Isaiah 3 and jewelry...

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

typo correction:

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through something their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

Should be...

Notice the context is winning their lost husbands through their CONVERSATION, not ADORNMENT. And the note about gold is sandwiched between that and the note to the husbands how to respond in regards to their wives. It is strictly a wife and husband issue in 1 Peter 3. Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.

Conversation is not just in words, conversation or communication is also provided through our appearance.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Conversation is not just in words, conversation or communication is also provided through our appearance.

I agree conversation is LIFESTYLE as per context. That is what I had in mind when I said that. For that reason I said, "Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.".

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree conversation is LIFESTYLE as per context. That is what I had in mind when I said that. For that reason I said, "Not general lifestyle aside from that issue.".

Should not that be the issue always? I don't see it as just pertaining to when we are trying to do that one thing. It conveys to me in the text as this is how we are to live, period; for the sake of the issue.

[mfblume]

Onefatih2, I agree jewelry is not required as money is. But you make a good point about money compared to jewelry.

Think of this as well. 1 Peter is actually saying the woman should be MORE CONCERNED over the inward than the outward in regards to winning her husband. But those who promote this passage as banning jewelry altogether actually have disobeyed the overall inward emphasis. They in effect, as the bride of Christ, think the outward is the emphasis in their display before God, their husband! When HOLINESS is mentioned, they immediately think of the CLOTHES THEY WEAR and not the meek and quiet spirit within. They flipflop the picture to say no jewelry is allowed at all, and actually make the same mistake on the other extreme by thinking their clothing is what they should emphasize more than their hearts when they think of what pleases the Lord. While Peter generally is saying the inward is more important than the outward, the "standards of dress" people think far more of their outward than the inward!

I was amongst it and saw it firsthand. The average person in such movements who propose standards for dress get it all backwards! The vast minority are the ones who do not. And that is not just UPCI people but Mennonites and the like. ANY group that preaches standards of dress has that problem, and it is a big problem.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Should not that be the issue always? I don't see it as just pertaining to when we are trying to do that one thing. It conveys to me in the text as this is how we are to live, period; for the sake of the issue.

Peter restricted it to the wife and husband issue. And moderation is the key, anyway. DO not make jewelry an emphasis in your heart, and use it in moderation alone. Like I said, the overall issue cannot be saying never jewerly, since God simply showed Abraham (who is mentioned in 1 Peter 3) sending jewelry to Rebekah and God using it as an illustration of a holy thing. God would be contradicting Himself otherwise. The whole volume of the Book must be considered. After years of considering this issue, that is the only sane conclusion I can see.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Onefatih2, I agree jewelry is not required as money is. But you make a good point about money compared to jewelry.

Think of this as well. 1 Peter is actually saying the woman should be MORE CONCERNED over the inward than the outward in regards to winning her husband. But those who promote this passage as banning jewelry altogether actually have disobeyed the overall inward emphasis. They in effect, as the bride of Christ, think the outward is the emphasis in their display before God, their husband! When HOLINESS is mentioned, they immediately think of the CLOTHES THEY WEAR and not the meek and quiet spirit within. They flipflop the picture to say no jewelry is allowed at all, and actually make the same mistake on the other extreme by thinking their clothing is what they should emphasize more than their hearts when they think of what pleases the Lord. While Peter generally is saying the inward is more important than the outward, the "standards of dress" people think far more of their outward than the inward!

I was amongst it and saw it firsthand. The average person in such movements who propose standards for dress get it all backwards! The vast minority are the ones who do not. And that is not just UPCI people but Mennonites and the like. ANY group that preaches standards of dress has that problem, and it is a big problem.

The UPCI church I am in teaches inward first. It will reflect on the outward. Its not a banning of jewelry in of itself, its a forebearing of jewelry to pursue the greater life in inward holiness.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

The UPCI church I am in teaches inward first. It will reflect on the outward. Its not a banning of jewelry in of itself, its a forebearing of jewelry to pursue the greater life in inward holiness.

Yes, that is what is taught. But what does the average believer think like? Here is the litmus test. Ask a person what is the first thing they think of when they hear the term HOLINESS.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter restricted it to the wife and husband issue. And moderation is the key, anyway. DO not make jewelry an emphasis in your heart, and use it in moderation alone. Like I said, the overall issue cannot be saying never jewerly, since God simply showed Abraham (who is mentioned in 1 Peter 3) sending jewelry to Rebekah and God using it as an illustration of a holy thing. God would be contradicting Himself otherwise. The whole volume of the Book must be considered. After years of considering this issue, that is the only sane conclusion I can see.

Jewelry was not advised against in the OT, it was blessed. However things changed and so did the committment we are to have to Christ. Christian committment is forsaking this present world. This was not required of the JEW. They could have many fineries as long as they followed the law. Christians are compelled by the HG to drop fineries for a simple, modest, and fruitful life in Christ. However it is for the HG and spiritual heads to determine how far that compelling is to go.

[onefaith2]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, that is what is taught. But what does the average believer think like? Here is the litmus test. Ask a person what is the first thing they think of when they hear the term HOLINESS.

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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by onefaith2

Jewelry was not advised against in the OT, it was blessed. However things changed and so did the committment we are to have to Christ.

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.

Christian committment is forsaking this present world. This was not required of the JEW. They could have many fineries as long as they followed the law.

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

Christians are compelled by the HG to drop fineries for a simple, modest, and fruitful life in Christ. However it is for the HG and spiritual heads to determine how far that compelling is to go.

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.