Would This Man be Welcome to Preach at Conference?

[Hoovie]

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.

Is there any sense in this? I mean, do you approach it with any rationale whatsoever, or is it like requiring all to have a steady diet of spinach quiche because you are the pastor?

[the raven]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Is there any sense in this? I mean, do you approach it with any rationale whatsoever, or is it like requiring all to have a steady diet of spinach quiche because you are the pastor?

Sure the rational is I believe it looks better, cleaner and presents a much more wholesome image, especially in our culture today. What I think is particularly interesting is that in almost any secular leadership book when dealing with the issues of dress and success, in almost every book the wearing of facial hair by men is discouraged.


I refuse to argue the point with anyone since there are plenty of churches one can go to where facial hair is allowed in leadership my advice is that if it is an issue for one to go there.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Is there any sense in this? I mean, do you approach it with any rationale whatsoever, or is it like requiring all to have a steady diet of spinach quiche because you are the pastor?

I predict that at this point you will be labeled;

1. rebellious
2. a pastor hater
3. don't believe in submitting to a pastor
4. a liberal

[the raven]

Originally Posted by CC1

I predict that at this point you will be labeled;

1. rebellious
2. a pastor hater
3. don't believe in submitting to a pastor
4. a liberal

It does depend on the attitude in which one recieves these things however every man has a right to ask why things are done or not allowed.

[berkeley]

As a hispanic man, I confirm that my culture sees the growth of facial hair as masculine and a right of passage into adulthood.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by the raven

If baptism does not include salvific purpose, than why participate in it? We are to be baptized, "for the remission of sins" thus the clear interpretation of the text let's us know that without baptism there is NO remission of sins and if sins are not taken away - the blood applied - then the sinner is still retaining the sin which Jesus said would be remitted.

Baptism is therefore a scriptural imperative to salvation in that it serves in type Christ's burial and in fact remission of sins.

Sir, the original Greek translation of Acts 2:38 does not lend itself to that interpretation.

Which is why in the very next chapter, Acts 3:19, he preaches,
"Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord."

Faith without works is dead. You demonstrate your faith by your works, so that if you believe you will be baptized, "to fulfill all righteousness", as a show of a good conscience or public testimony. You will do this because this is what the Lord says do and as a saved, Christian Believer, from your heart you will want to please your new Lord and Master.

But to make baptism salvific is to give a two part salvation message that does not match the "spirit" of all of the scriptures.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

As a hispanic man, I confirm that my culture sees the growth of facial hair as masculine and a right of passage into adulthood.

I too am hispanic and the myth you cited is more about vanity than culture. Especially in the Spanish Apostolic group where I pastor. They treat their women like dirt and then proclaim their manliness via beards and mustaches yet they cannot hold down a job and do nothing but create babies. As you can see I do not think much of cultural stuff...if the culture they desire to have is so good then it should be expressed where the culture prevails - Mexico.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by the raven

If baptism does not include salvific purpose, than why participate in it? We are to be baptized, "for the remission of sins" thus the clear interpretation of the text let's us know that without baptism there is NO remission of sins and if sins are not taken away - the blood applied - then the sinner is still retaining the sin which Jesus said would be remitted.

Baptism is therefore a scriptural imperative to salvation in that it serves in type Christ's burial and in fact remission of sins.

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.

[the raven]

Originally Posted by 1399

Sir, the original Greek translation of Acts 2:38 does not lend itself to that interpretation.

Which is why in the very next chapter, Acts 3:19, he preaches,
"Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord."

Faith without works is dead. You demonstrate your faith by your works, so that if you believe you will be baptized, "to fulfill all righteousness", as a show of a good conscience or public testimony. You will do this because this is what the Lord says do and as a saved, Christian Believer, from your heart you will want to please your new Lord and Master.

But to make baptism salvific is to give a two part salvation message that does not match the "spirit" of all of the scriptures.

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.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by StMark

I can only speculate - In the black and hispanic culture,
some believe that to be clean shaven is to be effeminate.

Where do you come up with such idiotic notions? I am Hispanic and have NEVER heard the first thing about us believing a man who is clean shaven is effeminate!