"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Isn't clean shaved a modern CULTural thing?

no, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Western Roman Catholics were clean shaven.

Julian the Apostate grew a beard in protest to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Aquila]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Platform, platform, platform, platform.

What if we got rid of the platform???

Ever visit with the Quakers? They did it. They have meeting houses often structured like this:

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Someone address this please.

A Pastor looks out at a sinful world. He notices that certain men wear suits. He notices that Politicians who are known for lying, CIA agents known for political assasinations and deception, Wall Street traders known for greed, and last but not least HOLLYWOOD ACTORS, famous for fornication and other sins all have this in common. They wear suits!

He reasons since various types (not just one as in hippies) of sinners wear suits we must forbid our people from wearing suits.

Would he be justified?

Brother Michael, this is an interesting question. I think I see the parallel you are making. On the one hand if you have a beard, you won't be allowed to minister, while on the other hand, if you have no suit, you would not be allowed to minister. If you are called of God AND have a nice suit, you are qualified, (unless you have a beard). If you are called of God and you happen to be wearing khakis and a polo, you are DIS-qualified (even if you are clean-shaven). Is that what you're getting at?

Pardon me for stirring the pot, but I have another question.

Is it hypocrisy to forbid our ladies to wear necklaces, and allow our men to wear necklaces (in the pulpit)?

I'd like nDavid to respond to this please?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

"For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

Are you assuming that because he wore a ring he was not saved?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Platform, platform, platform, platform.

What if we got rid of the platform???

Ever visit with the Quakers? They did it. They have meeting houses often structured like this:

I'm with you on that brother.

Just a trivia question. along these lines.

How many times is the word pulpit mentioned in the KJV?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Verse 2 is a good indicator. "For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

Let me know when you see it.

It doesn't indicate their being saved or not. In fact, during that time, Christians just didn't let anyone know where they were meeting. People didn't just wonder in off the streets. They met primarily in homes, barns, caves, catacombs. I believe the case can be made that these are both saints of God come to attend the assembly. One poor, the other wealthy. The wealthy is offered the seat of honor and the poor man offered a place of subjugation.

Now, if you wish to see them as unsaved visitors, that still doesn't change the polemic. Unless you're trying to say we should only care about how we treat visitors and not the saints of God. lol

"Among themselves" is not referring to the rich man. The rich man is not a brother, nor is the poor man a brother.

Let's look...

James 2:4
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

The ESV renders it more accurately:

James 2:4 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here, James clearly states that the saints who show such partiality are making "distinctions among yourselves", not "distinctions among the visitors". If drawing distinction between the wealthy individual and the poor individual, they drew distinctions "among themselves", the rich man and the poor man are clearly accounted among their number... they are saints.

But, as I said before... even if you wished to interpret these as being visitors, the polemic doesn't change.

Of course that's not what you're saying. You're just complaining about beards and want something in scripture to point to so you can make your point that you're mad as you-know-where and you're not going to take it anymore.

Oh, we're just hammering this single passage about partiality. We can move on to Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees and their propensity to glorify the doctrines and traditions of men, over the Word of God, making it of none effect, and how such were placing unnecessary burdens upon the people, shutting men out of the kingdom, and making converts twice the child of Hell they were... but I'm relatively certain that when we get into Christ's opinion of adding human opinions, doctrines, and traditions to God's Word, you'll get pretty frustrated with the unbiblical traditions of man that you are so heartily embracing.

But you believe James said you're not to discriminate against anyone. (Not really, but we're pretending to make you feel better about the beard)

You like "what ifs" and fantasy stuff:

So here comes a Trinitarian minister into your church. He's not immoral. He prays five times a day, fasts three days a week and talks in tongues like a chinese laundromat. He wants to attend and preach.

Or what if Simple Sally comes in. She's by secular accounts a good and moral lady. She's never been saved, but wants to sing in the choir.

You know that's not what I'm saying.

Let's imagine more...

Sam comes in. He's laid back. Doesn't wish to "conform" to "institutional" church dress. He's saved, sanctified and filled with the HG. But he doesn't want to spend money on dress clothes. He believes you should be able to "come as you are." After all, there's no Bible chapter and verse telling him he's required to wear dress slacks or shirt, much less a suit and tie to be a minister and preach. So he typically wears jeans or shorts and a graphic t-shirt to church. Poor Sam. He's got anointing, too. He loves to testify, because it's the only time they let him speak. He knows the scripture and always blesses the congregation. But alas, he sits on the pew in his t-shirt and shorts. One day, he thinks, I have a dream one day I'll be able to wear my shorts and t-shirt on the platform to preach a message.

I know pastors who would give Sam the mic. Why wouldn't a pastor do so? Is he... chicken?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Are you assuming that because he wore a ring he was not saved?

No.

James refers to others as brothers and sisters throughout his writings. Verse one he addresses, "My brethren," and in verse two he says, ""For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

If these were brothers, James would not have needed to distinguish or call it "your" assembly.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I'm with you on that brother.

The Quakers have an interesting model of how they do church. They silently pray as a group. If someone is inspired to speak, they simply stand and deliver whatever God has laid upon their hearts to say. Then they are seated. They resume silent prayer and contemplate what the Lord just told them. All are free to speak as led by the Spirit, but only one at a time. A visitor wouldn't even know who the elder was until the very end when the elder drew things to a close. It's almost like house church... but everyone gets a real solid and quiet opportunity to speak. lol

I actually enjoyed my sojourn with the Quakers. I kinda miss them.

Just a trivia question. along these lines.

How many times is the word pulpit mentioned in the KJV?

I think it's only mentioned once or twice?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

No.

James refers to others as brothers and sisters throughout his writings. Verse one he addresses, "My brethren," and in verse two he says, ""For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,"

If these were brothers, James would not have needed to distinguish or call it "your" assembly.

Let's assume that you're right. How does that change James admonition not to show partiality in the church? Are you saying that if they were saints, it would be okay to favor the rich brother over the poor brother? Or is the passage essentially about not showing partiality in and of itself?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Quakers have an interesting model of how they do church. They silently pray as a group. If someone is inspired to speak, they simply stand and deliver whatever God has laid upon their hearts to say. Then they are seated. They resume silent prayer and contemplate what the Lord just told them. All are free to speak as led by the Spirit. A visitor wouldn't even know who the elder was until the very end when the elder drew things to a close. It's almost like house church... but everyone gets a real solid and quiet opportunity to speak. lol

I actually enjoyed my sojourn with the Quakers. I kinda miss them.



I think it's only mentioned once or twice?

Sounds like Gospel Assembly meetings (the ones I've been to, anyway). Also, sounds like an independent oneness pentecostal house church we were with back in Houston years ago. In fact, sounds like the first UPC I ever went to (where I got baptised). Except none of those were filled with 15 plus minute gaps of total, embarassing silence, punctuated by whispery quiet monologues about nothing doctrinally or various cat lady "testimonies". The Quakers ain't got a corner on anybody's market, though, cause back when I was a "troubled teen" the PDAP meerings were about the same. In fact, come to think of it, the PDAP meetings were more lively than the two Quaker meetings I've been to.