To Beard or Not to Beard, That is The Question

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m clueless on peyos. What is that/are they?

Listen, don't worry about it. There are none more clueless about peyos then Rabbinical Talmudic Jews. Here is Rabbi Yossi Paltiel absolutely confusing his audience.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Here is Rabbi Yossi Paltiel, again, absolutely confusing his audience.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Good grief.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I dont recall the brass serpent being placed in the ark?

Wasn't King Ahaz either, who broke it, or the ones who worshipped it who called in Nehushtan.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Wasn't King Ahaz either, who broke it, or the ones who worshipped it who called in Nehushtan.

You are correct. I posted a correction.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There are parts I agree with, overall, and parts I do not. Something I do not agree with is:

How is an extra-Biblical standard going to help a church deal with a problem they are having that an actual Biblical standard isn't going to already solve?

The capacity to solve a problem without creating innumerable other problems is a very difficult thing. You add to that mix an extra-Biblical mandate and enforce it as a standard of the church, that the members are required to obey in order to be in good standing, regardless of the expected benefit, is just asking for trouble.

No matter how much one or a few people in leadership think their extra-Biblical mandate is going to make things better, the chances of that happening across the board and also not making anything worse is pretty slim. This is the slippery slope I mentioned. Add just one extra-Biblical thing, and the temptation to add another will inevitably show up. Count on it.

And then what? Who determines what really is and isn't a problem in the church? What if all members don't see it that way? Who gets to make the call? Why them and not others? And how can anyone know for sure that the problem can only and should only be solved with an extra-Biblical standard?

I remember reading on this very forum how several years ago, due to some famous preacher's end-time teaching, people were not getting married or if married, not having children, because of what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 (his desire to remain as he was, and the present distress that was coming).

Now, this preacher may not have mandated such a choice for his audience, but the end result was the same. An intended solution to a perceived to be, but wasn't actually real, problem, didn't help anyone in the long run, it just messed with people's lives unnecessarily.

The fact is, you become beholden to obey whatever it is you practice. Any extra-Biblical standard that gets instituted into a church eventually becomes an institution in and of itself. You might hope that the problem you thought you were solving will eventually be revisited and everyone will be on board for making changes as the situation on the ground changes, but that's a pipedream. This beard, shave or no shave issue proves this is so. We're more than 40 years in and the issue is spiritually deadly in its level of contentiousness.

Had those brothers from long ago never made it an issue, it wouldn't be an issue now, and who would be the worse off? Likely no one. But instead, we've got a mountain of a problem out of a molehill of a "solution". All because some leaders went extra-Biblical on the church.

If you're writing the above with my study in mind I believe you missed an important point--I never said the saints not wearing related gang colors was a Heaven or Hell issue. I said it was to help the saints with their witness to each other and to those outside their fellowship, and it was to protect them from being misidentified and possibly physically harmed or killed. But, as I indicated, this would be a known problem that the Church body could easily understand needed to be remedied.

This type of teaching was necessary to aid the Early Church spread the gospel throughout the various cultures of their world, and this same type of teaching is needed for the Church to do the same work today.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Two things:

1.) These regulations were and are already part of the revealed testimony of Scripture. Instituting these regulations was merely the recapitulation of Torah mandates upon the Gentiles.

2.) These regulations were instituted by the Twelve, Apostles all. These weren't local shepherds feeding the flock. They had the power to bind and loose. And they used that power in Acts 15 judiciously and correctly, because they already had clear mandates from Torah to do so.

And that's really the issue. Clear mandates allow for clear obedience. If it's not there, no one can force you to obey it.

In Brother Benincasa's case, he chose to be magnanimous, and out of love, submitted himself to the personal request and favor. I respect that. I've done similar things of a different nature. Not because there was Word for it, but because out of love and for the sake of someone else. That's a good reason to do something extra-Biblical. In fact, it's the ONLY REASON (in my opinion, of course).

Acts 15 begins with a group of Pharisee converts requiring the Gentile converts to be circumcised and follow Moses Law "for salvation." Paul and Barnabas disagreed and stated that this salvation came with the Gentiles receiving the same Holy Ghost as they received. Peter faced this fellowship dilemma when he was sent to the Gentile house of Cornelius. Likewise, he was shown the Holy Ghost decided what God deemed clean and unclean. So, in Acts 15, the Apostolic council of apostles and elders decided to establish a means by which the Gentile brethren could fellowship their Jewish brethren while not offending them--but nowhere does it say the Gentiles' adherence to this decision was Heaven and Hell. Instead, to the Gentiles, it says, "If you do this, you will do well." (Acts 15:29)

You using Bro. Benincasa as an example is like this. He did not do what he did because he feared damnation, but, instead, he did it as a matter of fellowship. That said, unlike the Jerusalem Council, that brother had no legitimate reason to ask Bro. Benincasa to do as he requested. So, I agree with your conclusion about acting out of love.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by n david

Jason Momoa already repented and shaved.

[n david]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Jason Momoa already repented and shaved.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

It has been a good one so far. Thanks.

As for the rest, it is probably moot to keep quid pro quo bullet-pointing each other. Instead, I would only ask for this:

Answer Esaias's questions!

Originally Posted by Esaias

What are the guidelines for pastors or church elderships establishing extra-Biblical rules and regulations that all believers in that assembly are expected to accept and obey?

I mean, surely there are some guidelines, rules, or SOMETHING that would provide some guidance to pastors and churches to help them navigate these waters?

And, how are Christians to recognise the difference between an extraBiblical pastoral church regulation that God backs up vs an extraBiblical rule or directive that God does NOT support? I mean, how does a Christian judge the difference between a pastoral standard and a popish presumption?

What got me rolling in all of this was the idea that any and all extra-biblical rules are inappropriate, or, more specifically, turning the bride of Christ into a whore. The closest example I have to what I'm referring to is this:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. -- 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (KJV)

So if you're asking for a verse indicating that a pastor can just make stuff up and send someone to hell for something extra-biblical, I don't have it, and I certainly don't agree that the conept is okay. But if we have souls to win, the idea that rules regarding facial hair, attire, etc is somehow idolatry doesn't make any sense to me. In whatever culture a specific rule is presented, it should be easy to present to the assembly.

Sunday School was referred to as an extra-biblical ministry. Are we not supposed spread the gospel? Is it somehow inappropriate to feed those in the community and teach them the bible? So yes, we have a rule regarding the presence of multiple adults. Surely the need for such a ministry and the wisdom of such a rule isn't lost because the parents are deadbeats. Are we sinning or creating idols by trying to reach the community in which we live?

My apologies for not being able to answer your questions directly, but I don't think a defense of my position requires much more than "whatever it takes to reach the lost." And just in case someone wants to be a smart aleck, no, I'm not talking about compromising morals in order to make that happen. I won't be telling my wife to play the role of stripper in order to reach those in the pole-dancing community. But if I move to an area in which the leadership and congregation agree that to best serve the community is to avoid facial hair, the color red, and eating of Chinese food, then I will likely observe those rules without hesitation. I say likely only because I will certainly ask for the why, and if I think they are just whackos, I would move on to another assembly.