were naked:roseglasses

[Trouvere]

You're half right. I do attend an Apostolic church but I also trim my hair. And I wear a wedding ring so people know I'm married, but no other jewelry, again, because it's just too much effort. I'm a low maintenance woman. :)

haha....I am a high maintenace woman.The older you get the more buckeros
it takes to maintain that certain style....The good news is I pay for my
own stuff.:roseglasses

[Truly Blessed]

Thank you! :thumbsup

The slippery slope counts as a principle with me . . . :D

The vast majority of the secular people I know wear just the one wedding ring, or the set for the ladies. It is seriously not an issue and certainly not the cause for pride, vanity, jealousy and stumbling, at least among the secular/denominal men I know. Occasionally you'll meet somebody that has multiple rings or one on every finger, but then they've usually got other indicators about them that cause everybody to discern that there is a different class represented in that case.

It just makes me wonder if the Apostolic world is the only place where a simple wedding ring can get between a believer and his God.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not going to approach this any differently than I do other similar issues, i.e., what are your eyes resting on when you think about the issue. My test is this: Are you looking at God, wanting to live for him, give the issue to him, and please him fully, or are you looking at the things of this world, and attempting to decide which of them you can fit into your life without letting go of God?

So I'm sitting here looking at my wedding ring, and I think, this is not nor has it ever been the slightest issue for me. I wear it because my cherished bride gave it to me. I wear it to proudly show that I'm the one and only for my one and only. I wear it night and day. I don't envy the sculpted or jeweled bands of other men, because I frankly don't see the appeal. I find elegance in simplicity. I don't secretly desire a signet ring or such. I take it off when I use files and work on electrical devices. Otherwise, I just don't think about it.

I think I might feel hypocritical if I were take it off prior to a visit to a 'no-rings' church. I certainly don't know how I would explain that act to my children. "I'm still married to your mother even when we're visiting here." But I certainly wouldn't want to cause offense or others to stumble.

I'm trying to challenge my own paradigms, but I don't feel like I'm getting very far with this one. I've had my sins under the blood and the Holy Ghost for all these years, more years than I've worn the ring, and now, all of a sudden, *poof* I'm sinning by wearing a ring? I'm open minded but I'm still not sure I see it.The enemy rejoices that so many people are constantly focused on the flesh. Whether its the way some one dresses, or how they wear their hair, or whether they have on some jewelry, or have applied some makeup, ......doesn't matter. He's just plain happy that folks are more interested in the flesh than they are in Jesus Christ.

We used to sing a chorus that said, "Let's talk about Jesus, the Prince of Peace is He, the Lord of All, Supreme, throughout eternity. The Great I Am, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Door, Let's talk about Jesus more and more.

Today, the emphasis has shifted to, "Let's talk about jewelry, hair, makeup, clothing." Jesus said that it's when we lift Him up that folks are drawn to Him. OPs shouldn't wonder why there is so few being drawn to Christ, when they have allowed themselves to be so preoccupied with the flesh instead of Christ.

[Ferd]

ahem....I disagree.We have been to the Treeces church and I did not
notice that they were ultra cons.He's pre trib anyway and most ultracons
are post.He did have a great doctrine on UFO's my last prophecy conference trip there though.:sshhh

I said Brother Treece taught what most cons/even ultra cons teach on a large number of issues. most in fact.

I did not say the church was UltraCon.

You are right. they are not ultra. but they are very much in the mainstream of the UPCI....which is what they are supposed to be.

and Elder Epley would take exception to your comment on post trib and his peeps.

[Rico]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

I don't wear a wedding ring because of personal conviction.

[Rico]

I think I see how you are getting here. Thanks again for explaining your position.

I look at it like they were not to esteem costly clothing and jewelry, or to use it to attempt to draw people to Christ. In other words, try not to stand out in the crowd or draw attention to yourself, but let the focus be on God, and let the adorning of your heart with a meek spirit full of the fruits of the Holy Ghost be what draws men to God.

Even the poorest among us can manage to scrounge up a simple wedding band. I do not see it as a great divider between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' These days, many men are choosing jewel-encrusted wedding rings for themselves. What I haven't seen is people braiding gold into their hair.

I believe my simple, smooth gold wedding ring does more good than harm. People that see me with my kids on the weekend on an outing with "just Daddy" can see that I'm not just another poor slob with weekend visitation rights and a heap-o'-child-support payments to make. Hey look, some people can stay married after they have children!

It also prevents the lion's share of "conversations" that might lead to temptation. Well, maybe not in my case . . . . :killinme

Brother Epley, what do the bride and groom exchange as a token in weddings in your church?

I don't see how the focus of those scriptures needs to be an "either/or" type of thing. I agree the weightier point of the scriptures is to let Christ shine through us, but that doesn't take away from the part about not wearing costly array, gold, etc.

[Rico]

There is more Scripture against the preoccupation of most Pentecostals with eating and drinking than there is on this issue of rings. Yet, I hear not a word about the obvious sin of many preachers sitting on Pentecostal platforms looking as if they could go into labor almost any minute. Tackling this issue could actually save lives! A preacher who looks nine months pregnant, although he wouldn't wear a ring is rather inconsistent I think.

Soooo, because one area is being neglected and another isn't preachers are supposed to feel bad about preaching the one they do preach?

[Rico]

I wear a wedding ring and have felt no conviction for it.If i did i would remove it.I was raised not to wear jewelry ,but i have abandoned my raising and seek after the will of God rather than the traditions of man.

Hang on just a minute. How can you on one hand say you are willing to remove it for conviction's sake and then turn around and suggest that not wearing jewelry is a man made tradition?

[Rico]

Thank you! :thumbsup

The slippery slope counts as a principle with me . . . :D

The vast majority of the secular people I know wear just the one wedding ring, or the set for the ladies. It is seriously not an issue and certainly not the cause for pride, vanity, jealousy and stumbling, at least among the secular/denominal men I know. Occasionally you'll meet somebody that has multiple rings or one on every finger, but then they've usually got other indicators about them that cause everybody to discern that there is a different class represented in that case.

It just makes me wonder if the Apostolic world is the only place where a simple wedding ring can get between a believer and his God.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not going to approach this any differently than I do other similar issues, i.e., what are your eyes resting on when you think about the issue. My test is this: Are you looking at God, wanting to live for him, give the issue to him, and please him fully, or are you looking at the things of this world, and attempting to decide which of them you can fit into your life without letting go of God?

So I'm sitting here looking at my wedding ring, and I think, this is not nor has it ever been the slightest issue for me. I wear it because my cherished bride gave it to me. I wear it to proudly show that I'm the one and only for my one and only. I wear it night and day. I don't envy the sculpted or jeweled bands of other men, because I frankly don't see the appeal. I find elegance in simplicity. I don't secretly desire a signet ring or such. I take it off when I use files and work on electrical devices. Otherwise, I just don't think about it.

I think I might feel hypocritical if I were take it off prior to a visit to a 'no-rings' church. I certainly don't know how I would explain that act to my children. "I'm still married to your mother even when we're visiting here." But I certainly wouldn't want to cause offense or others to stumble.

I'm trying to challenge my own paradigms, but I don't feel like I'm getting very far with this one. I've had my sins under the blood and the Holy Ghost for all these years, more years than I've worn the ring, and now, all of a sudden, *poof* I'm sinning by wearing a ring? I'm open minded but I'm still not sure I see it.

Brother, if you go 50 years or more doing something God never convicts you of, and then He ends up convicting you of it after all those years, would it make the conviction any more or any less from God?

[Rico]

One of my points is that God-given personal convictions do NOT (generally speaking) cause "offense".
I read someone's signature here that says the difference between tradition and conviction is that the latter can be defended without getting angry. And of course, the FORMER is always going to be what is seen publicaly due to its very nature.

Really? Apparently you missed NLYP's post to Brother Epley. If there is one thing I can say about Brother Epley is that he truly does believe the things he believes. They are convictions for him. He said a true man of God should teach against the wearing of jewelry. I believe he said it because he truly believes it. But NLYP got offended.

[Rico]

I mean, if I am convicted to do something or live my life a certain way, I will not be offended (or at least very little) by others who do not have that same conviction.

However, if it is not TRUE conviction than I need the validation of others doing the same thing I am.

Ok. That makes a little more sense to me.

[crakjak]

I said what I did to make the point that folks go around and around on ridiculous issues that make no difference to anything, while neglecting other more important issues. I know of no one who has come to Christ because of someone's position on rings.


Well said, this is another of the non-issues made into an issue, that makes Christians look stupid. Throwing rings off of a bridge??? Misguided carnality supposed to be spiritual. This type thread should not have enough interest to even get started, yet it goes and goes and goes......:nah:nah

[CupCake]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

Why don't we just cut through all the what you or I or they think, it quit simple really! "PEOPLE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN DOINGS, BUSINESS AND STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR ANSWER THAT ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE"!

[Rico]

I said what I did to make the point that folks go around and around on ridiculous issues that make no difference to anything, while neglecting other more important issues. I know of no one who has come to Christ because of someone's position on rings.

Sooooo, people's personal convictions are "ridiculous issues" to you? Sounds to me like you aren't much different than those who feel it's their way or no way at all, except on the other end of the spectrum.

[Rico]

Today, the emphasis has shifted to, "Let's talk about jewelry, hair, makeup, clothing." Jesus said that it's when we lift Him up that folks are drawn to Him. OPs shouldn't wonder why there is so few being drawn to Christ, when they have allowed themselves to be so preoccupied with the flesh instead of Christ.

Brother, honestly, I have only seen what you are describing online and at one church I attended. In that church's defense, there were plenty of other things that were emphasized all the time as well, such as prayer, study, fasting, strong worship, being an example to the world, etc. It seems that when it comes to online discussions standards dominate a lot of the time, but the same is not true in churches.

[Praxeas]

They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

You know I was going to post something else about how our society sometimes blames the victim, but decided to just ask....did you mean it? Did you really mean this how you worded it?

THEY cause others to stumble? I'd suggest if that was the case those others didn't have their mind on Jesus to begin with, but were looking at everyone else with a critical spirit to begin with...to stumble over someone wearing a wedding ring?

I wonder how Paul would deal with that
Php 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me has flourished again. Although you indeed did think, but you lacked opportunity.
Php 4:11 Not that I speak according to need, for I have learned to be content in whatever state I am.
Php 4:12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound. In everything and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

[Monkeyman]

I witnessed something once and it stuck with me for a long time. A very good looking gentleman who was from obvious wealth was waiting at a stoplight. A convertible sports car drove up next to him and the occupants of the car were two beautiful young women. I could see them start to try and get his "eye" and he ever so slyly put his hand in the air and rubbed his ring with his other hand, never once making eye contact with the flirty girls. I thought, what a great husband and I wondered if his wife knew what kind of MAN she was married to. They got the message that day that he was off of the market.

The day my wife takes OFF her ring, please send her a sympathy card for I am taking a dirt nap on the wrong side of the daisies.

[OP_Carl]

You know I was going to post something else about how our society sometimes blames the victim, but decided to just ask....did you mean it? Did you really mean this how you worded it? I sure did. I've seen it up close, and, unfortunately, I've been in the middle of it.

I spent a stupid amount of money on my wife's engagement ring. I wanted her to know that my offer was serious. I paid cash - not credit. Fast forward 6 or 7 years later. We've moved to a new town, and are attending a smallish church. In response to observing this ring, one of the ladies began trading her ring in on a slightly larger diamond each year. Another lady went nutso into debt to acquire a rock bigger than my wife's. It didn't seem right to her that a younger woman have a bigger diamond. She started to act very strangely. Her husband was the treasurer. There was a scandal regarding 'accounting irregularities' shortly after we had moved away.

THEY cause others to stumble? I'd suggest if that was the case those others didn't have their mind on Jesus to begin with, but were looking at everyone else with a critical spirit to begin with...to stumble over someone wearing a wedding ring?If I hadn't bought that ring, if I hadn't moved to that town and that church, those people wouldn't have engaged in such wasteful and destructive activities. I suppose you could take the tack that all we did was bring a latent problem to the surface, but I don't enjoy being used in this capacity.

Alright Prax, I answered your questions. How about you answer mine from the original post?

There's a couple of other unanswered questions from earlier, too, Brother Epley and somebody else.

[OP_Carl]

Why don't we just cut through all the what you or I or they think, it quit simple really! "PEOPLE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN DOINGS, BUSINESS AND STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR ANSWER THAT ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE"!

I'm going to mark you down in the 'undecided' column. Is that okay?

:rolleyes2



A guy asks people how they reached their decision, and people start hollering.

Daddy always said that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that you hit. I don't know if that helps or not . . .

[Scott Hutchinson]

I have brethren who are UC and some who are a little more liberal, and certainly I believe in personal Holiness, but if someone feels differently than me on a non-salvational issue ,I don't put them down or say that there are in bondage and such.

[Praxeas]

I witnessed something once and it stuck with me for a long time. A very good looking gentleman who was from obvious wealth was waiting at a stoplight. A convertible sports car drove up next to him and the occupants of the car were two beautiful young women. I could see them start to try and get his "eye" and he ever so slyly put his hand in the air and rubbed his ring with his other hand, never once making eye contact with the flirty girls. I thought, what a great husband and I wondered if his wife knew what kind of MAN she was married to. They got the message that day that he was off of the market.

The day my wife takes OFF her ring, please send her a sympathy card for I am taking a dirt nap on the wrong side of the daisies.
Maybe it WAS his wife :-)

[freeatlast]

I have brethren who are UC and some who are a little more liberal, and certainly I believe in personal Holiness, but if someone feels differently than me on a non-salvational issue ,I don't put them down or say that there are in bondage and such.

way to be Scotty

[Scott Hutchinson]

God doesn't have a cookie cutter mentality ,and certainly God knows those that are His.

[CupCake]

I'm going to mark you down in the 'undecided' column. Is that okay?

:rolleyes2



A guy asks people how they reached their decision, and people start hollering.

Daddy always said that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that you hit. I don't know if that helps or not . . .

I find it unsettling when you have grown adults who must ask other what they should do... God gave you a mind use it!

[Praxeas]

I sure did. I've seen it up close, and, unfortunately, I've been in the middle of it.

I spent a stupid amount of money on my wife's engagement ring. I wanted her to know that my offer was serious. I paid cash - not credit. Fast forward 6 or 7 years later. We've moved to a new town, and are attending a smallish church. In response to observing this ring, one of the ladies began trading her ring in on a slightly larger diamond each year. Another lady went nutso into debt to acquire a rock bigger than my wife's. It didn't seem right to her that a younger woman have a bigger diamond. She started to act very strangely. Her husband was the treasurer. There was a scandal regarding 'accounting irregularities' shortly after we had moved away.

If I hadn't bought that ring, if I hadn't moved to that town and that church, those people wouldn't have engaged in such wasteful and destructive activities. I suppose you could take the tack that all we did was bring a latent problem to the surface, but I don't enjoy being used in this capacity.

Alright Prax, I answered your questions. How about you answer mine from the original post?

There's a couple of other unanswered questions from earlier, too, Brother Epley and somebody else.
So you blame the person wearing a ring for the OTHER persons spirit?!?!?! Good grief! That reminds me of third world nations where they rape a girl then blame her and kill her for dishonoring the family.

It sounds like to me that person came pre-jacked up to begin with. Blaming someone else, rather than taking responsibility for our own actions and our own fallen human nature is antithesis to what the word says. Her temptation was out of the lust of her OWN heart. Perhaps something she never settled to begin with.

Might I add that if THIS is really true, then we should all live in shacks and take the bus for fear of causing someone else to be tempted with a bad spirit and go buy a more expensive car or house...

Again, the problem is where HER eyes were to begin with...on material things and other people's business or on God.

In fact Notice what James says

as 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
Jas 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jas 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Jas 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Notice James did not once try to apply fault to the person wearing the ring or the clothes? Something is wrong, really wrong when we blame everyone else for our own stinking spirits

[Praxeas]

S

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?
Im not married. Nor do I believe the bible backs up NOT wearing one.
If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?
Im not married. Nor do I believe the bible instructs us to wear one. It's not a doctrinal issue

[Truly Blessed]

Soooo, because one area is being neglected and another isn't preachers are supposed to feel bad about preaching the one they do preach?I am simply saying that if these issues are the issues that most ministers feel are the important issues that need to be addressed in 2007 then someone is really out of touch.

[Rico]

I am simply saying that if these issues are the issues that most ministers feel are the important issues that need to be addressed in 2007 then someone is really out of touch.

I saw that after I made this post and was just too lazy to go back and delete it. Hehehehe! Besides, it's always fun to keep a good argument going and I don't mind doing my part, however insignificant. :lol

[Truly Blessed]

Really? Apparently you missed NLYP's post to Brother Epley. If there is one thing I can say about Brother Epley is that he truly does believe the things he believes. They are convictions for him. He said a true man of God should teach against the wearing of jewelry. I believe he said it because he truly believes it. But NLYP got offended.That kind of statement should be offensive to anyone who doesn't share SE's views. It's about as arrogant a statement as one can make IMO. In other words, if a person doesn't teach against wearing a wedding ring he is not a true man of God according to SE.

[Tech]

Hang on just a minute. How can you on one hand say you are willing to remove it for conviction's sake and then turn around and suggest that not wearing jewelry is a man made tradition?

I said i would remove it "if"God convicted me of it, but i see it as a man made tradition.I dont see anything biblically against a wedding ring.

A tradition just like the hair,pants ect.:blah

[Truly Blessed]

Sooooo, people's personal convictions are "ridiculous issues" to you? Sounds to me like you aren't much different than those who feel it's their way or no way at all, except on the other end of the spectrum.Personal convictions are very important, but they should be left as "personal" rather than someone trying to bring condemnation on others who don't have that personal conviction yet enjoy a wonderful relationship with God.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Where is the teaching for a wedding ring in the scriptures? :)

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Rico]

Where is the teaching for a wedding ring in the scriptures? :)

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Hehehe! Brother, I have grown to really enjoy it when I find myself in agreement with my ultra conservative brethren on an issue. I know it throws some of y'all for a loop, seeing as how so many people around here think I am firmly in the liberal camp because of my objections to mandating dress codes from the pulpit. You may be surprised to find out how many things I actually agree with y'all on. :)

[Rico]

That kind of statement should be offensive to anyone who doesn't share SE's views. It's about as arrogant a statement as one can make IMO. In other words, if a person doesn't teach against wearing a wedding ring he is not a true man of God according to SE.

Nah. Not really, TB. Not if you have been around long enough to get to know Brother Epley. He's kind of like that really mean dog you were always afraid of when you were a child. He'd bark and growl, making you think he was going to eat you alive, straining against that chain to get to you. That is, until you finally got up enough courage to walk up to him and pet him. That same mean, growling, scary dog turned into as nice a friend as you could find and never did bite. BTW, I am NOT saying Brother Epley is a dog! (Just in case. Ya never know around here!)

[Truly Blessed]

The most important words in 1Peter 3:2 are "...let it not be that outward adorning... He is not saying that there should not be that adorning, but rather that this is not the adorning a woman should be relying on to distinguish herself.

In 1Timothy 2:8-15 the most important words to note are in verse 8 where Paul begins with "I will therefore ...." Paul had his own views and expressed those personal views as "I will", not God commands or requires. How many pastors share his views on women? His views were shaped by his culture as our's are by our culture.

Are you who are relying on Paul's words here to support your position for not wearing rings, able to say that you agree with all of Paul's teaching throughout his NT writings?

[Rico]

I said i would remove it "if"God convicted me of it, but i see it as a man made tradition.I dont see anything biblically against a wedding ring.

A tradition just like the hair,pants ect.:blah

Actually, I think there's some Bible to back this no jewelry thing. Brother Epley made a good point about it being tolerated by God in the OT and them always taking it off whenever they were trying to get back right with Him. The principle is there, Brother. I will agree it's not a spelled out thou shalt not type of thing, but the principle is still there.

I see the hair, pants, etc. thing to be the right principle, but misapplied.

[Sherri]

I haven't read through this thread, but I just want to say that I just got my diamond reset and it is a lot of BLING. I love it and am thrilled that my husband wanted me to have it. I can't imagine not wearing a wedding ring!

[Rico]

Personal convictions are very important, but they should be left as "personal" rather than someone trying to bring condemnation on others who don't have that personal conviction yet enjoy a wonderful relationship with God.

True, but for Brother Epley his personal convictions are that we shouldn't wear jewelry and preachers should preach against it. Maybe I am willing to tolerate a little more from him because I have grown to respect him some, which is more than I can say for others. Anyway, it doesn't really bother me as much when he says stuff like that. I don't agree with him that a preacher isn't a real man of God if he doesn't preach against jewelry, but I can accept that he sees it that way.

[Rico]

I haven't read through this thread, but I just want to say that I just got my diamond reset and it is a lot of BLING. I love it and am thrilled that my husband wanted me to have it. I can't imagine not wearing a wedding ring!

Sister, post some pics of that bad boy! I'd like to see how the other half gets to live! :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Hehehe! Brother, I have grown to really enjoy it when I find myself in agreement with my ultra conservative brethren on an issue. I know it throws some of y'all for a loop, seeing as how so many people around here think I am firmly in the liberal camp because of my objections to mandating dress codes from the pulpit. You may be surprised to find out how many things I actually agree with y'all on. :)

:choir

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJouranl.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Where is the teaching for a wedding ring in the scriptures? :)

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

BUMP

[commonsense]

I wear a wedding ring because it is the morally correct thing to do in a culture where the accepted practice distinguishing a married person from an unmarried person is the wearing of a ring.

I also believe God is in favor of this symbol of the covenant relationship I entered into with my wife almost 34 years ago. There is no evidence in Scripture that God is against gold, silver, and precious jewels. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. He enthusiatically embraces these things. He simply doesn't want this to be the adornment that distinguishes us as individuals.

I definitely don't want my wife running around without a wedding ring on. I think it's a disgrace for married women to be out and about without a wedding ring on, when this is the accepted cultural way of designating her marital status in our society. When I see a woman with children my first thoughts are that she is a single mother.

I think this teaching against wearing of rings is one of the most ridiculous teachings in Pentecostal circles.

I am in total agreement. I couldn't have stated it better. One of the most annoying issues is seeing UPC women , with children, and a bare hand!
In a culture that has accepted single motherhood, we need to "proclaim" marriage, and a ring is the recognizable symbol!.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I am in total agreement. I couldn't have stated it better. One of the most annoying issues is seeing UPC women , with children, and a bare hand!
In a culture that has accepted single motherhood, we need to "proclaim" marriage, and a ring is the recognizable symbol!.

Thank God, our culture doesn't believe in a anaconda bone through the nose. :)

Anyone care to produce the scripture that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Trouvere]

are you kidding the nuts around Pensacola would all be wearing them.

[Praxeas]

Actually, I think there's some Bible to back this no jewelry thing. Brother Epley made a good point about it being tolerated by God in the OT and them always taking it off whenever they were trying to get back right with Him. The principle is there, Brother. I will agree it's not a spelled out thou shalt not type of thing, but the principle is still there.

I see the hair, pants, etc. thing to be the right principle, but misapplied.
Actually the OT does not merely have God tolerating Jewelry, but promoting it by referring to righteous Israel having jewels or how God wanted to deck Israel with Jewels....it was when Israel was bad that God wanted to take her jewels and that was the same principle of Israel taking off their jewels to get right with God...they also put on sackclothe and ashes. That doesn't mean God hated Jewelry or only tolerated it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

are you kidding the nuts around Pensacola would all be wearing them.

Sister, the only thing nutty about Pensacola is that insane Baptist preacher Peter S. Ruckman ( an the Brownsville Haunted Church). Other than that it's a nice little countryfied town. :)

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[OP_Carl]

So you blame the person wearing a ring for the OTHER persons spirit?!?!?! . . . It sounds like to me that person came pre-jacked up to begin with. Her temptation was out of the lust of her OWN heart. Perhaps something she never settled to begin with. I agree that this is most probably the case. What I'm trying to say is that it is unnerving to realize that I WAS THE GUY that knocked over the FIRST DOMINO.

Might I add that if THIS is really true, then we should all live in shacks and take the bus for fear of causing someone else to be tempted with a bad spirit and go buy a more expensive car or house... Be careful. This is scriptural. You just might turn yourself into an UC . . .

Again, the problem is where HER eyes were to begin with...on material things and other people's business or on God. Yes. So sad. And saddening to watch them fall.

Notice James did not once try to apply fault to the person wearing the ring or the clothes? Something is wrong, really wrong when we blame everyone else for our own stinking spirits Yeah. I guess you kinda had to be there . . .

[OP_Carl]

Im not married. Nor do I believe the bible backs up NOT wearing one.

Im not married. Nor do I believe the bible instructs us to wear one. It's not a doctrinal issue

Thank you! :thumbsup

Thank you for responding with your position.

I can't help but notice that you've assumed all the partiality of Switzerland. Hard-nosed ambivalence - what a way of life!

[OP_Carl]

Actually, I think there's some Bible to back this no jewelry thing. Brother Epley made a good point about it being tolerated by God in the OT and them always taking it off whenever they were trying to get back right with Him. The principle is there, Brother. I will agree it's not a spelled out thou shalt not type of thing, but the principle is still there.

I see the hair, pants, etc. thing to be the right principle, but misapplied.

I don't agree with him [Steve Epley - ed.] that a preacher isn't a real man of God if he doesn't preach against jewelry, but I can accept that he sees it that way.

Rico,

Thank you for stating your position. :thumbsup

Are you willing to elaborate on the bible you use to get there?

I think I perceive some depth, awareness, and sensibility bubbling up through the anti-ultracon reactionary in you.

Who says these forums can't be helpful?

[OP_Carl]

I am in total agreement. I couldn't have stated it better. One of the most annoying issues is seeing UPC women , with children, and a bare hand!
In a culture that has accepted single motherhood, we need to "proclaim" marriage, and a ring is the recognizable symbol!.

This is symmetrical to what I posted earlier, so you may presume that I will agree with it. Are we bringing reproach upon the church, or at least the Apostolic, standards-keeping church, when we appear in public to be a bunch of unwed holiness mothers?

I would be interested to learn what bible or biblical principles you use to reinforce your position on this topic.

[OP_Carl]

Thank God, our culture doesn't believe in a anaconda bone through the nose. :) When in Rome, . . .

Anyone care to produce the scripture that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.
Quit teasing us, you know it's in there both in II Hezekiah and in Macabees

[OP_Carl]

Actually the OT does not merely have God tolerating Jewelry, but promoting it by referring to righteous Israel having jewels or how God wanted to deck Israel with Jewels....it was when Israel was bad that God wanted to take her jewels and that was the same principle of Israel taking off their jewels to get right with God...they also put on sackclothe and ashes. That doesn't mean God hated Jewelry or only tolerated it.

This is good discussion. Now how do you temper this with the NT?

[OP_Carl]

I find it unsettling when you have grown adults who must ask other what they should do... God gave you a mind use it!

In the spirit of turnabout being fair play, I would ask you to employ your mind at re-reading the original post and the original questions. I typed it as slow as I could, so you should be able to read it.

I am curious, as an individual, what biblical principles people bring to bear in their thinking on this topic. I even went so far as to explain what specifically sparked my curiosity, and if you combine that with one of my later posts, you'll see that I wonder if owning a ring but not wearing it is hypocrisy. I'm most likely not going to change my view or my practices. But don't we always say in church that if somebody shows us more truth than what we presently know, that we are all for it? Through the church attendance of all these internet participants, I have a form of access, albeit filtered, to bible teachers that I otherwise would not.

I am not hunched over my monitor, trembling with nervous anticipation and drooling on my keyboard, waiting for that one post that will finally change my life. I'm not that shallow, and I'm not that easily influenced.

The appropriate response for somebody with your opinion, to wit, that the topic should not be discussed or inquired after at all, is to ignore this thread. Although in the interests of full disclosure I can't say that I haven't enjoyed interacting with you. :D

[Evang.Benincasa]

Anyone care to produce the scripture that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.


In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

In the spirit of turnabout being fair play, I would ask you to employ your mind at re-reading the original post and the original questions. I typed it as slow as I could, so you should be able to read it.

I am curious, as an individual, what biblical principles people bring to bear in their thinking on this topic. I even went so far as to explain what specifically sparked my curiosity, and if you combine that with one of my later posts, you'll see that I wonder if owning a ring but not wearing it is hypocrisy. I'm most likely not going to change my view or my practices. But don't we always say in church that if somebody shows us more truth than what we presently know, that we are all for it? Through the church attendance of all these internet participants, I have a form of access, albeit filtered, to bible teachers that I otherwise would not.

I am not hunched over my monitor, trembling with nervous anticipation and drooling on my keyboard, waiting for that one post that will finally change my life. I'm not that shallow, and I'm not that easily influenced.

The appropriate response for somebody with your opinion, to wit, that the topic should not be discussed or inquired after at all, is to ignore this thread. Although in the interests of full disclosure I can't say that I haven't enjoyed interacting with you. :D

Wow, I love this person. :)

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[OP_Carl]

Anyone care to produce the scripture that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.


Listen up, friend. You're being a pest. We heard you the first time. If it was in there, plain as day, like you are pretending to be ignorant of, I NEVER WOULD HAVE STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!!

There is more to life than taking single scriptures literally and out of context.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Listen up, friend. You're being a pest. We heard you the first time. If it was in there, plain as day, like you are pretending to be ignorant of, I NEVER WOULD HAVE STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!!

There is more to life than taking single scriptures literally and out of context.

Wow, I think I really love this person! :heart

Anyone care to produce the TEACHING that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[OP_Carl]

Wow, I think I really love this person! :heart

You give love a bad name!

[Evang.Benincasa]

The most important words in 1Peter 3:2 are "...let it not be that outward adorning... He is not saying that there should not be that adorning, but rather that this is not the adorning a woman should be relying on to distinguish herself.

TB, you're missing the content, Paul is focusing on costly apparel and the wearing of jewelry as alluring. If you would happen to use this in the context of the New Testament Paul also admonishes women to win their husbands by chaste behavior, this runs harmoniously with what the Apostle Peter is saying.

So, Paul and Peter are both speaking of the inward enhancing the outward.

Hence Jesus' words in Matthew 23:25-26

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse FIRST that which is within the cup and platter, that the OUTSIDE OF THEM MAY BE CLEAN ALSO.

The inward will always enhance the outward.


In 1Timothy 2:8-15 the most important words to note are in verse 8 where Paul begins with "I will therefore ...." Paul had his own views and expressed those personal views as "I will", not God commands or requires. How many pastors share his views on women? His views were shaped by his culture as our's are by our culture.

TB, please understand I'm not attacking you personally, I am just trying to present what I'm seeing in your statements. First, what you're saying is that the scripture is ever evolving with our society and cultures, and the Bible is not to have us conform to it, but that it should conform to us? Please explain your thoughts more clearly for me. :)

I was recently studying a book "The Gospel of Inclusion" by the agnostic Carlton Pearson, and find that he views the Bible through the lens of it being written to an ancient people and that the Bible can only be used for moral issues just as any other religious book or mythology. The agnostic Pearson also makes statements concerning teachings of Paul that must be kept in context of Paul's era and culture.

The Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches prove their arguments with the same kind of ideology. What I'm saying is that kind of approach can cause you problems that in the long run will hurt you.




Are you who are relying on Paul's words here to support your position for not wearing rings, able to say that you agree with all of Paul's teaching throughout his NT writings?

When I read this for the first time I was going to give you a quick answer, but I will ask you to please explain further the above.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

You give love a bad name!

A song by Tina Turner?

[OP_Carl]

A song by Tina Turner?

A song by the gospel quartet Bon Jovi. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B00000I07P001002/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_002/002-4880597-3949608)

Have you ever toured with them?

[OP_Carl]

My question has always been how can folks miss the fact that Paul and Peter both were adressing adorning the hidden man of the heart.

The 400 year old language of the KJV probably trips some up. people who do not take into account the idoms of the KJV laguage misss the fact that both passages were had the emphasis on the adorning with the love of God. To let Christ in you be what is shining in your lives, not your ornamanets/clothing and fancy hair doos.

This was also addressed because of people of so many economic levels.
Peter and Paul both desired that the poor could worship together with people of great wealth and not feel like they "went to the prom wothout a tux or a formal"

The wealthy could hire hairdressers to fix their hair elaboratly and don lavish costly clothing and addorn themselves with the jewelry that the hebrews were accustommed to wearing in that day.

The scriptural admonition was to admonish the rich that is was Christ, the hidden man of the heart, that counted in their lives, NOT how fancy they got dolled up for church.

This a lesson we can all apply in our lives today.

It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore.
It was NEVER about being able to dress nice
It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.

It was abouting adorning with Christ.

If you don't believe it that way. Well, I pray for you...cause you ar ejust plain wrong ! :winkgrin

Freeatlast,

I find your position very interesting. You make a lot of assertions, but you haven't provided much basis or support for it.

May I please ask how do you know:

1) It was NEVER about the simple adornment of the jewelry they all wore?
2) It was NEVER about being able to dress nice?
3) It was NEVER about if you wore your hair up or down ladies.?

What bible or biblical principles have you used as a basis to reach your position?

Thanks a heap-o'-tater salad.

Carl

[Truly Blessed]

Wow, I think I really love this person! :heart

Anyone care to produce the TEACHING that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves. :) To me, wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying. There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on. A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion, because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

[OP_Carl]

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves. :)
Although connecting long sleeves to salvation is improper, the logic used to arrive at teaching long sleeves from biblical principles is valid.

To me, wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying. There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on. A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion, because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

So are you saying that both head covering and abstaining from gold are/were cultural traditions that have no bearing on modern Christian life?

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

Now this is where I can jump back on board with you, because I see this as biblical principle in favor of wedding rings. Simple, functional wedding rings are what I speak of. Not extravagant, fancy, or inordinately expensive wedding rings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

It must be in the same chapter with a person must wear long sleeves. :)

Really? Show me the TEACHING chapter and verse that shows if a woman or man has no strip of gold, silver, wood, around their finger they have no symbol of wedlock. If you would like to proceed to clothing we can do that but let's deal with what you had presented on the "ringless unwed doctrine".




To me,

Here's the million dollar word.




wearing a wedding ring falls in the same category as the example in Scripture of a woman having to cover her head when praying.

TB, If you can find the time to produce the method on how you use the above chapter (I think you are trying to pull from 1st Corinthains 11?) to teach on wedding rings? I would appreciate it. :)




There are cultural traditions that if not adhered to send a wrong message to the public looking on.

TB, the Chabad Lubavitch had taken tradition which were taught to them in Eastern Europe and made what is Chassidim. They have been able to keep their culture for over 200 years within other cultures across Europe and the world. There are cultures around the world that are diametrically opposed to Christianity and therefore it would be impossible to adhere to their practice and still have a good conscience towards the Christian faith. I say that to say this, we cannot and should not adopt practices from other religions and cultures and baptize them into Christianity (as did the Roman Catholic Church) do appease those who live around us. Through education and Bible teaching can other cultures be able to leave their practices and come into Christianity. In the chapter of first letter to the Corinthians Paul teaches converted pagans issue that were part of the Jewish religious culture.

I'm still very interested to see how you apply 1st Corinthains 11 to teach people that they should wear a wedding ring. :)





A man and a woman checking into a hotel without wedding rings on sends a wrong message in my opinion,

That's not my problem that is their problem. Down here in Wilton Manors Florida (mostly homosexuals) if two men are walking together or driving together they could be thought of as being homosexuals. Are they? Would that stop any two males (or two females) from walking or driving together?

Excuse me, but I think implying that the scriptures change to what is normal in modern culture flaws your argument. So hold on to your hat TB, because our culture is crawling towards the toilet and will become very obscene if revival does not take care of those who are lost.


because the rings are a traditional way of identifying married persons in our culture.

The Bible teaches us to avoid the very appearance of evil!

There are many so called TRADITIONS that religious groups throughout the ages have had to come against in order to OBEY GOD and NOT MAN. Therefore they met staunch opposition. You have presented me nothing but situational hypothetical arguments, how about now teaching a lesson how you can present your case within scripture?

Thank you very much for your time concerning this.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[RandyWayne]

Anyone care to produce the TEACHING that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.

I think it is right next to the verse that says that "good pentecostals drive minivans"..... But I don't see such a verse, so will not drive a minivan -ever.

The point is that the question is complete bunk. The bible does not say SHOULD put vinyl siding on homes, yet just about everyone in Wisconsin does. The bible does not say we SHOULD have a 2 1/2 bath instead of 1 or 2, but many do. Want me to list the other 17 trillion things we DO do but the bible doesn't say we should? (But doesn't forbid either.)

Look, I wear one. My wife wears one. I don't care if someone else doesn't, but boy oh boy, they sure seem to think that WE shouldn't, and THAT does bother me.

(And it is simply amazing how often rings are spoken of in non-negative or matter-of-fact ways in scripture.... mmmmmmm.)

[OP_Carl]

(And it is simply amazing how often rings are spoken of in non-negative or matter-of-fact ways in scripture.... mmmmmmm.)

Thanks ever so much for chiming in. :thumbsup

By the way, did you have something specific in mind here, or will a simple search on biblegateway for 'ring' be sufficient for me to investigate your notion?

[RandyWayne]

It should be MORE then sufficient. It's not exactly hidden.

[OP_Carl]

It should be MORE then sufficient. It's not exactly hidden.

Well, I see where rings are given in offerings, where rings are threatened to be confiscated, along with practically everything else, for not toeing the line, and the other mentions are fairly matter-of-fact, but the ring owners in question are kings, rulers, or otherwise wealthy.

And we all know that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Based on all that, it looks to me like you are saying that rings are shown to be a burden and are associated with the self-righteous wealthy and the church in her seasons of hedonism.

Did I get that right?

[Truly Blessed]

TB, you're missing the content, Paul is focusing on costly apparel and the wearing of jewelry as alluring. If you would happen to use this in the context of the New Testament Paul also admonishes women to win their husbands by chaste behavior, this runs harmoniously with what the Apostle Peter is saying.

So, Paul and Peter are both speaking of the inward enhancing the outward.

Hence Jesus' words in Matthew 23:25-26 I fully understand the context. I agree that Paul is admonishing women in regards to godliness. However, what you seem to so easily ignore is that there is an historical context to all of man's teaching on godliness issues.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse FIRST that which is within the cup and platter, that the OUTSIDE OF THEM MAY BE CLEAN ALSO.

The inward will always enhance the outward. This is a very basic principle of godliness that I certainly embrace.



[B][I][SIZE="3"]TB, please understand I'm not attacking you personally, I am just trying to present what I'm seeing in your statements. First, what you're saying is that the scripture is ever evolving with our society and cultures, and the Bible is not to have us conform to it, but that it should conform to us? Please explain your thoughts more clearly for me. :)

I was recently studying a book "The Gospel of Inclusion" by the agnostic Carlton Pearson, and find that he views the Bible through the lens of it being written to an ancient people and that the Bible can only be used for moral issues just as any other religious book or mythology. The agnostic Pearson also makes statements concerning teachings of Paul that must be kept in context of Paul's era and culture.

The Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches prove their arguments with the same kind of ideology. What I'm saying is that kind of approach can cause you problems that in the long run will hurt you. I certainly don't embrace the views of Carlton Pearson. However, to suggest that we have an obligation to simply embrace every personal view Paul or Peter held in regard to non salvation issues is far-fetched and I know of no one who does.

[RandyWayne]

I know... those evil rich! Oh, the horror of showing any sign of wealth (except for the pastor of your typical Southern mid-sized or larger churches).
And your sarcasm is plainly dripping through the screen.....

How about THESE taken from the Songs? Chapter 1 versus 10 and 11. (KJV)
"Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver."

Pretty presumptuous to compare a woman to jewelry huh? Especially since said jewelry is considered so God-awful bad. Why not just compare her to pond scum and maggots and be done with it?

"Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck."

Do you think Joseph wore these with pride? Or hated every minute these abominations were on his finger and across his back? Especially considering where he came from..... Not just his family back home but the prisoners he used to share cells with.

Yes, rings were nearly always used in the context of leadership, ownership, high office, and symbolic for having favor. Too bad we had to denigrate them to such a simple thing as dedication to ones spouse....

[Truly Blessed]

Really? Show me the TEACHING chapter and verse that shows if a woman or man has no strip of gold, silver, wood, around their finger they have no symbol of wedlock. If you would like to proceed to clothing we can do that but let's deal with what you had presented on the "ringless unwed doctrine". First of all, I am not presenting any "ringless unwed doctrine". What I am saying as simply as I know how is that throughout the Bible, where there are covenants made, it was common for there to be a token or symbol of that covenant. We all know that Scripture doesn't teach that we must wear a wedding ring to indicate we are married. On the other hand there is no Scripture forbidding the wearing of a ring to indicate we have entered into a marriage covenant. God seems to place great emphasis upon covenants and the providing of tokens of those covenants. If as you have admitted in another post, Paul is addressing "adornments" when making reference to wearing of gold, then I don't see what your problem is with a wedding ring, which isn't being worn as an adornment, but for a purpose, in the same way one wears a watch.

Here's the million dollar word. I wrote, "To me..." You highlighted the "me" and thus your quote. Yet, you choose to ignore the fact that Paul repeatedly throughout his epistles to the churches expressed "To Me" type of viewpoints. Let's examine 1Timothy 2 for example;

Verse1 "I urge......"

Verse 8 "I want...."

Verse 9 "I also want...."

Verse 12 "I do not permit...."

Paul is being a spiritual father and mentor and sharing his heart with Timothy on a number of issues. He is not saying God commands this or that.


TB, If you can find the time to produce the method on how you use the above chapter (I think you are trying to pull from 1st Corinthains 11?) to teach on wedding rings? I would appreciate it. :) I am simply saying that the teaching concerning propriety in worship in 1Cor.11 was offfered up in the context of historical and traditional/cultural norms. I believe wedding rings fall into the same context. In 2007, it is the traditional/cultural reality that wedding rings are a recognized token of the marriage covenant, so why wouldn't we as Christians want to support something that has such deep meaning for married Christian couples?


TB, the Chabad Lubavitch had taken tradition which were taught to them in Eastern Europe and made what is Chassidim. They have been able to keep their culture for over 200 years within other cultures across Europe and the world. There are cultures around the world that are diametrically opposed to Christianity and therefore it would be impossible to adhere to their practice and still have a good conscience towards the Christian faith. I say that to say this, we cannot and should not adopt practices from other religions and cultures and baptize them into Christianity (as did the Roman Catholic Church) do appease those who live around us. Through education and Bible teaching can other cultures be able to leave their practices and come into Christianity. In the chapter of first letter to the Corinthians Paul teaches converted pagans issue that were part of the Jewish religious culture. Having lived in other religious cultures and seen firsthand how Roman Catholicism has incorporated paganistic practices and traditions from other religions into their faith, I fully understand what you are saying here and concur with it. However, you have chosen to interpret Paul's statement expressing his desire that Christian women not wear gold to be a command from God against wearing a wedding ring. I don't share your interpretation.


Excuse me, but I think implying that the scriptures change to what is normal in modern culture flaws your argument. So hold on to your hat TB, because our culture is crawling towards the toilet and will become very obscene if revival does not take care of those who are lost.

There are many so called TRADITIONS that religious groups throughout the ages have had to come against in order to OBEY GOD and NOT MAN. Therefore they met staunch opposition. You have presented me nothing but situational hypothetical arguments, how about now teaching a lesson how you can present your case within scripture?

Thank you very much for your time concerning this.

I'm not implying that Scriptures change, but I am saying that Paul expressed his views in an historical/cultural context that is different from the historical/cultural context of 21st Century North America.

I doubt very much that you fully embrace and practice all that Paul taught in the epistles. Like the rest of us I imagine you have chosen what you want to practice and for the rest you probably have a good discourse on why that wouldn't be relevent to you today. :)

[SDG]

Is this the same Paul that suggested celibacy is the best case scenario? Or was it a command?

[Truly Blessed]

I realize that some of you have a different understanding than I do of salvation and holiness issues, and for this reason you approach some issues from a different perspective. I can respect that, I just don't share your view.

For example, 1Cor.1:26-31 says, "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him[God] that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

It is my position that I am in Christ because of the grace of God. I have nothing to boast in. I am who I am because of what I have received as a free gift from God. My understanding is that my salvation does not depend on anything in me, but on my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my salvation, righteousness, and holiness.

When I see so much emphasis given to a legalistic pursuit of things like rings and uncut hair, and pants vs. dresses, etc., it makes me wonder if those doing so believe these verses I have just quoted. What have we received if Christ hasn't become our righteousness and holiness, and most of all, our salvation?

[Praxeas]

This is good discussion. Now how do you temper this with the NT?
What do you mean? You want me to make the same arguments and refutations I just made about a month ago on this forum in another thread?

[Praxeas]

Anyone care to produce the scripture that says a woman must wear a wedding ring to show she is married.



In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com (http://www.OnTimeJournal.com)
I have yet to see anyone declare that wearing a wedding ring is a biblical requirement. In other words it's not doctrine. I don't see anyone claiming it is a doctrine. What we see are people claiming it's a doctrine to NOT wear any ornament of any kind

[Praxeas]

You give love a bad name!

Love stinks
Love stinks...yeah yeah...
Love stinks!
Love stinks! Yeah yeah...
Love Stinks
Love stinks! Yeah yeah...

[Rico]

Rico,

Thank you for stating your position. :thumbsup

Are you willing to elaborate on the bible you use to get there?

I think I perceive some depth, awareness, and sensibility bubbling up through the anti-ultracon reactionary in you.

Who says these forums can't be helpful?

For me, I quit wearing jewelry before I heard any teaching on the practice. I was in church one service and had my hands raised to God in worship. At the time I wore a wedding band. I became of aware of the fact that I could feel the Holy Ghost everywhere in my body but the hand I had the wedding ring on. I took the wedding ring off and could feel God in that hand again. I tried it a few times to be sure I wasn't imagining what was happening. I haven't worn jewelry since.

As far as studying goes, it has been a long time since I studied it out. I believe the NT scriptures that talk about not adorning with gold and pearls apply, and I believe the example Bro Epley gave about the Israelites taking off their jewelry supports the no jewelry argument. I also remember some scriptures talking about an offering for the iniquity of the holy things in the temple as having to do with them being made of gold.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Ok, I understand people's convictions and surely Holiness is outward,as well as inward.But why did The Lord in the account of the prodigal son ,mention the father placing a ring on the son's finger ?
Did The Lord use something sinful as a illustration ?

[ChTatum]

Anyone against adornment better take off those ties.

Absolutely no purpose, not even one that represents a God-ordained covenant.

And please don't argue Catholicism-influenced if your idea of celebrating the Lord's supper is a wafer and a sip of wine or juice.

[OP_Carl]

I know... those evil rich! Oh, the horror of showing any sign of wealth (except for the pastor of your typical Southern mid-sized or larger churches).
And your sarcasm is plainly dripping through the screen..... Actually, I intended no sarcasm, but I can certainly see how it came across as such. Sorry. I was testing to see if that was truly the direction you were trying to go.

How about THESE taken from the Songs? Chapter 1 versus 10 and 11. (KJV)
"Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.
We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver."

Pretty presumptuous to compare a woman to jewelry huh? Especially since said jewelry is considered so God-awful bad. Why not just compare her to pond scum and maggots and be done with it? Yes, but a lot of this poetry is OT, and so as such must be viewed as a candidate for consideration of foreshadowing. The NT transformation would mean that you are to be just as bejeweled as described above, but in your adornment of the heart, not the body. However, I just searched on the word 'ring,' and there aren't as many references as you'd expect.

"Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph's finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck."

Do you think Joseph wore these with pride? Or hated every minute these abominations were on his finger and across his back? Especially considering where he came from..... Not just his family back home but the prisoners he used to share cells with. Joseph was a Jew. I'm striving to be a Christian.

Yes, rings were nearly always used in the context of leadership, ownership, high office, and symbolic for having favor. Too bad we had to denigrate them to such a simple thing as dedication to ones spouse.... Heh. Being coronated Mr. to my Mrs. is promotion to high office!

[OP_Carl]

What do you mean? You want me to make the same arguments and refutations I just made about a month ago on this forum in another thread?

A thousand pardons, bro. I missed your earlier performance. Give me a pointer and I'll peruse it.

[OP_Carl]

I have yet to see anyone declare that wearing a wedding ring is a biblical requirement. In other words it's not doctrine. I don't see anyone claiming it is a doctrine. What we see are people claiming it's a doctrine to NOT wear any ornament of any kind

Nevertheless, I am fascinated by the conversation between Ben and TB.

It matches my inner struggle between literalism and acceptance of nuance, concept, and principles derived from other passages.

Don't get me wrong, I still don't think I could brook dictation of a rule without basis, nor am I prepared to toss my ring in the collection plate.

I know God in the Spirit, and I want to be sure that what I know, and what I learn, in the Spirit doesn't contradict the Word.

Thus far, my ring still is not bothering me.

[Rico]

Anyone against adornment better take off those ties.

Absolutely no purpose, not even one that represents a God-ordained covenant.

And please don't argue Catholicism-influenced if your idea of celebrating the Lord's supper is a wafer and a sip of wine or juice.

I know some people who won't wear a tie, watch, belts with golden or silvery buckles, glasses with golden or silvery frames, etc.

[OP_Carl]

At the time I wore a wedding band. I became of aware of the fact that I could feel the Holy Ghost everywhere in my body but the hand I had the wedding ring on. I took the wedding ring off and could feel God in that hand again. I tried it a few times to be sure I wasn't imagining what was happening. Fascinating! I haven't worn jewelry since. Smart choice, considering your experience . . .

As far as studying goes, it has been a long time since I studied it out. I believe the NT scriptures that talk about not adorning with gold and pearls apply, and I believe the example Bro Epley gave about the Israelites taking off their jewelry supports the no jewelry argument. I also remember some scriptures talking about an offering for the iniquity of the holy things in the temple as having to do with them being made of gold.

Thanks a bunch for contributing! :thumbsup

[OP_Carl]

Ok, I understand people's convictions and surely Holiness is outward,as well as inward.But why did The Lord in the account of the prodigal son ,mention the father placing a ring on the son's finger ?
Did The Lord use something sinful as a illustration ?

In those days, wasn't an imprint of a signet ring like an imprint of a credit card nowadays? Could this be simply to illustrate that the father was replacing his trust in the prodigal's use of the family's credit, and authorizing him to conduct business on behalf of his father?

[ChTatum]

I know some people who won't wear a tie, watch, belts with golden or silvery buckles, glasses with golden or silvery frames, etc.

I do too.

Love you, bro, but I ain't one of 'em!

[OP_Carl]

Anyone against adornment better take off those ties.

Absolutely no purpose, not even one that represents a God-ordained covenant.

I THOROUGHLY disagree. My tie keeps my neck warm - an important consideration with August nearly upon us. In addition, my $60 tie ferociously guards my $18 shirt from soup, sauce, and salsa!

:killinme

And please don't argue Catholicism-influenced if your idea of celebrating the Lord's supper is a wafer and a sip of wine or juice.
Whahuh?

[ChTatum]

In those days, wasn't an imprint of a signet ring like an imprint of a credit card nowadays? Could this be simply to illustrate that the father was replacing his trust in the prodigal's use of the family's credit, and authorizing him to conduct business on behalf of his father?

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

[SDG]

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

He's allowed creative license its a parable after all ....

Ever take a literature class, CHT??? ... Symbolism within symbolism.

[ChTatum]

He's allowed creative license its a parable after all ....

Ever take a literature class, CHT??? ... Symbolism within symbolism.

No, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once.......

I did read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series.
"Feints within feins within feints".

"I must not fear, fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that causes complete obliteration. I will face my fear, I will allow it to pass through me and over me. When it has passed I will turn my inner eye to the path of the fear, and nothing will be there. Only I will remain."

Man, I remember the "Fear Litany" over 20 years after reading the books!

[SDG]

Let me see ... The Father rewards the son w/

1. A kiss [not a sin]
2. A hug [not a sin]
3. His best robe [not a sin]
4. Sandals [not a sin]
5. A side a beef [not a sin]
6. A celebration [not a sin]

7. A ring .... [a one way ticket to fire and brimstone]

[OP_Carl]

Showed affiliation, huh?

Kinda like my wedding band?

I was thinking more along the lines of giving him a credit card. It would be something he could use in lieu of coins with local merchants to conduct transactions.

Well, now, maybe it would be an indicator of status after all. Status with his father, rather than marital status. But others would see the ring and know that he and his father were reconciled.

But it's symbolic of the spiritual, and signet rings are virtually meaningless in our culture nowadays.

A wedding band does more than show affiliation, as it is a token of a covenant. A son hasn't entered a covenant with his father, he's just born and his father loves him and wants the best for him.

[Rico]

I do too.

Love you, bro, but I ain't one of 'em!

I can tell by your beard Bro. LOL! I have yet to meet anyone who believes all that stuff and has a beard! LOL! I will say that I have wrestled with the tie issue and even made an effort to go along with the not wearing anything golden or silver idea. I was able to elimate them both from everything, with the exception of suspenders. I just couldn't find any appropriate for every day and church use that didn't have silvery clamps on them.

[OP_Carl]

Why don't we just cut through all the what you or I or they think, it quit simple really! "PEOPLE SHOULD MIND THEIR OWN DOINGS, BUSINESS AND STOP LOOKING TO OTHERS FOR ANSWER THAT ONLY YOU CAN DECIDE"!

What I should have replied with:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.

Proverbs 11:14
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Proverbs 24:6
For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.



The trouble with cupcakes is they are too easily devoured in haste . . .

[Michael Phelps]

Some apostolics don't wear wedding rings. Some do.

Those that don't wear rings have everything from a personal conviction to respect for the convictions of others to a conviction that wearing rings are a sin for everybody.

Those that do wear rings can do so in simplicity or in obsession. They can cause others to stumble with jealousy or a spirit of competition.

It looks to me like the stances on wedding rings are cultural - in both camps. Those that don't wear rings inherited their preference from their church culture, and those that do wear rings do so in recognition of the prevailing culture.

I know the admonition against costly array, so let us just consider the case of a simple wedding band - the nationally-accepted way of signifying marital status in our culture.

1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Peter 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

And I Peter talks about adornment with gold (although this one if taken literally also teaches against women wearing clothing) as a means of enticing a wayward husband to attend church.

So I can see that we have bible that discourages women from indulging in the vanity of excessive or expensive decoration. But mainly it is about using such decoration as a means of attracting attention to self or to Christianity - not an outright ban in and of itself. But it doesn't mention rings, it doesn't mention men, and it doesn't mention an outward cultural indicator of marital status.

As an aside, I think it is more useful for men to wear wedding rings, because women tend to be more mindful of propriety when they are "in the market" for a husband. The sight of a ring tells a woman she needs to visit the next aisle.

So here is the question on my mind this morning:

If you don't wear a wedding ring, what is the reason, what is the biblical verse or principal that backs it up?

If you do wear a wedding ring, where do you find biblical support for your practice?

I'd like to pre-empt the wise guys by saying that the response "because I'm not married" is hereby deemed null, void, uninteresting, obvious, and dull. If you are unmarried, answer in the hypothetical with your current beliefs, please.

This is possibly the most balanced and unbiased post concerning wedding rings that I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Well said, OPC, and I am looking forward to reading the responses.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I fully understand the context. I agree that Paul is admonishing women in regards to godliness. However, what you seem to so easily ignore is that there is an historical context to all of man's teaching on godliness issues.

Paul still says that it was a rule in all the churches of God. That means in was an admonishment not only in Corinth but also in all the other fellowships in Asia Minor and the known world at that time. That rule would also be accepted in the "world without end" which is how the sages described the nation of Israel, which the New Testament saints believed was the Church. Therefore we cannot say that these issues were just merely historic in their meanings.



This is a very basic principle of godliness that I certainly embrace.

Then take off that Jewelry. :)




I certainly don't embrace the views of Carlton Pearson.

The agnostic Carlton Pearson also believes in an ever changing church, which changes because of their surrounding cultures. The Bible doesn't teach that. What it does teach is a City set upon a Hill, She is to be a lamp to light the way of truth in word and DEED.


However, to suggest that we have an obligation to simply embrace every personal view Paul or Peter held in regard to non salvation issues is far-fetched and I know of no one who does.

TB, could you explain the above chapter with the examples in Peter and Paul's writings in which you're referencing?

I'm interested in seeing how you present that as an argument.


Thank you for your time.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[OP_Carl]

This is possibly the most balanced and unbiased post concerning wedding rings that I've read on this forum, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Well said, OPC, and I am looking forward to reading the responses.

Well thank you Michael Phelps!

I think you'll find another winner in here somewhere, wherein the difference between tradition and conviction is defined.

The part I liked was something along the lines of, if you adhere to a practice based on a true personal conviction, it won't make you angry if others don't practice it.

Some have come right out and said, "the bible says 'don't wear gold,' I believe it, and I won't do it. It's plain and it's right there in the inspired Word of God."

Others look at the same verse and say the context allows a contradictory interpretation, to wit, that the meaning isn't to ban one thing, but to emphasize another thing.

There are some comments that add the notion that these particular verses are Paul's personal pastoral preferences, not commandments straight from the mountain.

There are also some wonderful points about cultural context and the appearance of evil.

I have been fully delighted by the depth and wisdom shared, and the adult manner in which this has been discussed, all of which is beneficial in my search for the truth of the bible, or biblical principle, undergirding the topical teachings. I've tossed out a few questions that remain unanswered, but by and large I've pestered posters both pro and con to offer scriptural basis to back up opinions and reasoning they've offered.

I'm too curious to go along with a 'because-I-said-so' ruling, and too skeptical to go along with those who have taken the opposite view largely in reaction away from the former group, and have cobbled together their reasoning after they've formed their opinion.

Perhaps not an entirely exemplary thread, but it certainly recommends itself and AFF.

[Evang.Benincasa]

PART 1

First of all, I am not presenting any "ringless unwed doctrine".

By saying that if a woman doesn't wear the ring she looks like a unwed mother, what other choice would you give? TB, you need to think before you print.



What I am saying as simply as I know how is that throughout the Bible, where there are covenants made, it was common for there to be a token or symbol of that covenant.

Like an anaconda bone through the nose? Scarification on a teenage boy's arms and legs to prove he entered into a covenant as a right of passage?
Young girls are circumcised in other cultures. Should we also adopt these practices into Christianity? These cultures also see them as symbols of covenants, and rights of passages, sacraments.

They're tokens within these cultures and from the 4th century AD and onward the Roman Catholic Church had adopted and baptized pagan practices into their organization to help those tribes and peoples to be absorbed into their Roman church.


We all know that Scripture doesn't teach that we must wear a wedding ring to indicate we are married.

BIG AMEN! So would you agree that you must call the ring cultural and NOT a Christian practice. It also doesn't say in the Bible that you should wear a cross around your neck to indicate you're a Christian. Or a Christmas Tree to show that a Saviour was born into the world. Extra Biblical practices that have been handed down from the Roman Catholic Church.


On the other hand there is no Scripture forbidding the wearing of a ring to indicate we have entered into a marriage covenant.

See what you're doing here is creating a sacrement by which you end up claiming it to be Christian in the long run. TB, you lose the right to ever make a comment against any Ultra Conservative for any pratices they may perform.



God seems to place great emphasis upon covenants and the providing of tokens of those covenants. If as you have admitted in another post, Paul is addressing "adornments" when making reference to wearing of gold, then I don't see what your problem is with a wedding ring, which isn't being worn as an adornment, but for a purpose, in the same way one wears a watch.

The wedding ring is being chosen by some to be a religious symbol, the same as vestments of a priest, his collar, his robes, candle sticks, crosses, pine trees with jewelry on them, etc, etc.

TB, you're correct God places great emphasis upon covenants but not on traditions of men. Again you're trying to bring a wedding ring and God into the same sentence. God doesn't condone a piece of jewelry whether it is a rosary, or a cross on a chain to have anything to do with Him. Remember that He is the God that HATES Idolatry. God doesn't need idolatrous symbols; those symbols were adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, which is rife with idolatry.


I wrote, "To me..." You highlighted the "me" and thus your quote.

I did that because it's your opinion, and therefore a judgement on your part that a wedding ring indicates marriage, when it was never part of Paul's or the early church’s vocabulary. You see TB, the wedding ring is a piece of jewelry that is used by your religion not there's. :)




Yet, you choose to ignore the fact that Paul repeatedly throughout his epistles to the churches expressed "To Me" type of viewpoints. Let's examine 1Timothy 2 for example;

Verse1 "I urge......"

1Ti 2:1-2 "I EXHORT therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

Verb: exhort ig'zort

Force or impel in an indicated direction
- urge, urge on, press

Stongs #3870

παρακαλέω

parakaleō
par-ak-al-eh'-o
From G3844 and G2564; to call near, that is, invite, invoke (by imploration, hortation or consolation): - beseech, call for, (be of good) comfort, desire, (give) exhort (-ation), intreat, pray.

Paul is NOT making suggestions to the young Evangelist Timothy, the Apostle Paul is invoking him to offer supplication and prayers for those Timothy is working and with and those in goverment.



Verse 8 "I want...."

1Ti 2:8

"I WILL THEREFORE that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."

In verse 8 of 1st Timothy two Greek words give you the meaning of what Paul is telling Timothy.

Strongs #1014

βούλομαι

boulomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded
2) of willing as an affection, to desire
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: middle voice of a primary verb
Citing in TDNT: 1:629, 108

Strongs#3767
oun
oon
Apparently a primary word; (adverbially) certainly, or (conjugationally) accordingly: - and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.

Again Paul is not making suggestions on what Paul feels is his opinion, but is telling the young Evangelist deliberate information that he wants the Evangelist to do and teach. Paul wasn't making this stuff up as he went along. Paul was presenting Timothy with scriptural council from the only scripture they were ever taught with and that’s the Torah. All that Jesus and His apostles taught can be traced back to Torah not Talmud (traditions of the Jews).



Verse 9 "I also want...."

1Ti 2:9

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"

I see you have been using more modern versions of the scripture to help prove your point. I would've stayed with the more traditional if I was you.
TB, you used the translation that says, "I WANT" now that is definitely not a suggestion of Paul's opinion, but it a command word. Now lets see how this sounds in the Greek.

The Textus Receptus starts this verse out with the Greek word "hōsautōs" which means to do something in the same manner, or to do it the same way.

In your Modern English translation they cut through the mustard by telling the reader that the apostle is commanding the women to keep in mind their appearance in a moderate way. They are also to be in separation unto the Lord (holiness) and that is the same as men in praise and prayer without anger in their hearts.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

PART 2


Verse 12 "I do not permit...."

1Ti 2:12 But I SUFFER NOT a woman to teach, NOR to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

There's is no way around this scripture Hoss, again this is not a mere suggestion from a fatherly mentor lying on a couch watching a football game. This is the apostle giving a young evangelist BIBLICAL instruction.

We know it's not Paul's own opinion because he places Biblical theroy right after his statement.

1Ti 2:13

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

Paul wasn't being mysigonistic in his view of church goverment. Nor was he giving his opion due to his realtionship with his mother. Paul was pulling from Torah. :)



Paul is being a spiritual father and mentor and sharing his heart with Timothy on a number of issues. He is not saying God commands this or that.

TB, that's not what is happening is the letter to Timothy. Paul is an Apostle and is giving Apostolic instruction that is backed up by scriptures, and not Talmudic opinion. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because of their opinions of the scriptures and that they taught them as oracles of God.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Paul is instructing Timothy the same way he did the Bereans.

Act 17:10-11

"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

You see in the first century Roman Empire teaching wasn't sitting on a chair while someone fills your head with what they felt and believed. The teaching practice was to cause the student to ask questions and through that method of searching out the truth through questioning the teacher was the student to find knowledge. Paul could not be inventing a new religion on what he felt was good behavior or practical. The apostle was giving instruction that would be able to stop the mouths of those who subverted whole houses. The apostle was taking what he learned from scripture and teaching it through the New Testament revelation.



I am simply saying that the teaching concerning propriety in worship in 1Cor.11 was offfered up in the context of historical and traditional/cultural norms. I believe wedding rings fall into the same context. In 2007, it is the traditional/cultural reality that wedding rings are a recognized token of the marriage covenant, so why wouldn't we as Christians want to support something that has such deep meaning for married Christian couples?


Maybe you're not taking into effect what your above teaching will cause as time rolls on. This is why I brought up the agnostic Carlton Pearson in to this discussion. The agnostic Carlton Pearson presents in his book that the Bible is a history book that is filled with the writings of immature men living in an immature age. The agnostic Carlton Pearson is not teaching anything new but what he is taking his thought from is the Charismatic movement in which he was raised around. The movement that held to opinions that the apostles were only instructing the men and women who lived in the era and that modesty and issue on behavior was only for their time and culture. You see TB; there is no end to what can be speculated from that kind of liberal teaching. The Charismatic movement has shown us the new apostles and prophets, and SET MEN, who preach "fresh bread", "NEW WINE" doctrines and fill mouths of the people with fillings of gold while the preachers fill their pockets with green paper. The apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus is the head of the corner where the courses are measured. To say that those apostles were only throwing around their opinions to a dead far-gone culture is make the word of God of non-effect.





Having lived in other religious cultures and seen firsthand how Roman Catholicism has incorporated paganistic practices and traditions from other religions into their faith, I fully understand what you are saying here and concur with it. However, you have chosen to interpret Paul's statement expressing his desire that Christian women not wear gold to be a command from God against wearing a wedding ring. I don't share your interpretation.

It was more than just a desire TB.





I'm not implying that Scriptures change, but I am saying that Paul expressed his views in an historical/cultural context that is different from the historical/cultural context of 21st Century North America.

But you're implying that scriptures change. In fact that is what your students hear when you teach the above from a pulpit. It's a problematic teaching and will cause more Carlton Pearsons, Kelly Varners, Franklin Halls, and the Dr. Peter Wagners to be produced.


I doubt very much that you fully embrace and practice all that Paul taught in the epistles. Like the rest of us I imagine you have chosen what you want to practice and for the rest you probably have a good discourse on why that wouldn't be relevent to you today. :)

TB, it sounds like you have less to embrace, but just those things that are moral and to be applied to make one a good citizen.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[RandyWayne]

Heh. Being coronated Mr. to my Mrs. is promotion to high office!

Actually, it is all a clever ruse by the "weaker sex" to make us THINK we are being promoted....

And sorry for the "sarcasm" statement. I don't even think sarcasm is bad, but can be just so hard to tell here sometimes.... lol

[OP_Carl]

Like an anaconda bone through the nose? Scarification on a teenage boy's arms and legs to prove he entered into a covenant as a right of passage?
Young girls are circumcised in other cultures. Should we also adopt these practices into Christianity? These cultures also see them as symbols of covenants, and rights of passages, sacraments.

They're tokens within these cultures and from the 4th century AD and onward the Roman Catholic Church had adopted and baptized pagan practices into their organization to help those tribes and peoples to be absorbed into their Roman church. So you're saying that it is pagan to wear a wedding ring, but it isn't pagan, or even particularly religious to me! It's merely part and parcel of the civil affair of marriage.

In I Corinthians 8 Paul essentially says that pagan and idolatrous practices do not affect our relationships with inanimate objects. Titus 1:15 says
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Somebody a long time ago may have intended wedding rings to invoke aspects of their pagan religion, but that does not make my use of one today into a pagan practice. I'm a practicing Christian! (If I practice enough, I might make rank amateur Christian!) I don't consider my ring to have any religious meaning or context at all. If I eat a BK chicken sandwich that was chanted over by a Rastafarian cook in the back, that has zero effect on me or my religious affiliation or practices.

See what you're doing here is creating a sacrement by which you end up claiming it to be Christian in the long run. TB, you lose the right to ever make a comment against any Ultra Conservative for any pratices they may perform. I'm not sure I saw where he is doing this. I thought he was just making the claim that it is morally more proper to wear one.

The wedding ring is being chosen by some to be a religious symbol, the same as vestments of a priest, his collar, his robes, candle sticks, crosses, pine trees with jewelry on them, etc, etc. Who uses it as a religous symbol, and in what way?

TB, you're correct God places great emphasis upon covenants but not on traditions of men. Again you're trying to bring a wedding ring and God into the same sentence. God doesn't condone a piece of jewelry whether it is a rosary, or a cross on a chain to have anything to do with Him. Remember that He is the God that HATES Idolatry. God doesn't need idolatrous symbols; those symbols were adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, which is rife with idolatry. The concession has already been made several times that those who obsess about their jewelry are in jeopardy of practicing idolatry. Please un-leap this leap and come back to function. It's a civic declaration of status, functionally no different from a license plate.

I did that because it's your opinion, and therefore a judgement on your part that a wedding ring indicates marriage, when it was never part of Paul's or the early church’s vocabulary. You see TB, the wedding ring is a piece of jewelry that is used by your religion not there's. :) This doesn't work because it's also used by people that have no religion.

Again Paul is not making suggestions on what Paul feels is his opinion, but is telling the young Evangelist deliberate information that he wants the Evangelist to do and teach. Paul wasn't making this stuff up as he went along. Paul was presenting Timothy with scriptural council from the only scripture they were ever taught with and that’s the Torah. All that Jesus and His apostles taught can be traced back to Torah. To what part of the Torah can a blanket ban on gold wedding rings be traced?

[Truly Blessed]

PART 2



1Ti 2:12 But I SUFFER NOT a woman to teach, NOR to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

There's is no way around this scripture Hoss, again this is not a mere suggestion from a fatherly mentor lying on a couch watching a football game. This is the apostle giving a young evangelist BIBLICAL instruction.

We know it's not Paul's own opinion because he places Biblical theroy right after his statement.

1Ti 2:13

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

Paul wasn't being mysigonistic in his view of church goverment. Nor was he giving his opion due to his realtionship with his mother. Paul was pulling from Torah. :)




TB, that's not what is happening is the letter to Timothy. Paul is an Apostle and is giving Apostolic instruction that is backed up by scriptures, and not Talmudic opinion. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because of their opinions of the scriptures and that they taught them as oracles of God.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Paul is instructing Timothy the same way he did the Bereans.

Act 17:10-11

"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

You see in the first century Roman Empire teaching wasn't sitting on a chair while someone fills your head with what they felt and believed. The teaching practice was to cause the student to ask questions and through that method of searching out the truth through questioning the teacher was the student to find knowledge. Paul could not be inventing a new religion on what he felt was good behavior or practical. The apostle was giving instruction that would be able to stop the mouths of those who subverted whole houses. The apostle was taking what he learned from scripture and teaching it through the New Testament revelation.





Maybe you're not taking into effect what your above teaching will cause as time rolls on. This is why I brought up the agnostic Carlton Pearson in to this discussion. The agnostic Carlton Pearson presents in his book that the Bible is a history book that is filled with the writings of immature men living in an immature age. The agnostic Carlton Pearson is not teaching anything new but what he is taking his thought from is the Charismatic movement in which he was raised around. The movement that held to opinions that the apostles were only instructing the men and women who lived in the era and that modesty and issue on behavior was only for their time and culture. You see TB; there is no end to what can be speculated from that kind of liberal teaching. The Charismatic movement has shown us the new apostles and prophets, and SET MEN, who preach "fresh bread", "NEW WINE" doctrines and fill mouths of the people with fillings of gold while the preachers fill their pockets with green paper. The apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus is the head of the corner where the courses are measured. To say that those apostles were only throwing around their opinions to a dead far-gone culture is make the word of God of non-effect.






It was more than just a desire TB.






But you're implying that scriptures change. In fact that is what your students hear when you teach the above from a pulpit. It's a problematic teaching and will cause more Carlton Pearsons, Kelly Varners, Franklin Halls, and the Dr. Peter Wagners to be produced.



TB, it sounds like you have less to embrace, but just those things that are moral and to be applied to make one a good citizen.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.comI disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and do not agree with your attempt to rule out the historical and cultural context of biblical teaching. I notice that you have avoided responding to my suggestion that it's not likely that you embrace everything that Paul taught, but like everyone else have selective tendencies. You don't embrace anything more than I embrace, you just embrace different things than I embrace. I wish you well.

[Praxeas]

Let me see ... The Father rewards the son w/

1. A kiss [not a sin]
2. A hug [not a sin]
3. His best robe [not a sin]
4. Sandals [not a sin]
5. A side a beef [not a sin]
6. A celebration [not a sin]

7. A ring .... [a one way ticket to fire and brimstone]
lol...wow. Dan got logical :choir

[RandyWayne]

1. A kiss [not a sin]
2. A hug [not a sin]
3. His best robe [not a sin]
4. Sandals [not a sin]
5. A side a beef [not a sin]
6. A celebration [not a sin]

7. A ring .... [a one way ticket to fire and brimstone]


Perhaps a new official term needs to be coined to describe a persons tendency to pick and chose scripture to make a case. How about selectavism?

Gen 2:16
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 3:6
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Ex 26:4
4And thou shalt make loops of blue upon the edge of the one curtain from the selvedge in the coupling; and likewise shalt thou make in the uttermost edge of another curtain, in the coupling of the second.

After all, doesn't the above scripture plainly teach us to "Eat Fruit Loops"?

[Praxeas]

A thousand pardons, bro. I missed your earlier performance. Give me a pointer and I'll peruse it.
This is the thread. We wore this topic out. Epley and I went around a few times
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=3810&highlight=jewel

[OP_Carl]

Not to toss another pork chop into the gator pit, or anything, but:

Which produces the greater "appearance of evil?"

Recognizing that even though the bible says not to adorn ourselves with gold, most sinners are ignorant of this passage, and the wearing of one simple, non-ostentacious, gold wedding ring?

Or allowing the stupid world, which we are theoretically attempting to reach via the gospel we show them through our overcoming lives, to make the assumption that single motherhood is over-represented among "holiness" women?

[Praxeas]

The problem is that the people that use this passage to say no ornaments at all say we must take it literally. But then they hedge on that when you point out a literal interpretation only means no gold or pearls....only women can't and braiding hair is a sin?

So men can wear gold and pearls...women can wear silver and diamonds....and are going to hell if they braid their hair....

On this issue of braiding
Of plaiting (ἐμπλοκῆς)
Only here in New Testament. Compare 1Ti_2:9. The Roman women of the day were addicted to ridiculous extravagance in the adornment of the hair. Juvenal (“Satire,” vi.) satirizes these customs. He says: “The attendants will vote on the dressing of the hair as if a question of reputation or of life were at stake, so great is the trouble she takes in quest of beauty; with so many tiers does she lead, with so many continuous stories does she build up on high her head. She is tall as Andromache in front, behind she is shorter. You would think her another person.” The hair was dyed, and secured with costly pins and with nets of gold thread. False hair and blond wigs were worn.

---------------
So it seems what they were speaking about was the extravagant way these women weaved gold and other items into their hair and piled it on higher and higher....not just to look nice but it was a contest.

Interesting...don't we have some Pentecostal ladies with the same attitude anyways in how long their hair is or how they do their do?

I've seen very conservative women too not only wearing pins in their hair but selling them...they look like ornaments to me. They also wear broaches too.

[Truly Blessed]

I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9. What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.

[SDG]

I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9. What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.

This new revelation, the " dress-code holiness" movement, can be traced to recent history ... including the PAJC W&S view of the New Birth ..

[OP_Carl]

This is the thread. We wore this topic out. Epley and I went around a few times
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=3810&highlight=jewel

Oh . . . My . . . Aching . . . . Eyeballs!

No wonder you folks have expressed such weariness with this topic! And I didn't make it all the way through yet!

I did unearth this jewel (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120188&postcount=450) of yours. Once you guys were done with the fools business I think you very effectively reduced the argument to absurdity. (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120206&postcount=463)

I think I may have some bible that applies more directly to the principle of wedding rings - please consider:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]?

9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

The woman will ransack the house looking for the missing piece of silver because it is part of her dowry. She wore these ten coins dangling from her veil as a token of her virtue for all the world to see. If even one coin is missing, in the eyes of the public her virtue is symbolically diminished.

And what is a wedding ring if not a nationally-recognized, publically-visible token of marital virtue and fidelity?

The Lord used this as an example because he knew that it would hold special poignance for his audience - the cultural impropriety associated with the missing coin would drive any virtuous woman of this time to a frantic and frenzied, desperate yet methodical, top-to-bottom search to find what was lost, and to experience such a surge of relief when what was lost is found that she throws an impromptu party. (of course, the house was now clean . . . :rolleyes2 )

If the Lord found something amiss with this practice of outwardly indicating a woman's virtue with precious metals, He could have avoided using this analogy in his parable, or taken the opportunity to criticize the practice. But He didn't. He went right on ahead and used this one without batting an eye.

We need to accept and realize that the Lord is in favor of marriage, fidelity, and morality. He honors principles, not persons. And civil devices employed by various cultures to promote purity, virtue, and marital fidelity are only an offense to Him insomuch as they are no longer done in moderation and modesty.

I do believe I've found what I was looking for. The plain, smooth gold wedding ring on my left hand stays. As does the anaconda bone through my wife's nose. She's just today finally gotten used to it! What a little trooper! :D

Thankyoualleversoveryverymuch!

Carl

[Evang.Benincasa]

I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture and do not agree with your attempt to rule out the historical and cultural context of biblical teaching.

Rule out historical and cultural context? No problem TB, show me Jews prior and during the first century wearing wedding bands. Show me first century Christians wearing wedding bands.


I notice that you have avoided responding to my suggestion that it's not likely that you embrace everything that Paul taught, but like everyone else have selective tendencies. You don't embrace anything more than I embrace, you just embrace different things than I embrace. I wish you well.

Show me those first century Jews and Christains who wore gold or silver wedding bands.

I truely thank you for all the time you have invested into your posts.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

I've spent some time this afternoon reading through various commentaries and I haven't found anyone who embraces the position set forth by EB that Paul was forbidding the wearing of rings in 1Tim.2:9.

Excuse me? TB, is that what you found in reading my post?:tricycle


What I read is consistent with my own understanding of what Paul is emphasizing, which is, what was proper for public worship for both men and women.

TB, I was correcting your assumption that Paul was making suggestions to the young evangelist Timothy. I have no idea where you are getting the above from.

Again, thank you for your time. I hope you and Felicity have a good time in the UPCI of Canada. I will be interested to see your research of those in the first century who used wedding rings within the Jewish and Christian cultures.

In Jesus Name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Strongminded]

Wedding rings are a non issue for me....
I wear one...so does my wife.
I preach for those that do and take mine off when the Pastor I am preaching for asks me to.

BUT...as far as Bible....there is none that forbids it. Like anything else....modesty.

[Praxeas]

Oh . . . My . . . Aching . . . . Eyeballs!

No wonder you folks have expressed such weariness with this topic! And I didn't make it all the way through yet!

I did unearth this jewel (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120188&postcount=450) of yours. Once you guys were done with the fools business I think you very effectively reduced the argument to absurdity. (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120206&postcount=463)

I think I may have some bible that applies more directly to the principle of wedding rings - please consider:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]?

9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

The woman will ransack the house looking for the missing piece of silver because it is part of her dowry. She wore these ten coins dangling from her veil as a token of her virtue for all the world to see. If even one coin is missing, in the eyes of the public her virtue is symbolically diminished.

And what is a wedding ring if not a nationally-recognized, publically-visible token of marital virtue and fidelity?

The Lord used this as an example because he knew that it would hold special poignance for his audience - the cultural impropriety associated with the missing coin would drive any virtuous woman of this time to a frantic and frenzied, desperate yet methodical, top-to-bottom search to find what was lost, and to experience such a surge of relief when what was lost is found that she throws an impromptu party. (of course, the house was now clean . . . :rolleyes2 )

If the Lord found something amiss with this practice of outwardly indicating a woman's virtue with precious metals, He could have avoided using this analogy in his parable, or taken the opportunity to criticize the practice. But He didn't. He went right on ahead and used this one without batting an eye.

We need to accept and realize that the Lord is in favor of marriage, fidelity, and morality. He honors principles, not persons. And civil devices employed by various cultures to promote purity, virtue, and marital fidelity are only an offense to Him insomuch as they are no longer done in moderation and modesty.

I do believe I've found what I was looking for. The plain, smooth gold wedding ring on my left hand stays. As does the anaconda bone through my wife's nose. She's just today finally gotten used to it! What a little trooper! :D

Thankyoualleversoveryverymuch!

Carl
Some people opt for tungsten :-)

[Truly Blessed]

Rule out historical and cultural context? No problem TB, show me Jews prior and during the first century wearing wedding bands. Show me first century Christians wearing wedding bands.



Show me those first century Jews and Christains who wore gold or silver wedding bands.

I truely thank you for all the time you have invested into your posts.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.comI see. No one wore rings in the first century church and that is why Paul, according to your interpretation of 1Tim.2:9 was instructing them not to do something they weren't doing to begin with. Interesting. Of course I'm not the one who said the wearing of gold in this verse was referring to a ring that I can recall.

Why is it that ultra cons feel they have the liberty to take a verse completely out of its context to build a doctrine of holiness around it? In 1Timothy 2, Paul addresses propriety in public worship and cautions women against wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes, because this could give the impression of proud public display, which is contrary to the true nature of worship where Christ is to be the central focus. Somehow this becomes a ban against wearing a ring, which a study of the Word shows, God has never forbid anyone to wear.

In 1Cor.11 Paul teaches on propriety in worship and instead of it being about worship ultra cons make it about hair and a doctrine of holiness issue. The hair only figured into the discourse because Paul was instructing the church at Corinth on what was honorable and respectful in the context of a mixed congregation worshipping God together.

I believe it's important that we interpret Scripture in its biblical, historical context rather than interpreting it in the context of some 21st century mindset someone has adopted intended to make them appear holier or more biblical than someone else.

[Praxeas]

The context, grammar and history suggests it was talking about weaving in the hair gold and pearls

[Rico]

The context, grammar and history suggests it was talking about weaving in the hair gold and pearls

You are talking about broiding of hair, correct?

[Praxeas]

You are talking about broiding of hair, correct?
Yes. See a recent previous post where I quoted a commentator on the topic

[Rico]

Yes. See a recent previous post where I quoted a commentator on the topic

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices! :)

[Praxeas]

You are talking about broidering of hair, correct?
In fact the UPC does not take a stand against braided hair.....because they actually did the research on this one and discovered it was not talking about braids, but a custom among Roman women of competing hair dos with elaborate weaves with ornaments and piling it on higher and higher

[Praxeas]

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices! :)

Yup lol...

[Rico]

In fact the UPC does not take a stand against braided hair.....because they actually did the research on this one and discovered it was not talking about braids, but a custom among Roman women of competing hair dos with elaborate weaves with ornaments and piling it on higher and higher

It was a UPC preacher that initially told me I had the two practices confused. After I studied it out for myself I had no choice but to discard the belief that braiding hair is wrong. It is one of those "standards" I had been taught in my uc days.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I see. No one wore rings in the first century church and that is why Paul, according to your interpretation of 1Tim.2:9 was instructing them not to do something they weren't doing to begin with. Interesting. Of course I'm not the one who said the wearing of gold in this verse was referring to a ring that I can recall.

Really age is catching up to you TB? What are you talking about? You know you might try a little warm milk with some nice cookies.


Why is it that ultra cons feel they have the liberty to take a verse completely out of its context to build a doctrine of holiness around it?

Thank you for the nice invalidations. Don't ever complain about conservatives. It was you TB, who posted that Paul was making some suggestions to Timothy in 1st Timothy not me. Did you even care to reply to what I offered? No, you just came back with "I don't agree". Not much one can respond to.


In 1Timothy 2, Paul addresses propriety in public worship and cautions women against wearing gold, pearls, expensive clothes, because this could give the impression of proud public display, which is contrary to the true nature of worship where Christ is to be the central focus. Somehow this becomes a ban against wearing a ring, which a study of the Word shows, God has never forbid anyone to wear.[/quote]

TB, where is the wedding band used in the first century to show that men and women were married. I was not the one who brought up Timothy that was you. Maybe you need to go back and see what you typed. In your theology it doesn't matter what Paul said in 1st Timothy chapter 2, due to Paul only speaking to Timothy about the first century culture, which in your book doesn't mean anything for us today, and they say Preterists think the Bible is a history book? HA!



In 1Cor.11 Paul teaches on propriety in worship and instead of it being about worship ultra cons make it about hair and a doctrine of holiness issue. The hair only figured into the discourse because Paul was instructing the church at Corinth on what was honorable and respectful in the context of a mixed congregation worshipping God together.

Nice job TB, 1st Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with hair, but it ultimately has something to do with hair? O K, I'm a believer.



I believe it's important that we interpret Scripture in its biblical, historical context rather than interpreting it in the context of some 21st century mindset someone has adopted intended to make them appear holier or more biblical than someone else.

TB, you claimed that what Paul wrote about is no longer for us in the 21st century and was outdated and not fitting with our culture American and Canadian (I would guess). Therefore we can just work around the framework of 1st Timothy 2 and 1st Corinthians 11 in that I would strongly disagree.
These letters were not only admonishing elders in the church how to conduct worship in their times but making practice for every other church throughout time.

Roman Catholic Church also uses your argument to prove how their Church evolved throughout the ages and therefore making the RCC the original church.

Any way why are you and Sister Felicity joining up with the UPCI if you don't believe in the same issues that the UPCI believe?


In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

I used to think that broiding was the same thing as what we know today as braiding. Imagine my shock and surprise at finding out they are very different practices! :)

No Bro, broiding is what you do with a steak and nice thick steak.

[Pressing-On]

Oh . . . My . . . Aching . . . . Eyeballs!

No wonder you folks have expressed such weariness with this topic! And I didn't make it all the way through yet!

I did unearth this jewel (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120188&postcount=450) of yours. Once you guys were done with the fools business I think you very effectively reduced the argument to absurdity. (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=120206&postcount=463)

I think I may have some bible that applies more directly to the principle of wedding rings - please consider:

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]?

9 And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

The woman will ransack the house looking for the missing piece of silver because it is part of her dowry. She wore these ten coins dangling from her veil as a token of her virtue for all the world to see. If even one coin is missing, in the eyes of the public her virtue is symbolically diminished.

And what is a wedding ring if not a nationally-recognized, publically-visible token of marital virtue and fidelity?

The Lord used this as an example because he knew that it would hold special poignance for his audience - the cultural impropriety associated with the missing coin would drive any virtuous woman of this time to a frantic and frenzied, desperate yet methodical, top-to-bottom search to find what was lost, and to experience such a surge of relief when what was lost is found that she throws an impromptu party. (of course, the house was now clean . . . :rolleyes2 )

If the Lord found something amiss with this practice of outwardly indicating a woman's virtue with precious metals, He could have avoided using this analogy in his parable, or taken the opportunity to criticize the practice. But He didn't. He went right on ahead and used this one without batting an eye.

We need to accept and realize that the Lord is in favor of marriage, fidelity, and morality. He honors principles, not persons. And civil devices employed by various cultures to promote purity, virtue, and marital fidelity are only an offense to Him insomuch as they are no longer done in moderation and modesty.

I do believe I've found what I was looking for. The plain, smooth gold wedding ring on my left hand stays. As does the anaconda bone through my wife's nose. She's just today finally gotten used to it! What a little trooper! :D

Thankyoualleversoveryverymuch!

Carl
Wow! Good post!

[JOYoftheLord]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

The libs and ultra-cons may fuss and argue over the finer points of scripture, though totally misunderstood...but I've had enough of this non productive discussion of days gone by.

It's time to grow up. Any attempt to humbly please the Lord in all things, whether it be to wear or not wear a ring is indeed commendable. Nothing can be said to argue that point. I applaud that attitude. It is an attitude that I carefully assume also. Suggestion: Let us also try to humbly please the Lord in the attitude that we have toward those who do not see the finer points in the exact same way that we see them. The dispicable attitude to be shunned in ourselves is the one that secretly seem themselves holier than others because of their naked, ringless finger. That is truly dispicalble.

I'm really shocked.

[JOYoftheLord]

I teach against rings period on the hand-ears-toes-nose. Rings are jewelry which those passages you cite says NOT to wear. Since i have no idea how much I could possibly wear and not be in violation of the principle of this passage I wear none.
Then the wedding ring itself is pagan in nature and was christianized by the Roman church thus it is not pleasing to the Lord. Rome is not only the Mother of Harlots, she is also the Mother of Abominations.
I realize jewelry was suffered in the OT as was polygamy-divorce-vengence-etc. but in times of consecration both personally and nationally they ridded themselves of their jewelry. Jewelry has a long association with Idolatry & pride in Scripture datign back to the fall of Lucifer.
NO Apostolic child of God should wear ornamental jewelry and every true man of God should teach against it.

Thank you.

[JOYoftheLord]

My question has always been how can a plastic earbob costing a few bucks be an ornament and a ring on the hand with a diamond not be? Or take the ring off the hand place it in the ear THEN it becomes jewelry???? Makes no sense to me????
NOT & NOR are using with gold in these epistles I think I understand without a Greek lesson what NOT means.:winkgrin


Do they still call those things......."earbobs"? hehe :heeheehee

Some of the ugliest things ever made. LOL

When I look at an individual with all those "ornament's" (plastic, silver, gold or whatever else other metal...flashing, hanging, dangling, stuck through body parts) on their body....modest and humble are not the words that come to mind. :nah

[Sheltiedad]

If you're paying for internet access, then maybe you should just cancel it and send that money to Brazil?

The attitude that oozes from every single thing that you post is what I pledge to spend the rest of my life standing up against.

[freeatlast]

That money spent on a flashy...usless...bauble would have gone a long way in helping the Alvier's in their mission work, or anything in the line of mission work.

But I'm so glad to know that God was highly pleased that you spent it on a flashy diamond.

Good grief ! and just how much have you personally sent to the Alviers??

How much have wassted on your hot coffee, that could have been sent to work of God??

[OP_Carl]

That money spent on a flashy...usless...bauble would have gone a long way in helping the Alvier's in their mission work, or anything in the line of mission work.

But I'm so glad to know that God was highly pleased that you spent it on a flashy diamond.

5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

Is there a similarity? You decide!

[Glenda B]

Good grief ! and just how much have you personally sent to the Alvears??

How much have wassted on your hot coffee, that could have been sent to work of God??

You might be very surprised if you actually know how much I do give, but I am a very generous giver because God has blessed me to be able too do just that, and I have no doubt that some of it does go to help the Alvear's. I am a cheerful giver and give generously to Mothers Memorial, I guess you probably know what that Money is used for. We normally support at least One sometimes more students to enable those who are less fortunate than we are to be able to attend Bible College, and the list goes on, but I do not want to appear to be a braggart or to be boastful.

[JOYoftheLord]

If you're paying for internet access, then maybe you should just cancel it and send that money to Brazil?

The attitude that oozes from every single thing that you post is what I pledge to spend the rest of my life standing up against.

If you were referring to me.........you don't have a clue as to what I give sir. :)

And as far as an attitude? LOL....you don't know my heart either.

There are many who are taking "stands" against the ungodly things of the world too. :)

[OP_Carl]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

You bet. A diamond is the only thing in a house a woman cannot break.

[Sheltiedad]

If you were referring to me.........you don't have a clue as to what I give sir. :)

And as far as an attitude? LOL....you don't know my heart either.

There are many who are taking "stands" against the ungodly things of the world too. :)

There was a post that was deleted that was directly before mine. That is the one I was referring to:

Originally Posted by Hot Coffee Ms. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/images/tealchrist/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=198808#post198808)
That money spent on a flashy...usless...bauble would have gone a long way in helping the Alvier's in their mission work, or anything in the line of mission work.

But I'm so glad to know that God was highly pleased that you spent it on a flashy diamond.
I have zero tolerance for a certain type of attitude and that is where you will find me consistently vocal (and bold and disrespectful) in a majority of my posts. I want people to understand that they no longer have to tolerate this stuff and that absolutely nothing will happen to people for standing up to this type of attitude whether it comes from a "preacher" or a "saint".

[RandyWayne]

Just for the record...

I felt that God was highly pleased when I made my darling wife very happy with her almost 3ct. diamond. Best investment that I ever made.

How big is 3 ct? Is this something the requires the use of sunglasses just to look at it? :)
Ours was right at the limit of what we could afford at the time ($600), but even if I could have dropped 5 grand we found the perfect balance between beauty and size.

Here is a picture of ours.

[Truly Blessed]

EB has proven once again that he is very good at twisting what people are writing to say something they are not saying to escape having to deal with the issues he wants to present out of context. The most stark example of the liberty he takes to twist what people say is his statement that Felicity and I are joining the UPCI when no where at any time have I stated that we are joining the UPCI.

[Glenda B]

The attitude that oozes from every single thing that you post is what I pledge to spend the rest of my life standing up against.

I am in my 60's young man and I will be ignoring anything you have to say to me,or about me, I don't know why you dislike me so, I don't even know you. I deleted my post because I want no more dealings with you. I'm afraid of what you might say, or better yet imply. I won't intreract with you any longer, Goodbye.

The end!!

[Felicity]

My mother was convicted of her wedding ring in the late 60's shortly after she came into the truth. No one preached against it or even spoke to her about it, God dealt with her about it. She has never wore one since. My father didn't like it but never made a big issue of it and he is still not in church today.

I grew up under the teaching of no rings and the church I attend believes it this way.

When I was married over 20 years ago we did not have wedding rings nor did we have token bibles, etc.

I do not need a ring to know I am married nor does my wife want one. We act married when we are at work or else where. There have been very few times we have had to tell anyone the "I am married" line because of not wearing a ring.

One thing leads to another, whether it is on the spiritual side or whether it is on the carnal side. Wearing a wedding ring opens a door to the thought process of "if it is ok to wear a wedding ring then surely it is ok to wear..."

As one of the pastors I have had in my life teaches "what womb did it come out of and where will it take you"
And just where do you think wearing a ring might take you?

[Steve Epley]

And just where do you think wearing a ring might take you?

An open door to other jewelry.

[Subdued]

An open door to other jewelry.

LOL... I've been wearing the same two rings for nearly 20 years - nothing more, nothing less.

[Rico]

LOL... I've been wearing the same two rings for nearly 20 years - nothing more, nothing less.

Twenty years? I'd say it's definitely time to upgrade! :D

[Subdued]

Twenty years? I'd say it's definitely time to upgrade! :D

Hmm... I'll pass that message along to my hubby & see what he thinks. :)

[Rico]

Hmm... I'll pass that message along to my hubby & see what he thinks. :)

There ya go. I don't believe in wearing jewelry, but I'm all for helping a Sister who doesn't have a problem with jewelry get a bigger ROCK! :lol

[Barb]

LOL... I've been wearing the same two rings for nearly 20 years - nothing more, nothing less.

This is true, Subby, but one's in your ear and the other one's in your nose...they really gotta go, girl!! :killinme

[Subdued]

This is true, Subby, but one's in your ear and the other one's in your nose...they really gotta go, girl!! :killinme

Haha, Barb... You're a funny gal!

Still got some holes in my earlobes, but haven't worn earrings in years!!

[Subdued]

There ya go. I don't believe in wearing jewelry, but I'm all for helping a Sister who doesn't have a problem with jewelry get a bigger ROCK! :lol

Thank you, Rico! I'll let you know how it goes. LOL

[Praxeas]

Twenty years? I'd say it's definitely time to upgrade! :D
Id say it's time to take it off and clean all the green off of the finger...wow thats a long time to be wearing a ring...:sos

[Subdued]

Id say it's time to take it off and clean all the green off of the finger...wow thats a long time to be wearing a ring...:sos

Okay, ya got me - I lied!

I take them off: to clean them, when I swim, and while I was pregnant (all three times/because my fingers were swollen... I did, however, buy a larger sized wedding band to wear during my pregnancies so as not to appear unmarried.)

[ChTatum]

If you were referring to me.........you don't have a clue as to what I give sir. :)

And as far as an attitude? LOL....you don't know my heart either.

There are many who are taking "stands" against the ungodly things of the world too. :)

If we can't know your heart, you certainly can't know ours.

If it is a heart issue, why are people so concerned about my ring (or facial hair)?

If they are an indication of a wrong heart condition, I at least am being more honest than those who hide their problems with "correct" dress.

[ChTatum]

An open door to other jewelry.

So, elder, is your celebration of the Lord's supper Biblical or the Catholic-Lite version?

You seem to have a problem with some Catholicized traditions such as rings, so is it safe to assume you are consistent?

[OP_Carl]

An open door to other jewelry.

I am beginning to wonder if this is truly the case for people who have the Acts 2:38 experience, have their hearts right (surrendered), and don't have issues or flare-ups with pride or jealousy.

People like my wife and I, who have no hankering for more jewelry or anything else that might bring extra attention to us, but who are glad to have wedding rings.

I can see, however, how people who have grown up associating all jewelry with sin, after they "backslide" from a conservative to a liberal apostolic church, might go hog wild with their "new-found liberty."

I think I understand your motives, and they are respectable. I would be interested in your methods, as in how you teach your people that the bible says God wants them to abstain from all jewelry. Send me a PM if you prefer.

Don't feel bad if you don't have much of an answer. Many of this thread's participants, on both sides of the aisle, sounded off once and then didn't have much to answer with when I pressed them for bible and underlying principle. I pushed TB hard for a little extra, but it was not forthcoming from the "pro" side either.

I really think I got what I needed from the parable of the missing dowry coin. Jesus is effectively neutral on the public display of precious metals as an indicator of marital status and commitment. He used this as an example because this aspect of human behavior was widespread knowledge. Ladies guard their reputation, virtue, and honor ferociously. He wanted us to know just how ardently He will search out the hungry-hearted among us.

I am open to and want all God has for me. I know you love God and love people, as I have seen you in action. (you probably don't remember meeting me - it's been several years)

[Steve Epley]

I am beginning to wonder if this is truly the case for people who have the Acts 2:38 experience, have their hearts right (surrendered), and don't have issues or flare-ups with pride or jealousy.

People like my wife and I, who have no hankering for more jewelry or anything else that might bring extra attention to us, but who are glad to have wedding rings.

I can see, however, how people who have grown up associating all jewelry with sin, after they "backslide" from a conservative to a liberal apostolic church, might go hog wild with their "new-found liberty."

I think I understand your motives, and they are respectable. I would be interested in your methods, as in how you teach your people that the bible says God wants them to abstain from all jewelry. Send me a PM if you prefer.

Don't feel bad if you don't have much of an answer. Many of this thread's participants, on both sides of the aisle, sounded off once and then didn't have much to answer with when I pressed them for bible and underlying principle. I pushed TB hard for a little extra, but it was not forthcoming from the "pro" side either.

I really think I got what I needed from the parable of the missing dowry coin. Jesus is effectively neutral on the public display of precious metals as an indicator of marital status and commitment. He used this as an example because this aspect of human behavior was widespread knowledge. Ladies guard their reputation, virtue, and honor ferociously. He wanted us to know just how ardently He will search out the hungry-hearted among us.

I am open to and want all God has for me. I know you love God and love people, as I have seen you in action. (you probably don't remember meeting me - it's been several years)

Now I am interested where did we meet at? I have argued this subject on this forum on another thread someone who is computer savy might find it?
But in simplicity I teach 1Tim. 2:9 teaches against wearing jewelry for ornamentation. Since I don't know how much gold would be allowed and yet not be in violation of the passage I teach the saints not to wear any. As far as wedding rings their roots are steeped in paganism then authorizied by the Roman church as dogma. That is why the Puritians-Pilgrims- Weslyans rejected them 200 years ago.

[Barb]

Haha, Barb... You're a funny gal!

Still got some holes in my earlobes, but haven't worn earrings in years!!

I try...:tricycle

[OP_Carl]

Now I am interested where did we meet at?Your church.

I have argued this subject on this forum on another thread someone who is computer savy might find it?Oh, yes. Somebody posted a link to that thread in this one. I read about halfway through it, but didn't finish it. I suppose I'll go back this evening and get the rest of the way through it. Now I remember that I found something you said in that other thread that I wanted to PM you about.

But in simplicity I teach 1Tim. 2:9 teaches against wearing jewelry for ornamentation. Since I don't know how much gold would be allowed and yet not be in violation of the passage I teach the saints not to wear any. As far as wedding rings their roots are steeped in paganism then authorizied by the Roman church as dogma. That is why the Puritians-Pilgrims- Weslyans rejected them 200 years ago.

How do you address the arguments that the contextual meaning is almost opposite the literal single-verse meaning?

Do you happen to know the origins of wearing a veil of coins on the forehead? I don't think I remember that being in OT law.

YBIC,

Carl

[Steve Epley]

Your church.

Oh, yes. Somebody posted a link to that thread in this one. I read about halfway through it, but didn't finish it. I suppose I'll go back this evening and get the rest of the way through it. Now I remember that I found something you said in that other thread that I wanted to PM you about.



How do you address the arguments that the contextual meaning is almost opposite the literal single-verse meaning?

Do you happen to know the origins of wearing a veil of coins on the forehead? I don't think I remember that being in OT law.

YBIC,

Carl

I do have read about the coins and the forehead as a custom in the OT.
Here is my premise:
Jewelry along with polygamy-divorce-venegence were permitted in the OT but in times of personal and national consecration they took off their jewelry.
In the NT Paul & Peter both wrote against wearing gold as ornamentation. I fail to understand how someone can wear a ring on their hand and it is ok but cannot wear a ring in their ear? My position is safe we wear NO gold period. I would rather err on the side of safety than open the church I pastor up to all kinds of jewelry that I am sure would displease God. I have been careful personally concerning my watch and other things to be very plain without any gold. It is a consistant thing with me.

[OP_Carl]

I do have read about the coins and the forehead as a custom in the OT.
Here is my premise:
Jewelry along with polygamy-divorce-venegence were permitted in the OT but in times of personal and national consecration they took off their jewelry.
In the NT Paul & Peter both wrote against wearing gold as ornamentation. I fail to understand how someone can wear a ring on their hand and it is ok but cannot wear a ring in their ear? My position is safe we wear NO gold period. I would rather err on the side of safety than open the church I pastor up to all kinds of jewelry that I am sure would displease God. I have been careful personally concerning my watch and other things to be very plain without any gold. It is a consistant thing with me.

I'm not one that will say that a person can do too much for God. The trouble is, the greasy grace liberals have a valid point about some taking the list of rules and turning themselves into hypocritical Pharisees with them. People insulate and console themselves with their rule-conformance, but don't deal with the issues of the heart. Pentecostals that won't speak to other Pentecostals are a sign of this to me, as are the gradual prejudices that set in, so-and-so is no longer following rule X, so they must have sin in their life, etc. I have fallen prey to this in the past and I hope I have innoculated myself against it. If not, I know where to go to get another dose of the HOLY GHOST!

I also agree that it is a vexation, and possibly a damnable error, to teach rules of conduct as salvational. I would like to see Apostolics balance out some of our Acts 2:38 teaching with grace and faith.

The over-reliance of liberals, and those that are traveling from conservative to charismatic, on the verse about 'working out our own salvation with fear and trembling' does not invalidate either the verse or the principle.

All right, that's enough agreeing with liberals. I hate it when they drool. :killinme

I want my conservatism to be biblical and accurate. I want to do all things in moderation, including being conservative.

[Truly Blessed]

I do have read about the coins and the forehead as a custom in the OT.
Here is my premise:
Jewelry along with polygamy-divorce-venegence were permitted in the OT but in times of personal and national consecration they took off their jewelry.
In the NT Paul & Peter both wrote against wearing gold as ornamentation. I fail to understand how someone can wear a ring on their hand and it is ok but cannot wear a ring in their ear? My position is safe we wear NO gold period. I would rather err on the side of safety than open the church I pastor up to all kinds of jewelry that I am sure would displease God. I have been careful personally concerning my watch and other things to be very plain without any gold. It is a consistant thing with me.If your salvation was in Jesus Christ you wouldn't have to "play it safe", you would know the true basis for you acceptance with God. It certainly isn't jewelry or the absence thereof!

[Steve Epley]

If your salvation was in Jesus Christ you wouldn't have to "play it safe", you would know the true basis for you acceptance with God. It certainly isn't jewelry or the absence thereof!

By being safe I mean in compliance with the passage and not offending the God who inspired it to be written. Safe as in attempting to please Him.

[Rico]

I must say that, among apostolics who wear jewelry, it is generally limited to wedding rings. I can't remember any who wear ear rings, necklaces, bracelets, etc., unless you count watches as bracelets (I won't wear a watch for this reason).