Originally Posted by FlamingZword (Post 1557975)

well if people are going to preach something as doctrine, they better be prepared to back it up with the Bible. :)

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1557948)

Should we deck ourselves in gold and jewels at the high cost of human suffering? Should we deck ourselves with gold, and pearls, and costly array, when people are starving to death on our streets?



https://investorsforhumanrights.org/...0Statement.pdf
https://www.iccr.org/jewelry-supply-...-say-investors

Originally Posted by CC1 (Post 1557985)

Everything in moderation. I know many old time Pentecostals who spend way more money on watches, dresses and shoes that my wife has ever spent on her jewelry.

Buying jewelry to look nice is no more a contribution to the "high cost os human suffering" than having nice clothing, car, house etc. Another red herring used by old time Pentecostals.

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1558002)

It's not about what others do, it's about what Jesus requires of each of us individually. The Apostles sacrificed all to the point death for the gospel.

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1558002)

It's not about what others do, it's about what Jesus requires of each of us individually. The Apostles sacrificed all to the point death for the gospel.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister (Post 1557898)

Just in case this question was directed to me, allow me to respond. The passage that you seem to be referring to is pasted below. . .

1Pet.3

[1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
[2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
[4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

The specific verse is in bold text. In the interest of following the instructions to rightly divide the Word. Let’s consider what Peter is saying to us.

You believe that he is saying do not wear gold. My question for you is “is he also saying do not wear apparel?” Because that is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn since they both appear in the same verse.

I believe he is saying that the adornment of a meek and quiet spirit is MORE desirable and more acceptable to God than the outward adornment of gold. He certainly doesn’t say that it is a sin to wear gold any more than he says it is a sin to wear apparel.

Do you also preach against wearing apparel?

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister (Post 1558014)

Sis. Amanah,

As you may notice I have put "individually" in bold type. This really caused me to think, and I hope to be able to articulate effectively what I am thinking about the "standards" that are taught by predominately conservative pastors. Earlier nDavid said that the prohibition of wearing jewelry was a personal conviction, and I concurred. I would like to revisit that, I may well have been wrong.

To me there are perhaps three categories that standards that are extra-biblical (as I contend that the jewelry standard is) may fall into. I will attempt to provide real-life examples in each category. They are as follows . . .

Personal preference/Personal likes and dislikes

I'll use myself for an example of personal preference. I really don't care a thing for jewelry. When I was a junior in high school I bought the ubiquitous class ring. It was expected. It was part of the graduating experience. I bought one because everyone did it. It was not preached against in the UPC church I attended. So I bought one. It was gold. It had a (probably fake) jewel mounted in it. I wore it for maybe a couple of weeks, then I stopped. It wasn't something that I took pride in. It was more of a bother to me. I have not worn it since. It surely wouldn't fit me if I knew where it was today.

It means nothing to me, other than the value of the gold in the ring, which is negligible. It has no sentimental value to me, although it may have some to my children.

On the other hand, my fathers class ring from high school has some sentimental value to me. The true value is whatever the gold would bring if it were melted down, however the value to me is based on my relationship to my father and the fact that it was a possession of his. In this context the ring does not really fit the standard definition of jewelry, because the ring is not valuable to me because of it's beauty. In this wise a wedding band may fit into this category. It is worn for meaning, and not for its appeal to the eye. The fact of the matter is that a beautiful sunset, or a mountain landscape is much more beautiful to me than any jewelry could ever be. In a nutshell, I am not a jewelry person.


Personal convictions

I have a friend who told me a story of his brother whom I have never met. He was a strong Christian and believed in following the leading of the Holy Ghost. He felt led to cancel his health insurance benefit which was a benefit that had no direct cost to him. He felt a personal conviction that he should trust God for his healing. He worked as an FBI agent and it seemed crazy for him to cancel a benefit that cost him nothing.

Why not just keep it and not use it?

Because it was a personal conviction for him. He was quick to say that he did not feel that everyone else (including his brother that is my friend) should do the same. He believed that for him, God wanted him to trust in Him. My friend was a witness that God healed his brother many times, but he eventually died of heart disease (IIRC) that should have been able to be corrected through surgery. He was not Pentecostal, although he was kicked out of the Baptist church for speaking in tongues. He did , by all accounts have a close relationship with God, and left a powerful testimony upon his death.

This is an example to me of personal conviction. Sister Amanah, your conviction may fall into this category. It also may fall into a category that tries to blur the lines between believing false doctrine and trying to justify believing something that is extra-biblical. Whenever a personal conviction is taught to others it crosses the line between being a personal conviction, and becomes false doctrine.

False Doctrine

To me there is no such thing as a harmless false doctrine. I believe strongly that false doctrine always has consequences. Consequently, I believe that ALL doctrine should be carefully and prayerfully examined and vetted.

Just for the purpose of identifying what a false doctrine is, and isn't it is important to define doctrine. Doctrine is nothing more or less than a teaching at it's most fundamental level. Teaching at the university or the grade school meets the basic definition of doctrine. Whenever that teaching comes from a pulpit or from a pastor or Sunday school teacher, it becomes a religious doctrine. If that teaching does not agree with the Bible, it becomes a false doctrine.

When a preacher teaches his extra-biblical doctrine to others and pretends that it is Bible based and it isn't, he is guilty of teaching false doctrine. His teaching may seem like a good idea, and it may be based on good intentions, but if he says that it is based on scripture, when it is in fact based on his own opinion or his personal conviction, he is in my opinion guilty of teaching false doctrine. I believe the prohibition of jewelry is this sort of false doctrine. I also believe that the doctrine of tithing that is taught in most churches today, is just as false.

This debate on jewelry is remarkable for the lack of scripture that is quoted in support of prohibiting jewelry. In this wise it is similar to the tithing debate. Brother Epley has apparently ghosted me again because he apparently can't deliver the goods. I don't say this to be mean-spirited. To quote a popular preacher that shall remain nameless "I mean it in a good Christian way". He headed for the hills when he couldn't provide even one scripture in context that authorizes a pastor to receive tithes, while I provided multiple examples of singers that were entitled to the Levitical tithe. If he truly believes what he is teaching, and can support it with scripture, I invite him to do so. I say once more that preachers that teach tithing, quote other preachers, while I on the other hand, quote scripture. I believe that it is due to thinly veiled arrogance that preachers think I should believe them because it is their idea. They seem to believe that they have a better way than what the Bible and Jesus himself teaches. I am confident that they don't.

I really only am posting this because it is the truth, and it is based on scripture. I don't intend to hurt feelings or cause trouble regardless of what others may believe. I also invite others of different opinions to express them, along with scripture to support their views. If you believe I don't understand, or that I am mistaken, please show me my errors. Just, please don't ask me to believe, based on you saying so.

At the end of the day, I'm not right or wrong based upon who I am, and neither is anybody else. God is right, and His words are true, we only can do our best to understand (rightly divide) His word.

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1557948)

Should we deck ourselves in gold and jewels at the high cost of human suffering? Should we deck ourselves with gold, and pearls, and costly array, when people are starving to death on our streets?

https://investorsforhumanrights.org/...0Statement.pdf
https://www.iccr.org/jewelry-supply-...-say-investors