Are Beards The Mark Of The Beast?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by n david

So I have a question. If beards and dress standards is keeping us from revival ... why hasn't there been a revival among people who left the UPC and had hair cutting parties and grew their beards out like Duck Dynasty? From what you and Aquila claim, beard and dress standards are hindering "tens of thousands" of hungry believers. So where's this revival among those liberated from the awful beard prohibition and dress standards?

Why should God bless them with revival if they dump truth like Oneness and Acts 2:38?

[berkeley]

He’s gay?

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - There is no hatred here. I just wonder why EB is still trying to bring you to your senses.
I have basically given up.
You have become a perfect example of what Paul wrote in Romans 1.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by berkeley

He’s gay?

There is a lot more in Romans 1 than that...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

A - There is no hatred here. I just wonder why EB is still trying to bring you to your senses.

I'll tell you why. EB isn't trying to bring me to my senses. Nor does he know or care about me personally. All he is concerned with is leveling enough character assassination to distract from clear points that disagree, challenge, or refute what he thinks about things. It's all just insults. He doesn't use curse words, but... think about it... he might as well.

I have basically given up.

Excellent! When you give up trying to control others you can have honest dialogue and allow them to answer to God personally. And only God knows the thoughts and intentions of the heart, and therefore, only God can truly judge justly.

You have become a perfect example of what Paul wrote in Romans 1.

One can judge me all day long. And one's opinion of me, and even my opinion of myself, matters little.

However, one can note that few can't refute anything that I've said in my last post on the topic.

I'd also like to remind you that you don't really know me. You know what I've posted. And even that is often misinterpreted by detractors until it no longer reflects what was intended. I've gotten quite a bit of encouragement in private message. Those who take the time to read what I'm actually saying see very little issue with most of what I've shared. Now, those who believe what others say about me... well... they're believing an illusion presented by liars and character assassins who simply don't like what I have to say. lol

For example, EB. Isn't he special? lol EB likes to take what you said, twist it into something totally alien to what you actually said, tear you apart based on the illusion he created himself, and hold you to the condemnation. It's all smoke and mirrors, lies and deception. For example, one might identify more with the Democrats healthcare policies and necessary social safety net programs (TANF, SSI, etc.). However, EB will then publically paint that person as a hardcore communist, tear the caricature he just created for them apart with personal insults, and then hold them to the image he feels he's destroyed and discredited. And simple minds don't see it for what it is... a personal attack bordering on slander designed to merely discredit the individual personally, not a spiritual discussion between brethren about why a Christian might hold such views in good faith. Another good example is, if you're a vet who supports medical cannabis, he'll paint you as though you're a Cheech & Chong pot head. He then convinces himself that is what you are, tells others that is what you are, and continues to attack the silly illusion he's created in his own head. And in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. He's only arguing with himself. lol

Sometimes it's entertaining, because he believes his own illusions about people so sincerely, and then he reveals his own spirit by being ugly to what he's convinced himself is that person.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Why should God bless them with revival if they dump truth like Oneness and Acts 2:38?

Nice backpedaling.

In other words, you can't support your claim that if we would just drop the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in.

Now you include the caveat that they must still be oneness and new birth believers, which excludes every ex-dress standard believing church I know. They may be oneness still, but almost every one have watered down the new birth and now believe a person is saved by grace through faith and the HG is a spiritual gift meant to empower believers.

Do you know of a single church which allows beards and doesn't have a dress code which is oneness and new birth believing?

The truth is somehow Oneness, the New Birth and standards of dress are connected. And when one is watered down or removed, one or more of the others will also be.

The notion that "tens of thousands" will suddenly be saved if we only kick dress standards and allow beards is a lie from hell. Don't be deceived.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by berkeley

He’s gay?

Absolutely not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Nice backpedaling.

In other words, you can't support your claim that if we would just drop the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in.

Now you include the caveat that they must still be oneness and new birth believers, which excludes every ex-dress standard believing church I know. They may be oneness still, but almost every one have watered down the new birth and now believe a person is saved by grace through faith and the HG is a spiritual gift meant to empower believers.

Do you know of a single church which allows beards and doesn't have a dress code which is oneness and new birth believing?

The truth is somehow Oneness, the New Birth and standards of dress are connected. And when one is watered down or removed, one or more of the others will also be.

The notion that "tens of thousands" will suddenly be saved if we only kick dress standards and allow beards is a lie from hell. Don't be deceived.

Modesty is biblical. Dress standards are biblical. Letting down dress standards isn't going to bring revival.

NDavid, could you share your thoughts on what I posted in post #483? Here's a link back to it:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=483

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

There is a lot more in Romans 1 than that...

So very true. The sins listed in Romans 1 are:

- Idolatry
- Homosexual perversion
- Covetousness
- Malice
- Envy
- Murder
- Strife
- Deceit
- Maliciousness
- Gossip
- Slander
- Hatred towards God.
- Insolent (showing a rude and arrogant lack of respect)
- Haughty
- Boastful
- Inventors of evil
- Disobedience to parents
- Foolishness
- Faithless
- Heartless
- Ruthlessness

And not only do those in question here practice these things, they take pleasure in others who practice them also.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Beards and dress standards aren't necessarily keeping us from revival. The way I see it is there are several things I can think of that are keeping us from revival. And it probably isn't limited to what I'm listing here. Here's my take on it:

1.) Sin
2.) Worldliness
3.) Pride/Elitism
4.) Lack of genuine love.
5.) Unbiblical traditions of men being taught as doctrine

I can agree with 1-4. I don't believe 5 has any bearing on God filling multitudes with the HG.

I was focusing on what MtD claimed:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I will go as far as to say I believe there WOULD BE A REVIVAL if Apostolics repented of the doctrines of men in the area of dress code.

Like teaching women are in sin by wearing their hair long...but not necessarily uncut.

Men with beards are rebellious, perhaps gay or drug users, and if not still not worthy to stand on the sacred platform.

If one would say revival is getting more people in Church just these two things IMO would bring tens of thousands of hungry believers in.

"Just these two things...would bring TENS OF THOUSANDS."

So I want to know why haven't some of these ex-A/P churches, who dumped dress codes and for a while still believed Oneness and New Birth, haven't had "tens of thousands" flooding their churches. Let me clarify, I know why it hasn't happened. It hasn't happened because it's a lie.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not against dress standards, because the Bible is clear about modesty. Anyone who would argue that I'm against dress standards is lying to you. Now, my idea of necessary dress standards might differ from some more strict sects in the Apostolic movement, but I do believe in dress standards. There's no need for low cut blouses, mini-skirts, tight women's jeans, sheer see-through clothing, etc. on women who profess to know Jesus. Solid biblical teaching will inspire women to aspire to biblical Christian modesty. Men have no need to go without shirts, wear muscle shirts in public, tight pants, short-shorts, either. If a man professes to know Jesus, he will also aspire to Christian modesty. Modest clothing will also not reflect any extreme in style or extravagance.

Good.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Modesty is a Christian discipline that Christians grow into. I do not think that a woman is in "sin" if she continues to wear pants after being saved. I believe that most likely, given the nature of the design of women's pants, her pants are immodest. Sound, Christ centered, love focused, Christian teaching will bring to bear a desire to be more modest, and therefore the desire to wear skirts and dresses.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm against dangling women over Hell because of women's pants, makeup, jewelry, wedding bands, etc. I do believe that a woman will deepen her practice of Christian modesty as she matures in Christ. I think preachers who dangle women over Hell because of pants, makeup, etc., are just too lazy to engage in sensible, loving, and inspiring Christian teaching that is rooted directly in the New Testament. It's easier to tell someone they better line up or go to Hell because you don't have to explain anything. Nor do you have to answer any questions or think and consider other circumstances outside of the fundamentalist paradigm. And those who might have questions, or who might disagree at that moment must either line up, or they will face rejection from the body, be labeled rebellious, and eventually choose to leave. It's a lazy, cold, mechanical, and unloving way to rush the process of sanctification.

Eh. I don't believe pointing fingers and screaming a new convert lady is going to split hell wide open for wearing pants, etc. Though, I honestly haven't had a Pastor who did this. Pastors I know have given sound, biblical teaching on modesty and dress.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, please don't think I oppose dress standards or Christian modesty. I just approach it differently.

Multifaceted?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sin is failure to love God or others as one's self. Any number of actions from lying, to idolatry, to lust, to adultery, or even murder, are sin. Sin will hinder revival. Sin must be confessed, renounced, and repented of. Restitution should be made if applicable.

"Sin can never enter there," so it stands to reason that sin would hinder people from receiving the HG.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Worldliness is not only about wardrobe. It is how one identifies themselves. It is how one dresses the mind. If you identify as a 49ers fan, a Mason, a Republican, a Democrat, a given profession, a member of a given denomination, a holder of a given philosophy, a member of any given world religion, etc., etc., you're worldly. Your focus is on the world. Your identity is wrapped up in it.

I agree worldliness is more than wardrobe. I don't agree that simply stating one is conservative or, let's say, libertarian means they're worldly. Are you worldly for identifying yourself as libertarian? I don't believe you are. I have a college football team of which I would say I am a fan. I don't believe it makes me worldly. Now, if any of these things become an idol, then absolutely it's worldliness.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know people who are more "United Pentecostal" or "ALJC" than they are like Christ. Their loyalty, motivations, interpretations, lifestyle, etc., is predicated upon their religious identity as it relates to the organization or church that they are a part of... and not Christ alone. Love of human org is a part of the pride of life. Pride over one's earthly religious tradition is worldliness, even if it is "modest", is pride over an idolatrous self identification. One's identity should be in... Christ alone.

Again, simply identifying one's self as a member of an organization is not being worldly. Making an idol of an organization is being worldly.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What saddens me is that we've become so flagrantly prideful over our "Apostolic Identity" and earthly religious heritage and traditions that we look strangely at anyone who speaks of being identified with Christ alone. This should be a major red flag, but Satan has seduced us into this so very subtle trap to the point that even if someone tries to draw our attention to it... we fight them, denounce them, curse them, etc. Like trapped hostages who defend their desire to remain in a cell, we slam the door on any who would challenge us to leave the cell, screaming, "Get out!" This is a big hinderance to revival. Because people who are serious about needing a Savior don't want "Apostolic identity", they want... JESUS.

What is "Apostolic identity" other than a person adhering to the Biblical plan of salvation and holiness and modesty in dress. And you say this is a big hindrance to revival??? Are there any churches which do not have this "Apostolic identity" and are having revival? I go back to MtD's claim that by just removing the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in. So where are these "tens of thousands?"

Originally Posted by Aquila

Lack of genuine love can also hinder revival. If you only "love" people for the sake of making them a member of some organization, or to put another notch on your "soul winner" belt, it isn't real love. It's treating people like trophies. If you don't care about their entire well being (physical, spiritual, emotional) it's only a love based on an expectation or desire that they comply with you. Now, the desire to see people enter the Kingdom of God isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the desire to win people to a human organization, tradition, or even a human pastor, this is a serious misdirection in focus. True love is patient, kind, and long suffering. It is personal. It is emotional. Many times we lambast folks with facts and polemics to win them through logic, but salvation is a emotional thing. It must be felt and experienced...it can't just be a cold and lifeless factoid. As the old saying goes, people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

First, let's address the part in bold: "salvation is a emotional thing." No, a thousand times no it is not. Salvation is not about I feelz. This isn't directed at you -- any person who believes salvation is emotional is likely someone who will have wild extremes in their walk with God. They will not walk by faith, but instead will be walking based on their feelz.

What is the seat of emotion? It's the heart. What does the Bible say about the heart? First, the heart is wicked and no one but God knows it. Also, "if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts...."

As far as loving people, yes we should love people.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Unbiblical traditions. These are sharks in the water that often feast on new souls that are born again. Most Americans have some Bible knowledge and come from a Christian tradition of this world. After repenting of sin, experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost with speaking in other tongues, after being water baptized in the name above all names, the name of Jesus... they begin to soak up everything like hungry little sponges wanting to know more about living for God in the light of this new and living experience. And that's when these sharks come in... If one has some knowledge of Scripture, or grows into the knowledge of Scripture, they will begin to notice a problem. They will begin to notice that in some churches many of our "standards" are not merely standards, they are "mandates", or "requirements" to maintain salvation. Now, this isn't a problem in and of itself if these mandates are found on the pages of Scripture staring back at them as they read them. However, if a standard/mandate/requirement isn't in Scripture... that's when the problem begins. They, being in love with their new experience in Christ, will either shift their loyalty and passion from Christ and the Word to our man made traditions of man... or they will begin asking questions and becoming frustrated and disenchanted with the mold being forced upon them. And if there isn't any Scripture to back up whatever radical claim being made, it all just begins to look cultic, legalistic, and no different from the Catholic Church or any other religion based on human traditions that have been raised up to being equal in authority to Scripture. You might as well mandate that men wear tin foil hats along with mandating that men be clean shaven to be saved... because both ideas are not in Scripture. It is at this point that knowledgeable new converts will disappear because of all the "man made rules"... or even seasoned saints will eventually feel they must leave to be loyal to Scripture because they oppose the traditions of men being taught as doctrine.

Not attacking you, just stating that you are passionate and biased against certain standards which may not be explicitly written in the Bible.

I don't know of any new convert, and I've known many in my lifetime, who has been upset over standards of dress or beards. What you're posting here just doesn't happen to new converts. It just doesn't. Now, later on in their walk, they could begin to get around bitter billy's who point to the Bible and beards or dress standards and complain that some of these things are explicitly written in the Bible.

But again, I know of no new converts who tripped over beards or dress standards.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is what I'm saying "true"???

Some things yes, some no.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by n david

Nice backpedaling.

In other words, you can't support your claim that if we would just drop the beard prohibition and dress standards, "tens of thousands" would come in.

Now you include the caveat that they must still be oneness and new birth believers, which excludes every ex-dress standard believing church I know. They may be oneness still, but almost every one have watered down the new birth and now believe a person is saved by grace through faith and the HG is a spiritual gift meant to empower believers.

Do you know of a single church which allows beards and doesn't have a dress code which is oneness and new birth believing?

The truth is somehow Oneness, the New Birth and standards of dress are connected. And when one is watered down or removed, one or more of the others will also be.

The notion that "tens of thousands" will suddenly be saved if we only kick dress standards and allow beards is a lie from hell. Don't be deceived.

Not once did I say DRESS STANDARDS should be eased.

I said if beards were allowed and the no trim rule for women were thrown out I believe a revival of persons coming to Oneness Churches would happen. I was in no way referring to Churches that ALSO do away with Oneness and Acts 2:38.

Im talking about if the UPCI or other major Org came out with an apology statement for being wrong on these issues and letting people know that if they grow a beard or if a woman trims her hair but keeps it long they will not be counted as "unholy" in their assemblies.

I do think if THIS were to happen yes, nationwide thousands of people would come who otherwise would not. And that thousands who will eventually leave over these issues would stay.