Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

If you asked me or my pastor or several in our church, we would say actions, appearance, attitude, etc. However if all holiness people think of the outward, its a reflection of carnal thinking. That does not mean we forsake the outward because people tend to emphasize that more while missing the point of it.

I agree it does not mean forsake something simply because MOST people think of appearance when they hear the term holiness. BUT IT SHOWS A DEFINITE PROBLEM. And the problem comes from the doctrine of banning jewelry altogether.

I also noticed something else that always comes with ban on jewelry in movements. A sharp judgmental attitude that is simply not present in movements that do not propose such bans. I am not saying ALL who propose that teaching are judgmental, but MOST are. The common person is judgmental. It really is a spirit that is not from God that goes along with that doctrine, I sincerely believe. I tried denying it for 14 years but could not any longer. Look at RDP's typical attitude amongst such movements. THAT is the typical problem I have seen for years.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jewelry cannot change to the extent that it is now sin, though, brother. THAT is the issue. Otherwise, God, Himself, who knows the end from the beginning, and knows we would read Ezekiel 16 during our time under the New Covenant, contradicted Himself. God would not use jewelry as a holy illustration due to His foreknowledge of us in the New Covenant. It simply does not make sense.
.

How can jewelry be sin? Its what we do with jewelry that can become the sin. God doesn't contradict Himself. He knew the Law could not save man, yet he had Israel follow it for generations before Christ came. That logic doesn't hold up. He foreknew Adam would sin, yet he still placed the tree in the garden. He foreknew Israel would murmur, yet he still sent Moses to redeem them from Egypt. He foreknew Saul would depart and even warned the people, but he still annointed Saul their first King.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Forsaking the world is not necessarily banning jewelry. Really, bro., it is a futile effort to use the Word to ban jewelry altogether.
.

What is forsaking the world? If not forsaking the image of it, actions of it, tastes of it? Jewelry isn't the only thing advised against. Although this thread is about jewelry, we could rightly talk about tobacco, drunkenness, idolatry, lust, etc. What stems from the desire to wear jewelry in a lady? You tell me, what emotion is it? Why do we put so much emphasis on the outward? Its the heart of the matter that is the issue, not the gold.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! And it simply smacks against reason to say it is banned totally. Your fellowship has simply gone too far with the issue, I honestly think.

I know what it is like to TRY ONE'S BEST to reasonably teach a ban on jewelry. I DID IT. I found it is a losing effort. These groups are simply wrong on this issue.

I honestly think you are missing the boat by dropping the spirit of Paul's teaching because people tend to emphasize the outward. Its really about the inward, the heart. He spirit of Paul's teaching includes the outward but not because the outward is inherently wrong, but because of how the outward affects the inward.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree it does not mean forsake something simply because MOST people think of appearance when they hear the term holiness. BUT IT SHOWS A DEFINITE PROBLEM. And the problem comes from the doctrine of banning jewelry altogether.

I also noticed something else that always comes with ban on jewelry in movements. A sharp judgmental attitude that is simply not present in movements that do not propose such bans. I am not saying ALL who propose that teaching are judgmental, but MOST are. The common person is judgmental. It really is a spirit that is not from God that goes along with that doctrine, I sincerely believe. I tried denying it for 14 years but could not any longer. Look at RDP's typical attitude amongst such movements. THAT is the typical problem I have seen for years.

I agree with your concerns. I really do. I know the HG convicts of the outward because I've seen it. God does it in spite of our fallbacks. The spirit of conviction regarding jewelry is very real. I am sad to see that most attribute it to the way they were taught, versus following the leading of the Holy Ghost. A true spiritual man should be able to separate the two.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

I agree with your concerns. I really do. I know the HG convicts of the outward because I've seen it. God does it in spite of our fallbacks. The spirit of conviction regarding jewelry is very real. I am sad to see that most attribute it to the way they were taught, versus following the leading of the Holy Ghost. A true spiritual man would be able to separate the two.

Unfortunately, the Apostolic church as a whole emphasizes being pastor-led above being Spirit-led. As a result, people don't learn to depend on God and His Word and their communication with Him for convictions; they depend on their pastor. They are conditioned to think that being Spirit-led and pastor-led are the same thing.

IMO, the reason the church has done this is because when you have a foundation of man-made rules, people aren't going to just "stumble" onto those things when following the Spirit. So the church must get involved in order to shape the "convictions" of its congregants. When they do that, they interfere with the Spirit-led process in the new believer, but since the outcome is positive in regard to outward appearance, the church doesn't have to care about that, and they repeat it again and again. In the meantime, the new believer has learned that their lifestyle and spiritual queues come from the church leadership rather than from God, and the vicious cycle begins.

I'm not opposed to pastors teaching from the Word, btw. I just wish those personal convictions and preferences were really "personal." I wish the things that weren't found in the Word were left up to the individuals to decide. Apparently, that would be too simple of an approach.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

How can jewelry be sin? Its what we do with jewelry that can become the sin.

RIGHT!

God doesn't contradict Himself. He knew the Law could not save man, yet he had Israel follow it for generations before Christ came.

That cannot apply, it is apples and oranges. Law is not sin as people are saying wearing jewelry is sin. RDP said God TOLERATED the SIN of jewelry. Law was never sin. Just an incomplete approach to God.

Rom 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

That logic doesn't hold up. He foreknew Adam would sin, yet he still placed the tree in the garden.

But Adam was not a sinner when God made him. My logic does stand. Believe me, you are fighting a losing battle in trying to show jewelry should be banned.

He foreknew Israel would murmur, yet he still sent Moses to redeem them from Egypt. He foreknew Saul would depart and even warned the people, but he still annointed Saul their first King.

None of these examples fit. Israel's deliverance was not sin, and neither was Saul's kingship. You folks are using examples that do not compare at all. You are making the same errors that RDP is rife with making. You are just not as extreme or using silly arguments as RDP is. You are saying jewelry should NEVER be worn, while it is not true Israel should never have been redeemed, nor Saul should never have been king, nor Law should never have been implemented. You are saying wearing jewelry is sin when none of the examples you listed by comparison show any sin in the picture of their general concept, but only in departing later from God and ruining their relationship with Him.

What is forsaking the world? If not forsaking the image of it, actions of it, tastes of it? Jewelry isn't the only thing advised against.

Which is it? Jewelry is banned or simply advised against? You know very well that your fellowship does not simply advise against jewelry. They ban it. Even your own words, "advised against", betray the fact that the bible is not banning jewelry in the New Testament. I understand that most of the aversion to jewelry and what you are saying is due to other folks watching you. One day you will have to realize it is not so much what man thinks as they see us, but what God thinks.

There is nothing in the bible that is considered to be an act of sin where at one time it was not a sin in the degree you are leaning to say wearing jewelry is an act of sin. And RDP's animal sacrifices issue is nonsense, because the cross made the difference, with even that indicating the sin was not the act of actually offering an animal in and of itself.

Although this thread is about jewelry, we could rightly talk about tobacco, drunkenness, idolatry, lust, etc. What stems from the desire to wear jewelry in a lady? You tell me, what emotion is it?

With most women it is really nothing more than the desire a man has in combing his hair! Really! They do not think of alluring men to commit adultery with them!

Why do we put so much emphasis on the outward? Its the heart of the matter that is the issue, not the gold.

Exactly! Which is my whole point! Your fellowship has MORE emphasis on the outward in the other extreme of what NOT to wear by far than on the heart. Try as they might, the ministers are not getting their desired emphasis through, for the majority always has and always will make outward apparel their main focus when it comes to what they think HOLINESS means.

I honestly think you are missing the boat by dropping the spirit of Paul's teaching because people tend to emphasize the outward. Its really about the inward, the heart. He spirit of Paul's teaching includes the outward but not because the outward is inherently wrong, but because of how the outward affects the inward.

And I honestly think you are going way too far with Paul's words, and not seeing how conflicting it is making God appear in His own "mind", so to speak. I think you took a good thing way too far, is all. One day you will see what I mean if you keep on thinking about Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24.

The Tammy Bakkers are wrong, obviously. But I only see two extremes that are both wrong when MODERATION is the balance and makes sense out of it all. Not bannings.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Wow. You have to really stretch to know for a fact that Isa. 4:4 is referring directly to their adornment as "filth."

Why would God say that their adornment was filth, when He's the one who adorned them in the first place? You keep complaining about people skipping over the word "...NOT...(with gold....)", but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that God decorated Israel in the first place. He took it away as a punishment for their sins.

Eze 16:7 -14 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

....Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

...Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

...I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

...I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.

...And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

...Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

...And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.



Let's get this straight:

GOD adorned Israel, because she pleased Him. (Of course, we know that later it was all taken away because she displeased Him.)

What is your straightforward interpretation of that?


IMO, the explanation for this passage, and the principle for the NT verses are found in this pivotal verse:

Ezekiel 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.

Say whaaaaat?? Where do the Scriptures say that "God was the one who adorned" the daughters of Jerusalem in Is. 3-4:________? Ho-Hum...more assumptions to NEVER be backed by demonstrations [go figure].

Now, "let's get this straight," since you folks looooove to appeal to Ezek. 16, would you have a problem w/ your Pastor [assuming you have one?] being "decked" brilliant stones [including nose/tongue rings], fine linen, etc. teaching you about modesty & temperance? Y or N:________?

You folks just simply refuse to see your bias'..........can't have it both ways young lady.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by rdp

Say whaaaaat?? Where do the Scriptures say that "God was the one who adorned" the daughters of Jerusalem in Is. 3-4:________? Ho-Hum...more assumptions to NEVER be backed by demonstrations [go figure].

Now, "let's get this straight," since you folks looooove to appeal to Ezek. 16, would you have a problem w/ your Pastor [assuming you have one?] being "decked" brilliant stones [including nose/tongue rings], fine linen, etc. teaching you about modesty & temperance? Y or N:________?

You folks just simply refuse to see your bias'..........can't have it both ways young lady.

I know some would say bible generally speaks of women being adorned. Even in Ezek it's refering to him finding Isreal adorning her and such. Many of the stuff listed in ez is feminine stuff.

It appears adornment in the bible was generally a women thing. Maybe that's why even in NT it only speaks to women about it???

[mfblume]

Get a load of this:

Originally Posted by RDP

Say whaaaaat?? ... Ho-Hum...

Now, "let's get this straight," since you folks looooove ......

can't have it both ways young lady.

RDP, why can you not talk civilly and normally?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

I know some would say bible generally speaking of women being adorned. Even in Ezek it's refering to him finding Isreal adorning her and such. Many of the stuff listed in ez is feminine stuff.

It appears adornment in the bible was generally a women thing. Maybe that's why even in NT it only speaks to women about it???

I already told him it was a WOMAN thing, and he will not deal with that, though.

We're talking to the wall, bro.

Blessings!

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

RIGHT!



That cannot apply, it is apples and oranges. Law is not sin as people are saying wearing jewelry is sin. RDP said God TOLERATED the SIN of jewelry. Law was never sin. Just an incomplete approach to God.

Rom 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
.

No its not. God blessed all of these and then later it turn out sour! Its the same thing as God blesses Jewelry to later show that jewelry causes idolatry. That is not apples and oranges. Both were not sin at first but led to the sin!

Originally Posted by mfblume

But Adam was not a sinner when God made him. My logic does stand. Believe me, you are fighting a losing battle in trying to show jewelry should be banned.
.

I see plainly what God has convicted me of. Please quit comparing this discussion to a match to see who wins or loses. This is about pleasing God and making it heaven, not seeing who the best is, we are all dung, jewelry or not/ Believe it or not brother, I'm not battling you or anyone else. If you don't believe it, fine. That doesn't change what the Bible says.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Which is it? Jewelry is banned or simply advised against? You know very well that your fellowship does not simply advise against jewelry. They ban it. Even your own words, "advised against", betray the fact that the bible is not banning jewelry in the New Testament. I understand that most of the aversion to jewelry and what you are saying is due to other folks watching you. One day you will have to realize it is not so much what man thinks as they see us, but what God thinks.
.

You really think I care about who is watching me? Please don't categorize me with the crowd of men pleasers. I want to please God, whether the elders approve of me or not. I would say the crowd that says wearing jewelry has no bearing on your heart are men pleasers, its what everyone wants to hear!

Originally Posted by mfblume

There is nothing in the bible that is considered to be an act of sin where at one time it was not a sin in the degree you are leaning to say wearing jewelry is an act of sin. And RDP's animal sacrifices issue is nonsense, because the cross made the difference, with even that indicating the sin was not the act of actually offering an animal in and of itself.
.

Eating certain animals was sin, now it isn't....

Originally Posted by mfblume

With most women it is really nothing more than the desire a man has in combing his hair! Really! They do not think of alluring men to commit adultery with them!

.

Paul and Peter did not mention adultery for their reasons.. where did you get that? Jezebel? Its natural for a man to be prideful and puffed up within himself, its called ego but that can become sin.. we are in a sinful human nature.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! Which is my whole point! Your fellowship has MORE emphasis on the outward in the other extreme of what NOT to wear by far than on the heart. Try as they might, the ministers are not getting their desired emphasis through, for the majority always has and always will make outward apparel their main focus when it comes to what they think HOLINESS means.

.

So you don't throw the standard out.. you teach it right...The way Paul and Peter wanted it taught.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And I honestly think you are going way too far with Paul's words, and not seeing how conflicting it is making God appear in His own "mind", so to speak. I think you took a good thing way too far, is all. One day you will see what I mean if you keep on thinking about Ezekiel 16 and Gen 24.

The Tammy Bakkers are wrong, obviously. But I only see two extremes that are both wrong when MODERATION is the balance and makes sense out of it all. Not bannings.

I honestly think you are dismissing too much as what they are saying. But we can agree to disagree for now. I've given all these standards a HG litmus teach in my life. Can't back away from where I've been led to stay. I just don't condemn people like i used to

Tammy Bakker? Yea its sad. She probably did what she did because she was taught holiness when she was growing up to be only outward, maybe she was force fed it.. who knows but its sad the direction she chose.