"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

First, the example I gave had no prohibition against beards. None. That Pastor and church allowed men with facial hair in ministry and on the platform.

Second, stop trying to twist and add to what I'm saying.

Your point was that there were no scriptures to justify the prohibitions listed, so one doesn't need scripture to prohibit wearing a beard, am I right?

And by illustrating that, you essentially lumped men who wear beards in with all those you described.

[derAlte]

I wonder what it was like for Joshua after his elevation to the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses. Joshua, not being Moses, undoubtedly exercised a different leadership style than his predecessor. I’m almost positive that as time went by and as he became surer of himself as a leader, folks in the congregation began to complain about how he was doing things.

“Moses never did things this way,” I can hear them muttering. “We’re leaving the old paths.”

Moses had been the leader of Israel for 40 years when he died. He was the only leader they had ever known and folks were used to his way of doing things. But Joshua was a leader called by God for new times in order to lead Israel into places they had never been before. Joshua was to take a transitory people and turn them into a sedentary people.

Never did Joshua desire to stray from the eternal Word of Jehovah given to Moses. I can’t help but guess that perhaps some of the older people in the camp, with a fondness for Moses’ habits had a hard time separating these habits and opinions of the man Moses from the God-breathed commandments received on Sinai. And after he died, perhaps some of these folks, whose eyes were focused backward may have figuratively joined Satan as he disputed about the body of Moses.

As I age, and as I observe those around me age, I perceive that in myself and in many others, a certain reaction to change. It seems to be an attitude of disapproval over the new generation. I also perceive in some of my contemporaries the same failure to separate past ways of operating that were created in reaction to past circumstances, from the eternal Word of God. I think there are many older men and women today who would prefer that we preserve the Pentecost of the 1950s, with its flattops and buzzcuts on men, clean-shaven faces, white long-sleeved shirts, bow-ties, women’s hose with seams, beehive hairdos, and a certain fierce and mean demeanor trying to see who can out-ugly one another while contending for the truth.

I don’t know why Satan would want the dead body of the prophet. Perhaps he wanted to use it as a focal point for idolatry by getting men’s eyes off the God of Moses and the message of Moses and onto the corpse of Moses. I fear that, subconsciously, the folks who are desperately trying to turn back the clock and preserve a lost world, are doing the same thing as Satan by disputing about the dead body of 1950’s Pentecost and by doing so, are enshrining a lost, dead world, instead of the still-Living God of that dead, lost world.

God does not change. Times do change. How we apply the eternal truths of holiness and separation will change depending upon the challenges of the current generation. But the eternal message of Jesus Christ, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son remains the same. There is only One God and we are to be saved through the New Birth. God wants a separated people who define their separation and all other matters by His eternal Word. He wants us to love one another. That will never change.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

You are excelling on this thread.

I'm just seeing the partiality.

They say it isn't a sin.

They admit there is no Scripture that remotely speaks of beards in a negative light.

And yet... they believe that policies discriminating against brothers (brothers!) with a beard is just A-Okay. Oh, but they don't dare say those brothers are in sin over the beard, and so they have no issue with bearded brothers attending, giving money, and filling the pews, but God forbid that brother wish to sing in the choir.

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

[Tithesmeister]

First, I didn't bring up James, you did. This is true. In response to your platform standards that there is no chapter and verse for. My position is that there is chapter and verse against what you are doing. You believe I am taking the scripture out of context? It sure doesn't seem that way to me. I was showing Aquila an example of ministry/platform guidelines/expectations which included things which aren't found in chapter and verse.

It seems to me that your argument is "that because we do it this way, it is okay".

Second, James is referencing Leviticus which is about attitudes towards poor vs rich. Showing favor to the rich over the poor is not the same as setting guidelines/expectations for those in ministry.

Brother, it sure sounds incredibly similar to me, and seemingly to Aquila. While you say that it is a respecting rich versus poor issue, the passage very specifically mentions clothing and the quality of that clothing in regard to where they are allowed to sit. This is exactly what you did in your platform standards list that you have admitted that you have no scripture to support. Then you claimed that it had no relevance, did you not?

I'm going to proceed carefully here, because if I provoke you to anger, my experience tells me that your ears will close. I would rather, for myself, assume that all scripture is for me. Obviously it may not apply to the current discussion, but I think it is dangerous to assume that a situation with so many similarities does not apply. Please accept it in the spirit it is intended.

As I stated previously in a post to Aquila - using James out of context? would require Pastors and churches to use anyone, including sinners, in ministry and on the platform. You would not be able to discriminate against anyone, using that logic.


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. Meanwhile you pretend that it has nothing to do with you, while simultaneously affirming that you have the discretion to influence who sits in the "good place". Please do not pretend that this is irrelevant. Instead let me urge you to rightly divide the word and strive to understand how it could be applied to your situation. I believe if you look for the way, you will find it. I also believe if you want to believe it does not apply to you, and that it is out of context, you will be able to find that as well.

I am moving on. Hopefully you are not thinking that I am trying to hurt you. I believe that my intentions are good and I hope you can see it that way.

God bless you my brother, in Jesus name.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by derAlte

I wonder what it was like for Joshua after his elevation to the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses. Joshua, not being Moses, undoubtedly exercised a different leadership style than his predecessor. I’m almost positive that as time went by and as he became surer of himself as a leader, folks in the congregation began to complain about how he was doing things.

“Moses never did things this way,” I can hear them muttering. “We’re leaving the old paths.”

Moses had been the leader of Israel for 40 years when he died. He was the only leader they had ever known and folks were used to his way of doing things. But Joshua was a leader called by God for new times in order to lead Israel into places they had never been before. Joshua was to take a transitory people and turn them into a sedentary people.

Never did Joshua desire to stray from the eternal Word of Jehovah given to Moses. I can’t help but guess that perhaps some of the older people in the camp, with a fondness for Moses’ habits had a hard time separating these habits and opinions of the man Moses from the God-breathed commandments received on Sinai. And after he died, perhaps some of these folks, whose eyes were focused backward may have figuratively joined Satan as he disputed about the body of Moses.

As I age, and as I observe those around me age, I perceive that in myself and in many others, a certain reaction to change. It seems to be an attitude of disapproval over the new generation. I also perceive in some of my contemporaries the same failure to separate past ways of operating that were created in reaction to past circumstances, from the eternal Word of God. I think there are many older men and women today who would prefer that we preserve the Pentecost of the 1950s, with its flattops and buzzcuts on men, clean-shaven faces, white long-sleeved shirts, bow-ties, women’s hose with seams, beehive hairdos, and a certain fierce and mean demeanor trying to see who can out-ugly one another while contending for the truth.

I don’t know why Satan would want the dead body of the prophet. Perhaps he wanted to use it as a focal point for idolatry by getting men’s eyes off the God of Moses and the message of Moses and onto the corpse of Moses. I fear that, subconsciously, the folks who are desperately trying to turn back the clock and preserve a lost world, are doing the same thing as Satan by disputing about the dead body of 1950’s Pentecost and by doing so, are enshrining a lost, dead world, instead of the still-Living God of that dead, lost world.

God does not change. Times do change. How we apply the eternal truths of holiness and separation will change depending upon the challenges of the current generation. But the eternal message of Jesus Christ, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son remains the same. There is only One God and we are to be saved through the New Birth. God wants a separated people who define their separation and all other matters by His eternal Word. He wants us to love one another. That will never change.

Amen.

[Aquila]

I have a dream that my children will one day attend a church where they will not be judged by the amount of hair on their faces, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I have a dream that my children will one day attend a church where they will not be judged by the amount of hair on their faces, but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

A - I notice you did not say "sons" but "children".
So, you would have no problem with a female saint with a beard on the platform.
Now, seriously, the only thing this entire thread is showing is that you and a few others have some issues with wanting to show how much you are persecuted by evil pastors.
If I remember correctly, at the beginning of this thread you even called Bro Epley a liar, basically, for saying that he had never heard of someone calling a beard a sin.
So, whatever...

[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?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - I notice you did not say "sons" but "children".
So, you would have no problem with a female saint with a beard on the platform.

Are you saying you'd judge a woman based on her facial hair or lack thereof over the content of her character?

Now, seriously, the only thing this entire thread is showing is that you and a few others have some issues with wanting to show how much you are persecuted by evil pastors.

Nope. I wanted to know if teaching that a beard is "sin" was a false doctrine. That was firmly established by all parties involved. But then it evolved. If a beard isn't a "sin".... then why treat men with beards like second class citizens in the Kingdom of God?

If I remember correctly, at the beginning of this thread MTD even called Bro Epley a "liar" for saying that he had never heard of someone calling a beard a sin.
So, whatever...

I think we've all heard men say, or insinuate, that growing a beard was sin on account of it representing hippies and "rebellion", or on account of being in violation of pastoral edict on standards. If you haven't, I evidently came up in a far more conservative church than y'all did.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Someone address this please.

A Pastor looks put 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?

Nope. I'd say he needs a Xanax.