"Beards are sin!" False doctrine?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. But we can be catalysts for change, where we are, if we have the courage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Well, he has a history of making posts he claims were "devil's advocate" posts and others in which he was "hypothesizing."

Hard to take the posts too seriously.

True. Don't take my posts so seriously that they upset you. But don't disregard them so much that you turn off your brain and refuse to consider what's being illustrated.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The elders/saints showing partiality towards the two in attendance are said to have, "made distinctions among yourselves" by judging and showing partiality towards the rich brother over the poor brother. This couldn't be said if the two they judged were not brethren and counted among their number.

That is simply incorrect.

There's a room full of people. One group is discussing things "among themselves." You would claim that means everyone in the room is included with the group. Not so. It's basic English grammar.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

[IMG]...[/IMG]

Are you too afraid to look at your leadership and tell them, "Hey, this beard thing isn't Bible. Why don't we get back to the book?"

If you love and respect your leadership, you're obligated to speak up when they are wrong. Good leaders and good followers need one another.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

True. Don't take my posts so seriously that they upset you. But don't disregard them so much that you turn off your brain and refuse to consider what's being illustrated.

This is close to where I'm at. That's the danger of someone using too much "devil's advocate" "hypothetical" "hyperbole" "I'm posting things I don't really believe but don't say so until it's refuted" stuff.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Are you too afraid to look at your leadership and tell them, "Hey, this beard thing isn't Bible. Why don't we get back to the book?"

Why? Honestly beards are so low on the list of important things, I really don't care. That's why, when we started attending this UPC church, I shaved the beard I had been growing. I respect the Pastor and elders of this church and wanted to put myself in a position where I could help if needed. Seriously, there are far more important things on which to take a stand than a hairy face.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you love and respect your leadership, you're obligated to speak up when they are wrong.

No, you're not "obligated." That's what the modern, "it's all about me" Christian wants to believe, but it's untrue. The only time the Bible says to go to someone is 1) if you have ought against them; 2) if they're in sin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

That is simply incorrect.

There's a room full of people. One group is discussing things "among themselves." You would claim that means everyone in the room is included with the group. Not so. It's basic English grammar.

Let's look at a more dynamic translation:

James 2:1-9 (New Living Translation)
My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
2 For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. 3 If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor”—well, 4 doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?
5 Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him? 6 But you dishonor the poor! Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? 7 Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

In this translation, James doesn't indicate if the two are unsaved visitors or attending brothers. The point that James is making applies either way. The point of the passage is that favoring some people over others is a sin.

Let's remove the example James gives us and read his point...

James 2:1 & 8-9 (New Living Translation)
1 My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's look at a more dynamic translation:

James 2:1-9 (New Living Translation)
My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?
2 For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. 3 If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor”—well, 4 doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?
5 Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him? 6 But you dishonor the poor! Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? 7 Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?
8 Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

In this translation, James doesn't indicate if the two are unsaved visitors or attending brothers. The point that James is making applies either way. The point of the passage is that favoring some people over others is a sin.

I'm not going to continue arguing this. Maybe you'll find a translation some day which changes the focus on the clothes being worn to beard vs shaved.

Good luck with that.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Why? Honestly beards are so low on the list of important things, I really don't care. That's why, when we started attending this UPC church, I shaved the beard I had been growing. I respect the Pastor and elders of this church and wanted to put myself in a position where I could help if needed. Seriously, there are far more important things on which to take a stand than a hairy face.


No, you're not "obligated." That's what the modern, "it's all about me" Christian wants to believe, but it's untrue. The only time the Bible says to go to someone is 1) if you have ought against them; 2) if they're in sin.

Beards are low on the list... Maybe. Maybe not.

-I have a family of four.
-I've decided that we should leave our house church network.
-We need a church, an Apostolic church.
-I'm a man with a beard.
-The only Apostolic churches around me are anti-beard.
-I see nothing in my Bible supporting such a teaching.
-Since such a teaching is unbiblical, it is a tradition of man.
-Since it is taught as binding, it is a doctrine.
-If they have this unbiblical doctrine, how many more do they have?
-I find myself just as leery about the Apostolic churches around me who are in false doctrines of legalism as I am other churches around me who are in false doctrine as it applies to other elements of Christian belief and living.

What you find to be low on the list of important things... I see as an indicator that deeper issues and false teachings exist. You're saying, "Oh, it's only one chunk of floating ice." I'm saying, "No. False teachings like these are only the tip of the iceberg."

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not going to continue arguing this. Maybe you'll find a translation some day which changes the focus on the clothes being worn to beard vs shaved.

Good luck with that.

So, you're saying that James is warning not to show favoritism. He used the EXAMPLE of showing favoritism over clothing that indicates wealth or poverty. But since he didn't mention beards specifically... you think James would be A-Okay if you argued that he had no right to preach or minister and that had to sit down because of his beard, while you let others without beards just preach away, sing the choir, teach Sunday school, etc.???