"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

You poor man.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

You poor man.

The only poor men are those who don't have the guts to make holy hamburger out of sacred cows and kick aside the doctrines of men. When it comes to being Apostolic... if an Apostolic man has a beard... you know he ain't no sniveling man pleaser who licks his pastor's boots every time he gives an arbitrary and unbiblical edict. You can also bet if he's older, he's been mocked, berated, condemned, shown the seat, and chided about needing to shave half the time he's graced the doors of a church.

We need to get back to the Bible.

[JoeBandy]

What is the definition of a beard in the context of this discussion?

[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 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.

[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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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.

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

While James gave an example of partiality towards the rich... he sums up his point in a more general fashion:

James 2:8-9 King James Version (KJV)
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

He didn't say, "respect of rich persons". He said, "respect of persons". Meaning, if you show partiality and favoritism, you're not loving your neighbor as yourself. And so, you've sinned, because you've broken this law. You can flip it, if favoritism is shown towards the poor over the wealthy, white over black, free over bond, Greek over Jew, smoothie over bearded.... you've sinned by not loving your neighbor as yourself.

The point is, don't show partiality by arbitrary preference and favoritism.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by n david

Okay, I'll play your game. I won't call them drunkards or whores. James' writing only says a rich man and poor man came into the assembly. He didn't say they were brothers or fellow christians, just a rich man and a poor man. From the writing, it would not be wrong to assume these were secular and unsaved men.

So the issue remains. To use James' words and say there should be no discrimination, no guidelines for those used in ministry -- where do you draw the line?

No brother. It is not "just a rich man and a poor man". In fact the KJV never mentions rich or poor. It only mentions what they are wearing. Why do you want to focus on the fact that it is not mentioned (whether are not they are brothers), yet you ignore what IS mentioned. The fact that is mentioned is that the clothes they are wearing, influences where they are allowed to sit. You are ASSUMING the size of their bank accounts, and you may be right or you may be wrong. Everyone who wears plain clothing is not a pauper, as everyone who wears "gay" clothing is not necessarily rich.

What James is saying is amazing in how relevant it is to this day. Where you sit is tied to your clothing. Whether it is "appropriate" for the platform. Your own testimony reveals the relevance of the scripture after nearly two thousand years.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN WE ARE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF OUR MESSAGE RATHER THAN THE COST OF OUR CLOTHES.

Do you have a "standard" that says that a preacher must wear a suit to preach, whether spoken or unspoken?

Do you have to wear a suit to be in the pulpit?

I believe these are the things James was addressing.

These are the things that you believe I am taking out of context.

Whichever one of us is right, the fact is that James identifies it as sin and it is clear that it is the ones with the say over who sits where are doing the sinning.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In fact the KJV never mentions rich or poor.

What KJV are you reading?

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool

But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?

Do you believe James is talking about ordinary Joe Friday when he writes about a gold ring, good apparel and gay clothing, then later talks about RICH men?