To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Acts 15 begins with a group of Pharisee converts requiring the Gentile converts to be circumcised and follow Moses Law "for salvation." Paul and Barnabas disagreed and stated that this salvation came with the Gentiles receiving the same Holy Ghost as they received. Peter faced this fellowship dilemma when he was sent to the Gentile house of Cornelius. Likewise, he was shown the Holy Ghost decided what God deemed clean and unclean. So, in Acts 15, the Apostolic council of apostles and elders decided to establish a means by which the Gentile brethren could fellowship their Jewish brethren while not offending them--but nowhere does it say the Gentiles' adherence to this decision was Heaven and Hell. Instead, to the Gentiles, it says, "If you do this, you will do well." (Acts 15:29)

It is clearly implicit because the pollutions of idolatry, that is to say, the fornication and eating raw, strangled animals still with blood in them as part of ritualistic idolatry are actually anti-Torah. Therefore they are Torah mandates that determine heaven or hell for the one(s) who disobey, whether Jew or Gentile.

I know you realize this. It's clear. So, even if James or the others never officially said Gentiles must do these things in order to be saved, their salvation was nonetheless dependent upon their obedience.

You using Bro. Benincasa as an example is like this. He did not do what he did because he feared damnation, but, instead, he did it as a matter of fellowship. That said, unlike the Jerusalem Council, that brother had no legitimate reason to ask Bro. Benincasa to do as he requested. So, I agree with your conclusion about acting out of love.

You make my point. The Jerusalem Council had every right to make their decisions binding because they had legitimate reasons for making those decisions, specifically they had Torah regulations already in place. The brother did not, as you admit. I agree.

But I also agree with Brother Benincasa's decision, because as far as I can tell from the story, he cared more about his brother's conscience than he did about his Fu Manchu, and rightly so. So, impose upon yourself whatever extra-Biblical mandates you feel you need to in order to gain your brother, instead of risking losing him. Paul said as much about not eating certain foods if they make his brother to offend. But he also made it clear ordering people to abstain from certain foods is a demonic doctrine that cannot be tolerated. So, shave if your close brother is going to offend over it, but never let him command you to shave.

However, we aren't talking in this thread, or at least I wasn't, about a brother asking for a favor, to make peace through an oath. We are or at least I am, talking about elders and leaders who, not just as brothers asking for favors who desire to keep their consciences undefiled, are actually giving orders coupled with threats of a punitive nature if compliance is not received because they claim not complying actually defiles you. These are two very different things.