Should we teach others to rebel against Standards?
 

Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYgBjWgBh5o

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Ok this taken literally would prove the anti beard,shave only Preachers are cursed. Dont remove the old landmarks?

Leviticus 19:27

You shall not round the corners of your heads neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard

This was the landmark SET BY JESUS CHRIST.Jesus is the one who gave the command in Lev. 19:27!

And YET.....todays modern Preachers will have nothing to do with it! Except to condemn it and preach that those who have a beard are rebellious!

To THEM its THEIR standard....throwing Christs standard under the bus! Shave off that unholy beard! Dont set foot on the holy platform until you get rid of that thing!

Dont tell us we need BIBLE to teach standards!

Hyperbole? May a tinge.

But did this Preacher not consider if he can preach from the OT about his neighbors landmark someone else can preach from it that if JESUS was God in the OT and he CONDEMNED shaving of beards?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

No disrespect, but the beard has become your God. If you want to have a beard have one. Just you are going to have to find some leadership that preaches that way. I'm sure It can be done. I'm literally Laughing out loud, it seems like that's all that matters to some. It's like how women are with make up or something.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

But what about the old landmark?:highfive

Who are the REBELS?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Ok well here we are your using this OT Mosaic law scripture. First off, are you Jew or Gentile? I believe your Gentile, so with that being said let's go to Acts 15:1-31. So to highlight the parts we are talking about go to verse 5-6: "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. [6] And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." Some call this council of Jerusalem.

What was the outcome? Go with me to verse 23-24: "And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: [24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment."
There you have it, we the Gentiles do not have to follow the law. Unless it's something God expressly says He hates, or it's and abomination, that never changes! For God never changes.

I found this quote from Martin Ballestero which said: "Did they have facial hair in the early days of Pentecostal outpouring in the 1900’s? Yes. Early Pentecostal pioneers such as Bro. Seymour and Bishop Haywood wore facial hair. We’ve seen the pictures.
However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear. Many Hispanic and black men feel that wearing a mustache is symbolic of masculinity. So automatically the cultural thing is throw down like an non-debatable subject. Of course that debate ignores the church’s culture. During the Hippy Generation of the 50’s and 60’s, beards sprouted on those who rebelled against society. It became their symbol. Many of that culture were draft dodgers and some even moved to Canada. A spirit of rebellion and non-conformity was connected to the beard wearing. New male converts for years have shown visible evidence of their conversion, by shaving off their facial hair when they got into an Apostolic church. The Pentecostal scene was one of clean-shaven men for over 50 years."

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Mike, do you wear tassels on the four corners of your coat? Do you wear any foreign clothing? Do you wear clothing with mixed material?

You already said you trim your beard, so you're not following the law on that anyway.

So why are you claiming we should be following Lev 19 when you don't follow it yourself, nor do you follow any of the other laws regarding clothing?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I was trying to show the folly of the preaching video. Remove not your neighbors landmark. His message was straight from the OT. Get it? So if he is going to take his message straight from the OT about keeping another mans standards what about Jesus standards?

Was he not the God of Leviticus 19:27? Did HE not set THAT STANDARD?

I do not teach commandments from Moses law. Im just showing the double STANDARD that was in play in the message.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

What are you saying you can't preach from the OT? He just used that scripture because it has a lot to do with people in a liberal mind state. He's not telling you to follow the law, what you are trying to say with Leviticus 19:27 is follow a law. He was only using a principal from the Word of God. Using a principal is different, then looking for a reason to get around a standard that's set. I got a question do you go to a church, do you have a man of God? Are you a man under authority, do you have a problem with submitting?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

This is the ridicuous tradition that brought in Preachers war against beards. So the hippies were sinners and wore beards? First off many hippies did not wear beards. Secondly we could ask did other men BESIDES hippies wear a beard in the 60's and 70's?

And yet here is the most HYPOCRITICAL thing about the whole mess. The shave only Preachers say they are keeping people from the world by preaching against beards. They say they have a rebellious spirit (I suppose this means demonic) if they want to wear a beard!

But what about the Preachers nice suits? In our society there are VERY WICKED MEN who are out there wearing suits! Think about it.

Corrupt politicians.
Wall Street kings of greed.
CIA agents who overthrow governments and assasinate people.
Hollywood actors known for fornication and worldliness.

These all have something in common. They all wear suits!

And YET.....the shave only Preachers not only never target these suit wearing sinners but actually follow right along with the stylishness and worldliness! How can we take this line of reasoning about beards seriously from Preachers who wear the same suits as the most worldly of all society wears?

But O yes they are worried about the WORLD sneaking into the Church.

But oh yes dont forget to preach about those evil beards. Someone might be tempted to think the Bible is ok with them!

And in these so called Apostolic Churches it is actually considered evidence of being saved when one SHAVES!

Well judging by the same standard that the beards were worn by some hippies therefore beards are wicked can we not make it a sign of TRUE CONVERSION if a Preacher or Church members takes off their suits?

I mean we "Apostolics" would not want the air of worldliness among us right? And what is more worldly than Hollywood? Wall Street? CIA? Corrupt politicians?

So I guess they really are not very serious about THE WORLD COMING INTO THE CHURCH!

Nope. As long as they can get by with preaching that men who wear beards have a SPIRIT OF REBELLION....they have done their duty.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Michael, this is a severely dramatic statement. Funny but dramatic. I believe people should be modest In apparel. There is cheap suits you know? I don't own a suit, I just wear button down and slacks. You missed the whole purpose of the quote of Martyn Ballestero. I quoted it for the part where he said: "However, in early Pentecost, especially in the white churches, there was a marked absence of beards. The beards seemed to disappear." And the other part where he said: "The Pentecostal scene was one of clean-shaven men for over 50 years."

That's what I've been saying, if it's been like that for 50 years who am I to come in, and tell them to change for me? What they are saying isn't immoral, their not telling you to sacrifice your children!!! I understand you feel that people are saying you have a demon because you have facial hair. Or that your rebellious because of it. I don't believe someone is rebellious for having it. But, I do believe if you go to a church that preaches against it, and you are going around to other people trying to get them to rebel against it that is rebellious. There's a root in a lot of this, that's the spirit of Absalom at work. If you can't take it, go to a church where it is accepted to have a facial hair. We all need to have a man of God though, because without that, who's going to call you out on your stuff?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

The landmark of one's neighbor, and/or the removing thereof, had nothing to do with New Testament pastoral standards of the 21st century Oneness Pentecostal movement, but was a way to determine physical property lines and ownership. So why would anyone use the verse in Deuteronomy 27:17 to preach standards or that it's not okay to teach saints to "rebel" against their pastor's standards?

Does context not matter at all?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I've literally heard sermons where a strawman argument was set up where someone rebels against what is taught by saying,"Got any Bible for that?" In the context of the sermon it was seen as something someone would do that was looking for excuses to "sin".

Sadly I've also seen the mindset of "Context isn't important as long as it makes a good sermon."....if this attitude was applied to how we portrayed people......we get in trouble for that but it's fine to take God's word out of context.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

It is very apparent you guys are not preachers. Yes context matters but there are many applications of various texts. The scripture states that marching around Jericho caused the walls to fall down. With your context only philosophy you cant connect this scripture to anything in your life.

I sure hope you dont sit in church and judge the pastor with you philosophy Im sure he has enough to fight against without having to fight through your spirit and attitude toward the preaching.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

What if a pastor decides to require tinfoil hats as a standard in the church? :heeheehee

I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does pastoral authority overstep its bounds into the realm of establishing doctrines and traditions of men?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

exactly!

Or what if your pastor tells you to stand on your head and gargle peanut butter? or forbids you to wear red, or forbids you to fellowship with other apostolic saints because he is afraid you might switch churches?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

This kinda reminds me of Islam. Local Muslim tribal clerics allegedly have the authority to issue various fatwahs which the Ummah are required to obey. This has led to an innumerable number of customs, practices, and interpretations throughout the Muslim world, and has served to even cause infighting among them, thus dividing them.

We kinda see this kind of thing among Apostolics.

I wonder what would happen if we simply stuck to the Bible?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Amen.

There has to be a point wherein the Bible loving saint of God has to draw a line and take a stand for the Word over the commandments of men.

But where is that point? When is that line crossed?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Not to mention that if we teach the commandments of men as doctrines, that undermines the entire Acts 2:38 message. Throughout the Christian world, various Apostolic organizations have become heavily criticized for their legalisms. And these legalisms have been dissected by mainstream theologians an used to illustrate propensity for error...thereby allowing them to argue why anyone should believe our position on Acts 2:38 when we're outside of Scripture on so many other things.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

sometimes you might side with a brother that you would otherwise give nuggies to, just saying :dogpat

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Amen. :lol

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Well how funny that it is the same people like Martin Ballestero who fervently quote Deuteronomy 22:5, will you ask Martin if he is a Jew or a Gentile?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

He says "It's an abomination unto Him (the Lord)". That's part of the moral law, whatever is a abomination, is a abomination to Him, Jew or Gentile. An abomination from the time of the law of Moses, until forever.
He's got a leg to stand on there, while everything in Deuteronomy 22 is Cannanite practices. And He said in Deuteronomy 12:29-30 "When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; [30] Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise."

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Sad to see some would try to justify their "anything goes" beliefs. Is this an apostolic forum or charismatic forum? Many here seem to have a hatred toward the more conservative side of Pentecost. Glad to see men like Elder Ballestero still preaching the truth.

So why do some of you have a problem with women in dresses or skirts?
Why do some of you have a problem with men with short hair and women with long hair?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

This is an Apostolic Forum which includes Conservative, Liberal, and former Apostolics.

Consider this an opportunity to defend the faith, and also to learn from others.

There are differences of belief here in Soteriology, Christology, Eschatology, and Sanctification.

There are also people outside Oneness Pentecostalism who come in from time to time to debate us.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Maybe there is some hatred toward the more conservative side of Pentecost from some people, however that does mean that everyone who disagrees with them on some issue hates them.

The issue is that is up to Pentecostal preachers like Ballestero to defend their doctrines using biblical texts and if they can not, then they can not simply use the "hatred" excuse to avoid giving a biblical answer.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

You are new here, and have no idea who here is and is not a preacher. Don't jump the gun. :)

Context matters but...?

There is no "but". Without context, anyone can make the Holy Scriptures say anything they want them to. Oh wait...

As far as the standard argument of there being many applications, that's nonsense. There is not a single verse of Scripture given to anyone anywhere that authorizes us to take a verse of the Bible out of its context to make it apply some other way than the way it was originally intended when it was inspired and written.

Therefore, as far as the Jericho example goes, we had best not be able to apply the Jericho story to ourselves, because after the walls fell down, Israel rushed in and slaughtered everyone, men, women, and children.

You know, the Puritans and others applied "suffer not a witch to live" to their lives, and slaughtered a good number of people they believed were guilty of witchcraft. Didn't matter that the context was OT law for the nation of Israel. They felt they had an "application" they could use, and so did, as they were taught by their PREACHERS.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

correct me if im wrong but it appears that you only see a history lesson in the scriptures. This is what it sounds like to me. You must be able to receive valuable principles and lessons that apply to your life even from the old test.

Do you think Paul took the scripture out of context when he used the Red Sea crossing as a type of baptism? exodus says nothing of the sort.

Im not saying twist the scriptures to conform to a man made doctrine. Im simply saying there are many applications to certain scriptures. and if thats not the case then we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I don't think it is so much having a problem with women wearing dresses or skirts. I think it is the issue of condemning women to Hell, disfellowshipping them, and treating women as though they are to be reserved for firewood if they don't wear dresses and skirts.

Also, I don't have a problem with teaching that men have short hair and that women have long hair. That's biblical. The notion of "uncut" hair for women is debatable.

I believe in Christian modesty. But I believe it is a Christian discipline, a practice. It is something that develops over time. It is something that should be embraced through study and practiced by the individual out of love and for the sake of edification. I don't see it as something that should be forced by threat of Hell.

It's like the beard standard. It's often said, "We believe in strictly sticking to the book." But the fact is... we have many traditions of man being taught for doctrines.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

We do have the right to preach against unrighteousness and sin. There is no question about that. The fact that not everything is mentioned in scripture does not mean leave it alone. Some things are obviously wrong and dont belong in the life of someone who is a christian. But I do agree that some people will challenge things that are not spelled out in black and white.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I think we can agree with that. But those things line up with things that are lawful but not expedient. They are not always "sin". For example, it's lawful to eat fast food, but it isn't expedient. Especially if one already has a weight problem. Cigarettes aren't mentioned in Scripture, but they are clearly not expedient in that they can cause cancer and numerous other health problems. We do well to be smoke free.

I think what we have is a number of people who are tired of the psychological and spiritual abuse of being dangled over Hell for every little conceivable thing, when the Scriptures don't always address every possible thing. Balanced teaching that is more true to Scripture could emphasize that while Scripture doesn't address a given thing, it isn't expedient, edifying, or glorifying to Christ.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

agreed.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

I agree with what your saying here. That would make all types and shadows only a private interpretation. That's if there is as I've heard imdividuals say "no principals and illustrations in the scripture." All I can say is they are all through it, and the Spirit bears witness. Matter of fact He's the one that shows them to me! No different then how He showed Paul that Isaiah 28:11-12 was a picture of the Holy Spirit baptism. Some people still today, (mainly those who don't believe in the Holy Spirit infilling) that that is about the heathen nations that brought them into captivity. But Paul goes and places the context on it In the middle of 1 Corinthians 14:20-22. Who showed Paul that? The same one that shows me principal's and illustrations, of types and shadows all throughout the word of God.

What Godsdrummer said in comment to this, at the end was absolutely ridiculous. So ridiculous I have no time to comment more!

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Godsdrummer is a former Apostolic minister, and I think now attends a non denominational church.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

It must be a liberal one even at that.

To have made a complete statement that said "we have no right to preach against tobacco products, drugs, pornography, just to name a few things that are not found in the Bible.(while this was only in bold, but I take it he was pointing this out on purpose.)
Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you."

That's like those people in California making a law that outlaws "“advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.
Sexual orientation change efforts are defined in the bill as “practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
SMH

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

Maybe that is the point, maybe you don't have the right, if it is not spelled out in scripture leave it alone.
And if it is not in scripture and you still teach something, expect that someone is going to challenge you.

If you are going to quote me quote me right. That is the problem is that you can't see anything that is not black and white. And it is your black and white, everyone else Must be wrong.

While we are at it, this has become more therapy for me to just type, because I was very sick last year and lost a lot of my skill of typing and putting words together. If you want to find out what I believe I have put many post together in years gone by you can just do some research on this forum and check them out.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

It starts with the history. That has to come first. The primary extant hermeneutic is called the Historical-Grammatical Method. Without the history and the context that comes with and from that history, the Bible is never going to make correct sense.

And yes, "valuable principles and lessons that apply" do exist. But that's not the argument I have been making. Look again at what I originally wrote. I am arguing against taking a verse of Scripture, divorcing it from it's context, so you can create as many applications as you see fit (not you personally, just "you" generically).

I am not against availing yourself of every application that is available based on the context. But the context has to be there and it has to be maintained as the primary element. If a verse or passage of Scripture is about one thing, you can't go and make it say something else so you can derive a personally desired application.

An example. Granted what I'm about to write was said as a joke, but it fits here to make my point. Year ago, a visiting, over-weight preacher said "Well, I've finally realized I mostly belong to the Lord". People didn't understand at first what he meant. He then said "The Bible says 'the fat belongs to the Lord', and since I'm mostly fat, I mostly belong to the LORD".

People chuckled. Whatever. But what if he had meant it and was serious. Is that what "the fat belongs to the LORD" means and is referring to? NOT AT ALL. So, except in humor, there is no way such a use of that verse applies to what the visiting preacher said.

I know an evangelist whose first name is Mark. At youth rallies he would insist the audience needed to recognize that God said in His Word that he was "perfect". He'd then quote "Mark the perfect man..." from Psalm 37:37.

Again, a lame attempt at humor. But what if he had been serious?

This is the issue I am addressing. I submit to you that you will learn more valuable lessons when you approach the text of the Bible this way. Because you will learn the correct lesson that text is teaching, based on its context, instead of the one that gets invented because it makes for good sermon fodder.

__________________________________________________ __________

As far as being "baptized into Moses..." Paul did not destroy the context or apply the text in a way that it should not have been applied. Just because the word "baptism" isn't present in Exodus doesn't mean the concept of baptism was not present, because it was, and is.

__________________________________________________ __________

Finally,

While tobacco is not given by name, the chief addictive chemical in tobacco, that is, nicotine, is, along with other drugs, covered by the Holy Scriptures as prohibited, even though we don't see the word "drugs" in the Bible, the concept of narcotics is.

And as far as pornography goes, what are the Greek words for fornication, fornicator, whoremonger, and etc.? They all come from the Greek root porne.

In fact, in 1822, a German linguist named Jakob Grimm, author of Grimm’s Fairy Tales, is credited with what became known as Grimm’s Law, a statement, that, among other things, proves that Latin and Greek words beginning with the letter “p”, in Germanic languages, such as English, are rendered with an “f”, both in written and spoken form.

In this way, pater, a Greek word, becomes father in English. Also in this way, the Greek word porne, the root of the word pornography, becomes forn-ication, (or all various, illicit, immoral sexual acts, i.e. Scripturally prohibited sexual deviancy) when translated into English, meaning the same exact thing as its Greek counterpart.

We can then very much render the word fornication as "pornication", for example. So, pornography is very much addressed by the Holy Scriptures.

For more, you can check out a couple of blogs I wrote on the subject, if you like:

https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...little-secret/

https://votivesoul.wordpress.com/201...cret-addendum/

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

All drugs? Are you against the use of any form of medicine whatsoever?

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

All Biblical typology is self-contained to the Bible. There is no such thing as extra-Biblical, Biblical typologies. So, anything extra-Biblical automatically becomes "private interpretation".

Additionally, a poor understanding of Biblical typology ends up engendering "private" interpretations. An example is above, in your quote.

You wrote that Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to give us a picture of Holy Spirit baptism. That's not true. Paul makes use of Isaiah 28:11-12 to bolster his teaching on the particular charismata "diverse kinds of tongues". When God uses someone to speak in a diverse tongue, it is just as Isaiah wrote, that God is speaking to people. Further, Paul goes on to explain that "tongues are a sign...for them that believe not..." that is, for unbelievers.

In Isaiah 28, God was sending the Assyrians upon Israel as a judgment for their sins. These warriors from far away spoke with other tongues, that is, with languages the people of Israel did not comprehend. The people of Israel were being judged by God as "unbelievers" in Him, and the sign to them that God was giving them was that men of other tongues were going to speak to them, but in reality, it was God doing the talking.

So, when an unbeliever hears someone speak with another (an-other) tongue, with God being the one really doing the speaking, it is the rest and the refreshing, but the people, the unbelievers will not hear. So what then does Isaiah say regarding the Word of the Lord? It is given to Israel in small increments (like a "stammering tongue" can only speak in small increments of sound), as a means whereby Israel might "go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken" (Isaiah 28:13).

Similarly, when the unbeliever hears God speak to them through a diverse tongue charismata, it is a sign to them that people of a strange tongue (like the Assyrians and Israel) are going to sit in judgment against them for resisting the rest and refreshing that could have been theirs had they not remained in unbelief.

So, because you have not correctly grasped the typology, you erred in your understanding of how Paul applied the verse from Isaiah, incorrectly therefore assuming that Paul took the verse out of context to make it say something it did not, when it fact, it reads exactly as Paul indicated, and fulfilled the exact same purpose for when it was originally written, thus completely preserving the context of Isaiah while making use of it in 1 Corinthians 14.

Re: Should we teach others to rebel against Standa
 

No. I mean drugs in the sense of narcotics, that are taken and/or used illegally. I was merely adopting the context (hint-hint) in which Apostolic1ness made use of the term "drugs" in order to address his point.

Since he did not mean preaching against all and everything that might be labeled a "drug", but only those narcotics which are sinful for us to use, I honored what he wrote and applied his text correctly (see how this works???).

Now, had I taken what he wrote, and applied it to all "drugs" even down to an aspirin, then I would have taken what he wrote out of context in order to make my own application of his text however I saw fit, which is the very thing we are addressing, that I am saying is a no-no.