Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/cut.gif

Not going to happen, Mike. You're being deceived. It's a lie.

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

I dont think most people in Apostolic churches are just waiting for the day they have approval to cut hair of grow a beard. I think there is some assumption that we are just waiting for that day to occur and I think that is a completely false characterization. I believe people in churches with these standards love the way they live and embrace these ideas very willingly. For instance and just an example if my own Pastor changed his position on facial hair and cut hair on women he would be booted out on the spot...By the church...why? because the church is in love with the message as is in our local assembly.

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

I personally know a man who became Pastor and tried messing around with standards and water down salvation. He was gone before he even fixed up his office.

I know another Pastor who allegedly wanted to leave the UPC and join another organization which didn't have standards or new birth beliefs. He was voted out as well.

The way some post, you'd think most saints are slaves being held captive against their will, yearning for the day standards are dumped so they can say, "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last!"

:nah

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

::highfive

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

Thats why it would take a policy statement for anything to happen. The people would be to afraid to welcome the newly approved believers just on the strength of rumors.

But if they KNEW the Ministers actually meant it Im sure MOST would rejoice to be able to quit defending false doctrine.

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

[QUOTE=Michael The Disciple;1540232]Thats why it would take a policy statement for anything to happen. The people would be to afraid to welcome the newly approved believers just on the strength of rumors.

But if they KNEW the Ministers actually meant it Im sure MOST would rejoice to be able to quit defending false doctrine.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple View Post
Im talking about if the UPCI or other major Org came out with an apology statement for being wrong on these issues and letting people know that if they grow a beard or if a woman trims her hair but keeps it long they will not be counted as "unholy" in their assemblies.

I do think if THIS were to happen yes, nationwide thousands of people would come who otherwise would not. And that thousands who will eventually leave over these issues would stay.

MTD who make the call on what is considered long? Is this the Pastor's call? Does the woman make that call? Does the scripture define Long? Does history define Long? Does culture define Long? Does her father or husband define what "long" is? Past shoulders, waist length, down to the feet is that long. Does God Define what Long is? What does covered mean? just the head? just past the ears, just past the neck, just past the shoulders, midway down the back, does God define covered?

If we by carefulness do err on the side of caution. (which I do not believe we err) By what do you err?

You say that a woman can trim her hair and it remain long. Please address who has the authority to define what Long is.

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

I'm not sure about the claim of "tens of thousands". I do know quite a few men who simply prefer a beard would feel far more welcome at church, and would attend with little problem if the beard issue was dropped. Men choose to wear a beard for many reasons. And not all of those reasons are rooted in sin. Sometimes it's just a preference, like long sleeves verses short sleeves. I was in JROTC for four years prior to joining the Army after High School. So, throughout my high school years, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. When I joined the Army, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. In the UPCI churches I've attended, I wasn't permitted to grow facial hair. After leaving the institutional church (beards weren't a factor) a couple years passed and I grew a beard because Christina thought I should "update" my look. I've grown used to it. I have one of those faces that doesn't show my age (42). In my line of work I hold meetings and briefings with various government agencies. What's strange is, I'm treated more seriously, and with more respect, when wearing a beard. I think my baby face tends to cause some to think differently of me. Not to mention, Christina loves my beard, so that's a big plus. Also, I was military for 8 years. When I was in, facial hair wasn't permitted. Sometimes when I'm clean shaven and look into the mirror, I see the man I used to be when I was in the military. When wearing a beard, I feel like I'm in the present. I know it's purely psychological, but it's true. Now the idea of a man tell me, being a grown man, that I have to shave just feels... insulting. Now, please understand, I know that in the vast majority of situations no insult is intended. But it feels somewhat degrading. I'm a grown man. Is he going to choose boxers over briefs for me? Is he going to tell me that I'm not allowed to stay out until after dark? It makes me uncomfortable. And when so much emphasis is put on it, and I see no Scripture for it, it makes me feel indignant. If God isn't offended at beards, why is this grown man telling other grown men that they have to shave or they've sinned? Aren't men of God bound by the Word of God? Are they permitted to add to it? Is the opinion of a single man, or the tradition of an organization, to be considered equally as authoritative as Scripture?

So, it feels unbiblical and spiritually immature. With everything going on in the world, why is there even a "beard standard"? It's just beyond me.


:thumbsup


:thumbsup

I don't believe in doing that either. But in my time I've seen pastors preach that if a woman so much as puts on a pair of pants at any point, it is an "abomination" and that they will "bust Hell wide open" if they so much as put a pair of pajama pants on. I've also known pastors who treat it like I do, like it is a matter of modesty and Christian discipline that all should be expected to grow into. I'm a "little" more liberal with it. I'd tolerate uniform pants on women, if their profession required it. If a woman has a serious aversion to dresses or skirts for some reason, I'd take such concerns one at a time. And, I might tolerate pants on a woman given the reasoning. I knew a girl who brutally raped. She was wearing a dress that night. Ever since then, she's chosen to wear pants. She just doesn't feel safe unless dressed in jeans. I don't know if this is common or not, but it is one circumstance in which I'm not comfortable forcing the issue with her, given her circumstance. I'm not out to traumatize her. If I were a pastor, I'd not condemn her over pants. I might ask that her blouse, jacket, or shirt be long enough to cover her hips and backside though. And, that isn't abnormal. Most women who wear pants typically do that more times than not anyway. But that's just my approach.


Hey now! Watch it buddy... :lol

:thumbsup

I can agree with that.

I think these things can become an idol when they take precedence over God and the things of God. Or when the position of an organization trumps what is clearly written, or adds to it. Or when our identification with these things bring us more into being conformed into their image than the image of Jesus. Some are more Republican than like Jesus. Some are more Democrat than like Jesus. Some are more 49ers fan than they are like Jesus. Some are more Methodist than they are like Jesus. Some more Catholic than they are like Jesus. And... I don't mean any insult... but many are more UPCI or "Apostolic" than they are like Jesus. When our identity is grounded in anything of this world, and we are conformed into its image and not the image of Christ, it is idolatry.

Amen. As I said above... many are more conformed into the image of the UPCI or the image of the "Apostolic movement" than they are the image and likeness of Jesus.

Modesty is a Christian teaching. So, at some level, there will always be a dress standard reflecting some measure of Christian modesty. But, when it comes to the beard prohibition in some churches... it's really just a single man's opinion, or the position of a given district, or organization. It really has nothing to do with the Bible or even "sin". I don't think it will bring in "tens of thousands", but I do believe that returning to Scripture could bring many home who have left, help those struggling with the unbiblical traditions come to peace of mind, and perhaps prevent new converts from becoming disenchanted should they turn to Scripture and discover that half of their "Christian lifestyle" is the tradition or opinion of men.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

CONTINUED...

I do get what you're saying. But I believe that there is a balance between "feelings" and emotions. It's like interpreting tongues, a word of knowledge, or word of wisdom... these are very deep, and yes "emotional" impressions that come from the Holy Spirit. It is indeed a "feeling" or "unction" that transcends natural knowledge. But you're right, if one is not grounded in the truth of the Word, they will have wild extremes in their walk. The two must be in proper balance.

I've been through a lot. There have been times I was confused. But what I couldn't deny is what I felt and experienced in the Holy Ghost. When the Lord impresses upon me to do something, it comes as a feeling. When there is potential for danger, it comes as a feeling. When giving something or stopping in the midst of the daily grind to help someone, it comes to me as a feeling. The "felz" can be very important. I would only ask that we not discredit the reality of feelings, else we become merely "intellectual" in our knowledge and not experiential. But maybe this is just how God deals with some of us while dealing with others more analytically. I'll never forget the first time I interpreted tongues. I didn't "hear" English. And no, there were no exact verbiage impressed upon my mind like an "inner voice" or anything. It was a deeply emotional impression that I had to put the proper words to. The greater one's "biblical" vocabulary and understanding, the more accurate the interpretation will be. I asked a pastor why it was like that, because I had expected to literally "hear the words". My pastor explained that an "interpretation" is not a "translation". Four syllables, "La-coo-la-la" (for example), could have a 15 minute "interpretation". And yes, the interpreter has to "interpret", or give meaning to the utterance, based upon the emotional impressions given by the Holy Spirit. This is a good thing. Why? He explained that this means no utterance is on par with the infallibility of Scripture. Think about it, if it did come in the exact "words" impressed upon the mind, a written record of the interpretation would be as infallible as Scripture. But, once we realize an interpretation is simply an "interpretation", we realize the utterance is fallible and even limited to the interpreters vocabulary and ability to communicate what he or she is feeling through impressions given by the Holy Spirit. And so, no matter the interpretations eloquence or lack of eloquence, the Scriptures remain the only infallible source of truth. And yes, I humbly admit, I've missed the mark on several occasions. One in particular stands out to me. I was driving home from the service and the interpretation was weighing on my mind. And then I realized, I could have used a more accurate word to convey the impression the Holy Spirit gave me by which to interpret the utterance. I wept... and promised God that I would do my very best to pay closer attention next time. Of course, years later, I realize it is more of an "art" than a "science". The Lord wasn't angry with me. He was only encouraging me to take my time and be more attentive. My point is, the "felz" can be very important given the circumstance or context of what is transpiring.

The hearts of the unregenerated are indeed wicked. However, the stony heart of the born again believer has been replaced with a heart of flesh (a living heart). And God has written His law upon our hearts (the Law of Love). No born again believer has a heart that is desperately wicked. Now, when we behave in a manner contrary to the new inner nature provided by the Holy Spirit, our new heart might condemn us. But glory be to Jesus, God and God's grace is greater than our hearts.

Amen. And I want to say that in spite of any differences, I do indeed love you my brother.

I am. I can't deny that. But I see that as a good thing now. Because for decades I lived my life in accordance to a man's opinions and the traditions taught to me. And when I went to another church, I learned that I was expected to now live my life according to that man's opinions, and keep the traditions taught to me. And not all of it was in the Bible. Living in accordance to the Bible, God's Holy Word, brings a degree of peace and liberty...while also leaving no uncertainty regarding God's will. When tossed about on the raging sea of subjective human opinions and the traditions of man for so many years... this brings great peace and assurance. I can see one giving their life to keep the Words of Scripture... I just can't see one giving their life based on a single man's opinion about something. God's Word is the only solid and unchanging ground one can stand upon. So yes, I'm leery when human opinions and the traditions of man are added to the Scriptures.

New converts are not spiritually mature. Like children, they'll believe in Santa Claus if you tell them he's real. New believers are often full of zeal... and lacking in wisdom. You're right, not a new convert will wear a tin foil hat if they're told. However, as they mature in Christ... many will discover that a beard standard isn't in Scripture. Now, if beards aren't important to them, they'll probably not be phased. But if the Word of God and not adding to it is important to them...they will become troubled. Because this will only logically cause such a one to ask if anything else is not in Scripture.

When I referred to the new converts effected by beard standards, I'm talking about those with some degree of biblical knowledge. I had a friend named Jeff whose father was a pastor in a denominational church. We worked together and I shared how powerful the baptism of the Holy Spirit was. He had heard about it, but never experienced it for himself. I told him that if he wanted to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, there was no better place to find it than at my church. And he came! And yes, he did receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and was even baptized in Jesus name. But it only took a couple days for him to approach me about things he saw that weren't Scriptural mandates and were merely the opinions of the pastor. I stressed spiritual authority of the pulpit, he stressed the Word of God. He stuck around for nearly a year. But eventually he told me he couldn't handle the legalism any more... and with that... he left. Today, he doesn't go to any church. He knows the Oneness of God is in the Bible. He knows that baptism in the name of Jesus is in the Bible. He knows salvation by Acts 2:38 is in the Bible... but he also knows that so many of the strict standards imposed on us (mandatory long sleeves, no shorts, no beards, no wedding bands, watches if only the band is leather, etc.) are not in Scripture. And so he's trapped in the middle of the truth... and his fear of being manipulated into living in accordance to another man's opinions. I sought out house churches when I left, because they're open forums. He abandoned church altogether. Today he's in a limbo like spiritual state knowing the truth... but also feeling deeply wounded and manipulated by legalisms.

I hope that clarifies what I mean by new converts.

I admit, I've not known many. But those I have known already had some degree of Biblical knowledge, and knew those standards, if taught as a heavy handed mandate or one can lose their soul over them, are not necessarily Biblical.

Hey, nobody's perfect. :lol

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

I think we should define "revival". Big services and an influx of new members is only one kind of "revival". And it is hardly a "revival" of all the souls won are won to the traditions and doctrines of man.

A revival can be the subtle move of a church to be more Biblical. A return to God's Word that sheds the traditions and doctrines of man that tend to grow like weeds in churches. A return to God's Word will bring a refreshing, a newness of spiritual life, a lifting of unbiblical burdens. This can bring new life and vitality to those who are locked up, frozen under the ice, of human traditions and the doctrines of men.

There need not be a thousand new converts for this kind of revival.

Who would belittle or condemn any individual or church who would rededicate themselves to letting go of the traditions and doctrines of men and being more grounded in only the Word of God?

Is not the Word of God... enough???

Re: Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?
 

Certainly the bearded, and the ladies who trim, or even those that occasionally wear pants, are a minority in A/P churches. I dont think this necessarily points to rebellion, a backsliden condition, or any negative thing. I think the majority of this minority, like me, just dont see the validity of things like the beard prohibition. Even if said prohibition is not unanamously applied, etc. To be a biblical requirement. The fact that several threads have exceeded several pages of argument- with scripture on both sides- indicates ambiguity in the language of either the translation or the original.

Of these the strogest argument for a standard is likely women in pants.

If we were to state, that a beard, or lady who trims, is not a contention within our beleifs, perhaps some would stay, or bee drawn. I will not say this could be 10s of thousands, but perhaps 100s.

I have asked in my own thread, have noted others here including pel, who have a long history in the organizations, also ask, why the standards seem fixed on suburban, white, 40s-60s culteral norms, and the consensus seems to point to tradition.

Perhaps sending 100s away from fellowship or into the arms of false doctrine is acceptable to some for traditions sake.

In this thread no one has established a biblical precedent in favor of clean shaved. Yet, such precident precludes from platforms, is known to be judged by some, and to question it even here - has resulted in personal judgement of myself by some here.

A statement that says, we beleived this for a time, but the times have changed, that frees pastors to use those blessed with talent or gift, that might not interpret a passage the same as another. And being used - these might not seek another way.

Are we really saying we will use the apastolic "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven", to say a guy with a beard is guilty of rebellion, and thus perhaps also witchcraft, these two compared in scripture. This would indicate we think I, and MTD, and Aquila are hellbound because we have some fuzz on our face.

Really? Really for reelz

Or, having boxed ourselves in with a laundry list we defend the whole basket for a sock puppet.