1. You are correct in your definition, jewelry is not inherently evil. However, your comparing the wearing of jewelry to marijuana (substance abuse) is inappropriate and off base. Would you care to tell someone wearing a wedding ring or a Rolex that they are no less than someone smoking marijuana? You have taken a biblical principle and made a crude, rigid rule out of it. A rule that is so incomplete, no one can rightly defend it. Ministers are constantly revising their definitions to "plastic buttons that appear to be gold," and "hair pieces that resemble expensive diamonds." Here is your conundrum. You can never really justify half of what your brethren wear, because by design, most clothing is ornamentation on some level. There are ties that are more flashy than some necklaces. There are beautiful beads and and buttons that cost more than some rings. Is it bright colors or shininess, is it texture or design, that is so displeasing to God? I suppose you take issue with the wearing of such like objects or clothing? Should we boycott Nordstrom's and Saks Fifth too then? Would you have women wear burlap sacks? This approach accomplishes precisely what you have become, a crude judge of your brethren.
2. The biblical principle here is modesty and moderation. It is error to exclusively single out the wearing of jewelry as being equal to idolatry and paganism. You have attempted to "fill in the blanks" where scripture is silent. You and others have superseded the Holy Bible with this erroneous doctrine! I can give you more scripture for God's favor of ornamentation, precious stones and metals, and jewelry, than you can with your twisted hunk of convoluted junk meanings.
3. I see you have no problem putting your brethren on trial for what they wear. This is precisely the same problem the Apostle Paul dealt with in his epistles. Its called Pharisaism. It is also the basis for legalism. Your extreme example of wearing a bikini on the platform fails to address the issue. You are trapped my friend! To uphold this doctrine, you must continue to resist the Apostle Paul's admonishments and rebukes against condemning your brethren, following strange and diverse doctrines, and causing division. You have usurped the domain of God, in that you and others are willing to judge the intent of the heart, and prove mens rea upon all those that wear jewelry or such like apparel!
Don't have the time, but will simply ask if you understand the meaning of the word "not," as in "not.....the wearing of G-O-L-D"?????????? Seriously, what's hard to see here?
Wish I had time to deal categorically w/ your assertions above, but will just quickly say that we try to be as consistent as possible, or do you advocate inconsistency, & do you have any of your own????
Don't have the time, but will simply ask if you understand the meaning of the word "not," as in "not.....the wearing of G-O-L-D"?????????? Seriously, what's hard to see here?
Wish I had time to deal categorically w/ your assertions above, but will just quickly say that we try to be as consistent as possible, or do you advocate inconsistency, & do you have any of your own????
What about NOT wearing of apparel?
1 Peter 3:3 KJV Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Aww, c'mon, mfblume,
next thing you know you'll be saying it's all right to wear clothes
despite the clear words of the Apostle Peter.
What part of "not" don't you understand?
You are on a slippery slope, Bro.
Better repent and get right with God.
Gawrsh. Yeah, I get your point. Woe is me. Woe is me.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Note that this scripture is addressing only wives. Are married women allowed to wear clothes, rdp?
this is part of a post by Timlan from a couple of years ago about Marvin Hicks:
***********************
I don't know how embellished this story was but he has a point. It is really one of the best refutations to those who mindlessly and stupidly Polly-Parrot I Peter 3: 3 to condemn wearing a watch or other jewelry.
Here's the scripture in question:
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; (KJV)
Hicks told this anecdote many times in campmeeting messages.
After a campmeeting service he preached Hicks said a 12-13 year old boy approached him.
The boy said: "Preacher, do you believe in wearing a wristwatch?"
Hicks told congregations: "Well, he caught me redhanded. I had one on."
After Hicks told the kid "yes son, it's okay to wear a wristwatch", the boy said "well, have I got a scripture for you" and proceeded to tell the camp evangelist off.
After reading 1 Peter 3: 3 about the "wearing of gold" the boy began to lambast Hicks about preaching a campmeeting with a wristwatch on.
Hicks stopped the boy and calmly told him: "Son, read the rest of that verse. The part about 'apparel.'
The boy said "Apparel? What's that ?"
Hicks: "Son, that's your britches. That's the clothes you wear."
(I've pictured this conversation in my mind's eye over the decades ... it must have been hilarious in person.)
Hicks then told the kid: "Son, I'll make a deal with you. You're chewing me out for wearing a wristwatch and your scripture also says 'the wearing of apparel' in the same verse.
"So I'll make a deal with you, son. I'll take my wristwatch off if you'll take your clothes off."
Well, the kid didn't take the camp evangelist up on his offer.
This was some 30 years ago.
Looking on many pentecostal message boards, it seems a good segment of oneness pentecostalism is no less ignorant.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
this is part of a post by Timlan from a couple of years ago about Marvin Hicks:
***********************
I don't know how embellished this story was but he has a point. It is really one of the best refutations to those who mindlessly and stupidly Polly-Parrot I Peter 3: 3 to condemn wearing a watch or other jewelry.
Here's the scripture in question:
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; (KJV)
Hicks told this anecdote many times in campmeeting messages.
After a campmeeting service he preached Hicks said a 12-13 year old boy approached him.
The boy said: "Preacher, do you believe in wearing a wristwatch?"
Hicks told congregations: "Well, he caught me redhanded. I had one on."
After Hicks told the kid "yes son, it's okay to wear a wristwatch", the boy said "well, have I got a scripture for you" and proceeded to tell the camp evangelist off.
After reading 1 Peter 3: 3 about the "wearing of gold" the boy began to lambast Hicks about preaching a campmeeting with a wristwatch on.
Hicks stopped the boy and calmly told him: "Son, read the rest of that verse. The part about 'apparel.'
The boy said "Apparel? What's that ?"
Hicks: "Son, that's your britches. That's the clothes you wear."
(I've pictured this conversation in my mind's eye over the decades ... it must have been hilarious in person.)
Hicks then told the kid: "Son, I'll make a deal with you. You're chewing me out for wearing a wristwatch and your scripture also says 'the wearing of apparel' in the same verse.
"So I'll make a deal with you, son. I'll take my wristwatch off if you'll take your clothes off."
Well, the kid didn't take the camp evangelist up on his offer.
This was some 30 years ago.
Looking on many pentecostal message boards, it seems a good segment of oneness pentecostalism is no less ignorant.
I've responded to this before & again above. I personally know Marvin Hicks, but I believe that he's in error here.
Note that this scripture is addressing only wives. Are married women allowed to wear clothes, rdp?
I've already answered this before, but here she goes again [probably to no avail]: The actual Greek of I Ptr. states "....or putting on of apparel ADORNING." Thus, the Greek text isn't saying that women should not wear clothes [honestly, this is not even worth responding to], but rather the context is showy/extravagant/ostentatious apparel based upon the Greek term for "adorning" that appears after the term "apparel," but not after thern "gold." So much for your "bump"!!
Concerning the gender applicability of the verse, are you suggesting that husbands can be decked out in jewels, w/ long braided hair, & fancy apparel?? I thought there was "neither male, nor female" when it comes to salvifical issues???
I've already answered this before, but here she goes again [probably to no avail]: The actual Greek of I Ptr. states "....or putting on of apparel ADORNING." Thus, the Greek text isn't saying that women should not wear clothes [honestly, this is not even worth responding to], but rather the context is showy/extravagant/ostentatious apparel based upon the Greek term for "adorning" that appears after the term "apparel," but not after thern "gold." So much for your "bump"!!
Concerning the gender applicability of the verse, are you suggesting that husbands can be decked out in jewels, w/ long braided hair, & fancy apparel?? I thought there was "neither male, nor female" when it comes to salvifical issues???
Sorry Charlie, try again!
Didn't see this before, sorry.
(And my wife just left for some errands. Excuse me, I hafta make a quick phone call! )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I've already answered this before, but here she goes again [probably to no avail]: The actual Greek of I Ptr. states "....or putting on of apparel ADORNING." Thus, the Greek text isn't saying that women should not wear clothes [honestly, this is not even worth responding to], but rather the context is showy/extravagant/ostentatious apparel based upon the Greek term for "adorning" that appears after the term "apparel," but not after thern "gold." So much for your "bump"!!
Sorry Charlie, try again!
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
Its funny to me now after years of thinking I knew the word to find out that what I preached was false. To the point that I was just like RDP. So I know I cannot change his mind on this but for those of you with a searching heart, one that will love your brother regardless of his standards or lack there of, I offer this up.
I Peter 3:2 While the world sees your good conduct coupled with fear.
3:3 Whose outward decoration is not based on the putting on of elaborate clothing like elaborated braiding of the hair, and wearing much gold and costly array.
3:3 But is instead comes from the hidden man of the heart, Those things that are not corruptible like a meek and quiet spirit, which is great in the sight of God.
Read it as you see fit. Jewelery has never been a sin the outlandish putting on of costly array and the attitude from which it stemms from is where the sin is.
__________________
Study the word with and open heart For if you do, Truth Will Prevail
Yeah, I get your point. Woe is me. Woe is me. 
for rdp.
)
Hybrid Mode
