Should we teach others to rebel against standards?

[Sister Alvear]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm talking about something that is established that way, why are you going against it. If it's a deal breaker go somewhere where it's ok. Just don't try to push your beliefs on everybody, like the sun rises and sets for you! I'm not for or against beards. But what I am against is rebellion against the Pastor, if your Pastor preaches against it just do it! Or get a new Pastor! Btw I didn't start this conversation. Go back to the beginning, this was something someone else started throwing out there.

that is what I too was trying to say...if you don't agree ...leave...why cause problems?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, I said that if I couldn't find any other source of water, I'd baptize them with a Dixie cup if it was all I could find. lol

A Dixie cup holds 3 oz of water. I think the priest pours more than that on an infant. You are no one to talk oh defender of the fuzzy face. Biblically correct is now throwing 3 ounces on water on someone. Biblical truth clearly doesn't matter to these men??? You are a ecclesiastical ballerina.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was only illustrating how radical I felt about baptizing someone.

You were snowflaking out? You were illustrating how dramatic you can get when you want us to believe your rhetoric. You were a Quaker? Or you were in a fake Quaker wedding?

Originally Posted by Aquila

But feel free and run with it. You're the one distorting the point, not me. That's called a "lie". Just be mindful of that.

Bro, why is it our fault when we draw the conclusions to the stupid things you might say? It doesn't make you a bad guy, it is just you post sometimes without giving much thought to your words. You accuse us for not being Biblical but you have posted some flipped out things in the past, present, and I know you will in the future. Don't blame us when we draw logical conclusions to your nonsense.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Second, you're only throwing up a smoke screen attack here because you don't believe in "biblical truth".

All this from a guy who has posted that he prays that dead Trinitarians get a pass. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Else, you'd find a beard prohibition a repugnant standard, a tradition of men, and when used to alienate the lost, a doctrine of devils.

I think I can clearly see why RR follows your posts.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Or... you'd show chapter and verse for the prohibition you so lovingly adore over your brethren and lay the issue to rest.

When you show the prohibition against shaved faces.

What a religious bobby pin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

as in Acts 9:31, assemblies

Acts 9:31

Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

But what constitutes a "church"? What is the minimal number of believers for having a "church" or "assembly"?

Aquila, if every male church member grew a beard to your liking, what else would you be disgruntled about?

I think it would be strange if every member grew a beard. I wouldn't want that. I would find it equally as repugnant if all men were expected to wear a beard. That isn't biblical either.

But you asked what else would I be disgruntled about... that's an awesomely introspective question.

It might depend on the church. Any standard built on Scripture is okay with me. Standards of dress do fall under modesty, and modesty is clearly taught in the Bible. So, I'd be okay with standards regarding dress and attire. There is Scripture for not wearing gold and costly array. So, standards against non-functional jewelry and even wedding bands are understandable. I don't buy into the women's hair needing to be uncut thing, but clearly a woman's hair should be long according to Scripture, so a hair standard is "biblical" in principle. Standards regarding television and various worldly entertainments are also biblical, because the Bible discusses those things.

I'd say that if the church wants to force me to observe Jewish feast days, Jewish dietary standards, and act or dress Jewish, that would be too much for me. I'd not want anything to do with such Judaizing doctrine.

It would also matter to me that my pastor understood (or would be willing to understand) the plight of those of us with PTSD and be open minded regarding available therapies and medications.

That's really all I can think of.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

We've established there is 0 percent scripture here. Just as there is 0 percent scripture the other way! But historically though its a known fact, that is how it was for 50 years. Besides in certain organizations, which is fine, if you don't like it there is a place to go for you.

But all this is extra if you got a job and they told you to shave you would do it! If my God appointed Pastor preaches against something, I've learned there is a blessing in submission, even when I don't understand. They preached against it, no one told me to do anything. Nor would they, but what you preach is what you get. The Holy Ghost tells me to submit, if it's immoral I won't. But I've lived rebellious my whole life, I never did mind anyone. But God changed me, and God can change you, if you will.only let Him! End of rant..

I understand what you're saying here. But isn't it a pastor's duty to stay in the book?

I've learned that blessings come from conformity because the group praises and accepts you. You'll feel quite a bit of peace about it, trust me, I've been there. However, when you become passionate about the Bible and an unbiblical standard is laid upon you... things change. Suddenly, you're confronted with traditions of men vs. Scripture. I've found that if you fall in love with the Bible and a preacher teaches things that aren't in the book, you'll either have to put his word above Scripture or you'll lose faith in the minister.

I think that most pastors want to stay in the book. And any pastor worth his salt will retract anything that isn't in Scripture if you approach him lovingly about it. Sadly, I haven't found one yet that didn't act like I personally offended him when I've tried to discuss these things with them.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Is that your final answer? Because you weren't just using hyperbole. In two separate threads you promoted baptism by "pouring" instead of immersion. You even posted a pic of some house church (I don't believe it was the one you attended) which baptized by pouring. And you mentioned that more and more house churches were pouring instead of immersing.

I'll be nice and post the links so you don't have to search for them as I did:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=176

I showed a picture of my house church baptizing in a pool, and a picture of what other house churches have been known to do. The house church that I was attending in that photo never baptized other than through immersion.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=179

You'll notice that my opening statement was:

Those who advocate pouring look at it this way. The word "baptize" is:

This post was merely to inform what those who advocate for pouring believe. You'll notice I drew distinction between them and myself. I didn't even share my opinion on the matter here.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...00&postcount=4

"Here's my portable baptismal. It's quick, easy, costs nothing, and most already have it on hand..."

Yes, I was only illustrating how simple pouring can be for those who, and I'll quote the context of my statement here:

In house church networks baptisms can be rather problematic, especially when sharing the Gospel in private homes or in public places that are not near a large body of water.

Please note, the picture with a man pouring isn't a picture of me or our house church. It was pulled from the internet to give an example of the practice. I even indicated that when a pool or natural water wasn't available, we used a portable baptismal (kiddie pools were common).

We prefer natural water such as that found in rivers and lakes. There have been a couple occasions where a swimming pool was available. However, there have also been times when we just needed a portable system.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...04&postcount=6

And here, I was just sharing my understanding of the issue, opening statement was:

However, here is my understanding...

Again, just sharing information.

So again, don't lecture me about Biblical truth, when you promoted baptism by pouring

I didn't promote it. I shared the understanding behind the practice. In fact, my statement above illustrated that we preferred to use natural water, but used portable systems when necessary. How do you get that I "promoted" pouring? Again, I only stated the reasoning behind the practice for the sake of discussion. If anything, I advocated "understanding" the reasoning behind the practice.

and for years took your family to a non-Apostolic, trinitarian church which doesn't believe in Acts 2:38.

That's because Apostolic churches don't want us because I have a beard. lol However, for a season, our elders baptized in Jesus name. They seemed to be warming up to the truth. But in the end, the "heresy hunters" won the day and it became clear that they'd not move into the truth. So, we left. Which is why I'm looking for a church that won't force me to shave or treat me like a second class saint if I don't.

How many times must I post this: I am not against beards.

Let me post it again using big letters and color so you can read it clearly:

I AM NOT AGAINST BEARDS

Never have been. I've grown a beard out while in ministry. The church I last served in allowed MWBs in ministry and behind the pulpit.

Then you agree with me and Michael that the beard prohibition is an unbiblical tradition of man that is an unnecessary stumbling block for those who would go to these churches who condemn them???

[Michael The Disciple]

I'm talking about something that is established that way, why are you going against it. If it's a deal breaker go somewhere where it's ok

Hey Bro, You talk like there are plenty of MWB Churches around. If they were that easy to find we would probably be there already. But again like you said theres more to a Church than men having a beard!

[houston]

Look. Bearded guys. Start a church in your living room. Problem solved.

If I had time I would do the same. For the time being it’s beans, rice, and Jesus Christ.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Hey Bro, You talk like there are plenty of MWB Churches around. If they were that easy to find we would probably be there already. But again like you said theres more to a Church than men having a beard!

my husband has a beard, and several others in my congregation do also, come have church with us.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Amanah

my husband has a beard, and several others in my congregation do also, come have church with us.

But they’re not allowed on the platform.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm talking about something that is established that way, why are you going against it. If it's a deal breaker go somewhere where it's ok.

That's very reasonable.

But what do you do when every Apostolic church in your area would rather you not attend, or would relegate you strictly to the pews, on account of your beard? You know it isn't in Scripture. They know it isn't in Scripture. Yet their tradition is clearly more important than your family's eternity. Where do you go? What do you do?

For example, in my situation, I can't just "go somewhere where it is ok"... unless I'm wanting to go back to a non-Apostolic fellowship. Which isn't what I want. I just left one. lol