"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, with all due respect, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY the context that James is speaking of. It seems that you are putting up the straw man argument that Aquila, and now I, am saying that you should allow prostitutes and drunkards to lead service. Where did that show up in the passage I quoted? James is very articulate in delivering his message. It has NOTHING to do with the morals of the people who are being favored or discriminated against, he is talking about the sins of the church leaders.

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Like I said, I'm surprised they don't make us drink from separate water fountains.

You poor man.

[Aquila]

I knew a guy at the Lighthouse who had issues with shaving. It always broke him out. He tried moisturizers, creams, etc. and it just didn't work. It looked painful. And when it would really get going, you could tell that it bled that morning when he saved.

When I was in the military, such a man received a profile to allow him to go without shaving. Not in the army of God. He was expected to shave no matter what.

Someone should have said, "Brother, look, that looks painful. This is your face we're talking about. Don't worry about growing it out. Let it grow." But nope. I think that's not only silly, but boarders on abuse.

And sadly, some churches might embrace him growing it out in the congregation, but due to his skin condition and sensitivity to shaving, he'd be bared from singing in the choir, playing the drums, etc.

It's just there is no BIBLE for it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

You poor man.

The only poor men are those who don't have the guts to make holy hamburger out of sacred cows and kick aside the doctrines of men. When it comes to being Apostolic... if an Apostolic man has a beard... you know he ain't no sniveling man pleaser who licks his pastor's boots every time he gives an arbitrary and unbiblical edict. You can also bet if he's older, he's been mocked, berated, condemned, shown the seat, and chided about needing to shave half the time he's graced the doors of a church.

We need to get back to the Bible.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

While James gave an example of partiality towards the rich... he sums up his point in a more general fashion:

James 2:8-9 King James Version (KJV)
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

He didn't say, "respect of rich persons". He said, "respect of persons". Meaning, if you show partiality and favoritism, you're not loving your neighbor as yourself. And so, you've sinned, because you've broken this law. You can flip it, if favoritism is shown towards the poor over the wealthy, white over black, free over bond, Greek over Jew, smoothie over bearded.... you've sinned by not loving your neighbor as yourself.

The point is, don't show partiality by arbitrary preference and favoritism.

[JoeBandy]

Someone please answer my question. What is the definition of a beard within the context of this discussion???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

Someone please answer my question. What is the definition of a beard within the context of this discussion???

Why do you ask? A beard is a beard.

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why do you ask? A beard is a beard.

So 5 oclock shadow is a beard or not? What is the length requirement for it to be considered a beard. Is there a shaving schedule to adhere to?

[Amanah]

I was searching to see if there were any Pentecostal churches that supported beards and I came across this site and thought our rebels might like it, not that I want to encourage revolt.

Join us in the Revolution!!
July 31, 2017

Bible Beard

If you are tired of skinny pants, divorce and remarriage (adultery), TV, Hollywood, immodest clothing on women, spineless preachers who refuse to preach the plain truth, then join us in the Revolution and grow a Bible Beard to protest sin in Pentecost.

Take pictures of your progress each month. A page will be created showing the picture progress of the Revolution. Also, coming soon a new page on grooming your beard.

By definition a Bible Beard is one that grows naturally. Goatees, mustaches, chin straps, manicured beards are NOT a definition a Bible Beard, but natural beards like Jesus, the Apostles and the patriarchs had. (All of them).

https://www.biblebeard.org/single-po...the-Revolution

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by JoeBandy

So 5 oclock shadow is a beard or not? What is the length requirement for it to be considered a beard. Is there a shaving schedule to adhere to?

When I was preaching in an Apostolic Church once 34 years ago I was driving to Church one night. Halfway there I remembered I had not shaved for a few days. I panicked. I had a cousin living nearby so I went to her house and used her razor to shave.