Would This Man be Welcome to Preach at Conference?

[the raven]

Originally Posted by 1399

The Blood is not applied through in the waters of baptism.

The Blood is applied through faith.

"By faith are we saved, through grace."

To demonstrate that faith, we obey scripture and seek the Promise of God that is available for all saved, scriptural Believers in Jesus Christ.

Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine...faith is evidenced by works therefore if you have faith you will be baptized thus the imperative yea injunction by Peter in Acts 10 - he commanded them to be baptized...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by CC1

You are correct. For once! LOL!!!

UPC missionaries being clean shaven has caused an uphill battle for them in Latin America many times.

No, he isn't correct, CC1 I am full blooded Puerto Rican, first generation born here Stateside, and I can tell you without a doubt that being clean shaven is not viewed as being effeminate among Latinos.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by PraiseHymn

So in essence this is another post about facial hair??????????? I mean, you could have gotten my pastor's face and put it up there and asked the same question. Matter of fact you could get ME up there and ask the same question. Dont start this facial hair junk again. Or is it because he is black. Yall betta stop that! European decendants are not the only ones going to heaven. I just dont get it!

It doesn't have a thing to do with him being black, so don't go there. It's the mustache PH.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Rico

No, he isn't correct, CC1 I am full blooded Puerto Rican, first generation born here Stateside, and I can tell you without a doubt that being clean shaven is not viewed as being effeminate among Latinos.

Berk posted the opposite of what you have said and a UPC missionary told me face to face that.

Plus any simple google search about Latin American culture substantiates the role facial hair plays in that culture.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by CC1

What would you as a black man have to do with my comments about Latin American culture?

I don't see the same importance attached to facial hair in the black culture and that is why I specifically did not address that here.

Mustaches and Beards in Latin American culture are VERY important signs of masculinity.

But they are not required signs of masculinity, and we don't consider clean shaven men as being effeminate. What kind of nonsense is that? Both my grandfathers were clean shaven and I can promise no one considered them to be effeminate. In fact, one of my grandfathers had a reputation for being a ladies man.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by PraiseHymn

Either the whole statement is correct or its partially correct. When the poster said black and latino, you said YOU ARE CORRECT and then you went on to talk specifically about latin america as an example.

I am choosing to disagree with the statement as a whole. For blacks (nor latinos) it has nothing to do with being feminine (and this is coming from someone who just came back from MEXICO off the plane TODAY! There were a wide variety of shaven and un-shaven faces that I saw while I was down there this weekend).

Apparently, all the clean shaven ones were busy looking for homosexual encounters.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by the raven

I do not feel that beards or mustaches are a salvation issue. Since I am the pastor of my church and I do control my platform and in places of leadership, I ask that the men be clean shaven since it is what I desire in my church.

Naturally every possible topic or standard is not covered nor could it be without the NT being a library instead of a book.


In keeping with that spirit, the man in charge of the local assembly has the authority to interpret modesty for those under his charge. I believe to openly defy the pastor to be sin. However, I also believe that one has the right to change assemblies with whom they choose to congregate.

The problems as I see them are the pastor who holds standards as salvation and condemns anyone to hell who does not agree with him, versus the church hopping saint.

If a pastor believes it best that the men in his church to be clean shaven then so be it.

If a saint decides to change churches it should be with much, much, much, prayer and self-examination. We have a pampered pew in this day and age. It is nearly impossible to find a pastor with whom you are going to agree on every single issue lock-step.

I headquartered at a church for the last few years where there were many things I personally did not see eye to eye with the senior pastor, but as long as I was a member of that church what he said went. When I finally left it was not an act of rebellion, it was because I felt God was calling me in a different direction than the vision of that house, and I did everything I could on my end to leave on good terms.

I am not commenting on anyone on this forum, but I must declare I am getting physically ill with the attitudes of so many now who seem to ponder “exactly what can I get away with and still make it.” As opposed to – what can I give up, or affirmatively do that would draw me closer to Christ my Savior. That is the true singular definition of holiness standards.

Some seem incredulous the Holy Spirit could unilaterally convict someone without the pastor having to lay down the law from the pulpit. It is the old meat sacrificed to idols argument. We know there are no idols but if a man is convicted and partakes anyway to him it becomes sin. The problems arise when he who feels at liberty mocks the one with the conviction, or the man with the conviction condemns the one who does not feel led to the same personal standard.

Sadly, I must attempt to pre-empt the inevitable backlash by saying this post is confined to things pertaining to "modesty" only. The gospel is immutable, standards are transitory.

Personally I do not see justification for saying facial hair on men, women trimming hair, or men wearing shorts are salvation issues that automatically condemn one to hell, but rebellion just may be. If my senior pastor ordered me to shave my beard I would do it without question.

If a pastor proposes such things as salvation issues in and of themselves I have a problem with that, HOWEVER if the pastor believes them to be issues of modesty and best for his church not to do, I likewise have a problem with anyone saying that man is mistaken.
__________________

[the raven]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Naturally every possible topic or standard is not covered nor could it be without the NT being a library instead of a book.


In keeping with that spirit, the man in charge of the local assembly has the authority to interpret modesty for those under his charge. I believe to openly defy the pastor to be sin. However, I also believe that one has the right to change assemblies with whom they choose to congregate.

The problems as I see them are the pastor who holds standards as salvation and condemns anyone to hell who does not agree with him, versus the church hopping saint.

If a pastor believes it best that the men in his church to be clean shaven then so be it.

If a saint decides to change churches it should be with much, much, much, prayer and self-examination. We have a pampered pew in this day and age. It is nearly impossible to find a pastor with whom you are going to agree on every single issue lock-step.

I headquartered at a church for the last few years where there were many things I personally did not see eye to eye with the senior pastor, but as long as I was a member of that church what he said went. When I finally left it was not an act of rebellion, it was because I felt God was calling me in a different direction than the vision of that house, and I did everything I could on my end to leave on good terms.

I am not commenting on anyone on this forum, but I must declare I am getting physically ill with the attitudes of so many now who seem to ponder “exactly what can I get away with and still make it.” As opposed to – what can I give up, or affirmatively do that would draw me closer to Christ my Savior. That is the true singular definition of holiness standards.

Some seem incredulous the Holy Spirit could unilaterally convict someone without the pastor having to lay down the law from the pulpit. It is the old meat sacrificed to idols argument. We know there are no idols but if a man is convicted and partakes anyway to him it becomes sin. The problems arise when he who feels at liberty mocks the one with the conviction, or the man with the conviction condemns the one who does not feel led to the same personal standard.

Sadly, I must attempt to pre-empt the inevitable backlash by saying this post is confined to things pertaining to "modesty" only. The gospel is immutable, standards are transitory.

Personally I do not see justification for saying facial hair on men, women trimming hair, or men wearing shorts are salvation issues that automatically condemn one to hell, but rebellion just may be. If my senior pastor ordered me to shave my beard I would do it without question.

If a pastor proposes such things as salvation issues in and of themselves I have a problem with that, HOWEVER if the pastor believes them to be issues of modesty and best for his church not to do, I likewise have a problem with anyone saying that man is mistaken.
__________________

Very well said and almost exactly how I teach and preach it. Thank you for your kind words and spirit!

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by the raven

In your opinion it may not "match the spirit" it does certainly match the WORD, which is much more important in this discussion. Since you and I know that the Greek wording in Acts 2:38 can be rendered in two different ways as to validate ones view of baptism, than the texts in which baptism is discussed define the imperative in question.

Thus when all scripture concerning baptism is studied the obvious conclusion one comes to is that baptism is absolutely mandatory to salvation, which is obviously taught in scripture and to which almost all church historians agree concerning the first century church.

Using your logic one can be saved without baptism which stands in complete antithesis to Christ's command in Mark 16:15-16.

If baptism was salvific, then Cornelius and his household could not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost without being baptized.

For most traditional Apostolics, that is the 3rd step in the salvation process, when every thing fits perfectly into the nice Pentecostal religious box.

But God can not be fit in a box. He saves whom He wants to save which is why He can save "All those who call upon Him".

Our salvation is not purchased with our decision to get baptized.

Our salvation is purchased with His Blood. It is His "kindness that draws us to repentance" in the first place.

Jesus Christ is the beginning the middle the end our salvation. We stand complete in Him. We stand in Him, by faith. We demonstrate that faith by our obedience-- the desire to be obedient that would not even be there unless God put it in our hearts.

This is the "spirit" of the New Testament scriptures concerning salvation.
This is the WORD of the Lord.

If baptism is salvific, is the Lord's Supper salvific? How about foot washing?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

I predict men will lay their long beards on people and they will be healed!

Holy Magic Beards?