I refuse to remove the landmarks

[LadyChocolate]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If we want to call ourselves "Apostolic" shouldn't our landmarks be those that were set up by the original apostles?

You mean we have to move over to the middle east? aw man!













j/k

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

NO I am not. How ever It is clear that there should be clothing that is distinctly mens and distinctly womens.

If women have dress and skirts. Plus wear pants. Then men have nothing that is distinct to men. This is a problem.

In the garden, when God made clothes for Adam and Eve, he made them both coats. It doesn't mention that he made them different at all.

Throughout Bible times men and women both wore robes (dresses). There was supposed to be a fringe on one of them to differentiate, but that's all.

It just doesn't seem like a biblical concept that men and women's clothing must be drastically different.

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

I suspected this was not the forum for this topic. That is why I started it. .

Actually, this forum is full of threads discussing this very subject. A lot of interesting discussions.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.
God may convict us but He will not condemn us.
Because we "feel" condemned by something does not mean that something is wrong. We are to go by the Word, not by our feelings. I just read a note I had written in my Bible next to 1 John 5:10-13:
D.L. Moody (1837-1899) said, "I believe hundreds of Christians are being deceived by satan now on this point. They don't have the assurance of salvation just because they are not willing to take God at His Word."

A former pastor of mine (who was UPC District Superintendent of Ohio) told us a story about when he was young. He was going to a Nazarene Church which preached strict adherence to "rules." They taught that we under the New Testament were supposed to obey certain parts of the Old Testament law such as the 10 commandments, but they taught that Sunday was now the sabbath. Since Sunday was the sabbath it was a sin to do any work on the sabbath and a sin to pay someone else to work on the sabbath so paying for a bus ride or buying anything on Sunday was wrong. He was going to a storefront church. One Sunday he and a friend were looking at a large pulpit Bible in their church. It was open to a passage in Hebrews and was marked about committing the "unpardonable" sin. It was a very hot day and they had quite a distance to walk to get home. It would have been a sin to ride a bus because they would be paying someone to work and causing that person to sin. So they walked the long distance toward home. Of course they were dressed in clothes that did not make the journey any easier. Finally, in desperation they stopped at a store that was open and bought an ice cream cone --a sin because they were paying someone to desecrate the sabbath by working. As soon as he took that first lick of ice cream he became very "convicted" and realized he had committed the "unpardonable sin." Now where did that "conviction" or "condemnation" come from?

Legalism can crush a person's faith in Christ. I know people who couldn't "measure up" though they never outright "sinned" a sin worthy of being biblically disfellowshipped. These individuals still feel that God still can't love them because of some artificial "standard", based on man's traditions, that's been drilled into their heads. I know an older woman who has chalked herself up to being lost because she owns a television. She lives alone and once told me that if not for the television she could easily go a couple days without hearing another person's voice or seeing another person's face. Her eyes aren't what they used to be and reading is difficult. She doesn't have cable and she only has basic channels. She has had it drilled into her head that she can't be saved and own a television. She's in her late 70's and she doesn't find anything carnal all that interesting. She has had it drilled into her head that she can't be saved and own a television. And she firmly believes she can't go to church because they will not accept her unless she gives it up.

Often those "in church" base their relationship with Christ on their performance regarding their standards...thereby sometimes missing a real relationship with Jesus himself.

Legalism can be far more than just outdated traditions and customs. Legalism can be spiritually deadly.

Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If we want to call ourselves "Apostolic" shouldn't our landmarks be those that were set up by the original apostles?

The Apostles didn't all agree on everything.
The Jerusalem believers as led by James the Lord's brother were known for keeping the Old Testament Law with animal sacrifices. In Acts 21:20 (May AD 57) we are told that there were many thousands (Greek word muriades or ten thousands) of Jewish believers who are zealous for the law. Paul was requested to pay for the animals that 4 of the brethren were to sacrifice as they finished a Nazarite vow. Yet many other Christians did not observe sabbaths, new moons, feast days, circumcision, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.
God may convict us but He will not condemn us.
Because we "feel" condemned by something does not mean that something is wrong. We are to go by the Word, not by our feelings. I just read a note I had written in my Bible next to 1 John 5:10-13:
D.L. Moody (1837-1899) said, "I believe hundreds of Christians are being deceived by satan now on this point. They don't have the assurance of salvation just because they are not willing to take God at His Word."

A former pastor of mine (who was UPC District Superintendent of Ohio) told us a story about when he was young. He was going to a Nazarene Church which preached strict adherence to "rules." They taught that we under the New Testament were supposed to obey certain parts of the Old Testament law such as the 10 commandments, but they taught that Sunday was now the sabbath. Since Sunday was the sabbath it was a sin to do any work on the sabbath and a sin to pay someone else to work on the sabbath so paying for a bus ride or buying anything on Sunday was wrong. He was going to a storefront church. One Sunday he and a friend were looking at a large pulpit Bible in their church. It was open to a passage in Hebrews and was marked about committing the "unpardonable" sin. It was a very hot day and they had quite a distance to walk to get home. It would have been a sin to ride a bus because they would be paying someone to work and causing that person to sin. So they walked the long distance toward home. Of course they were dressed in clothes that did not make the journey any easier. Finally, in desperation they stopped at a store that was open and bought an ice cream cone --a sin because they were paying someone to desecrate the sabbath by working. As soon as he took that first lick of ice cream he became very "convicted" and realized he had committed the "unpardonable sin." Now where did that "conviction" or "condemnation" come from?

Sam, I believe God wants us to honor them that have the rule over us and submit unto them as they that watch for our souls. Now if a pastor has a conviction that we should not eat meat and preaches that conviction as a rule for the whole entire body of believers to follow, as long as a saint is under this person's rule, I believe they should honor their pastor's rule in not eating meat EVEN if it is not their conviction. I think the saint who dishonors the pastors rule, even though they disagree, is being dishonoring God as well. Sometimes we have to submit and do things we are not convicted of God to do to be united in the Spirit though maybe not in the faith. It's the attitude of humility, willingness to be peaceable, working together for unity that I believe pleases God.

How much can we put ourselves out to live in unity with others who we love but may not agree with every place they put the jot and tittle before we seek another church to fellowship with is another story.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

In the garden, when God made clothes for Adam and Eve, he made them both coats. It doesn't mention that he made them different at all.

Throughout Bible times men and women both wore robes (dresses). There was supposed to be a fringe on one of them to differentiate, but that's all.

It just doesn't seem like a biblical concept that men and women's clothing must be drastically different.




Actually, this forum is full of threads discussing this very subject. A lot of interesting discussions.

And, an English Bible which is older than the King James Version and considered "more Protestant" than the Anglican Catholic King James Version says, "Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches." That's verse 7 of chapter 3 of Genesis. Then verse 21 says, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them."

There is a marginal note for verse 7 for the word "breeches" which says, "Hebrew, things to gird about them and hide their privities."
There is also a marginal note for verse 21 which says "or gave them knowledge to make themselves coats."

This is from the 1599 Geneva Bible. It was translated by English Protestants in Geneva while they were banned from England by Bloody Queen Mary. Later when James was King he authorized what we know as the King James Bible for the Anglican or Episcopal or English Catholic Church. These godly reformers considered James a pervert. The Geneva Bible is the one the Pilgrims brought to America with them. The KJV to them represented the state Church.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

The Apostles didn't all agree on everything.
The Jerusalem believers as led by James the Lord's brother were known for keeping the Old Testament Law with animal sacrifices. In Acts 21:20 (May AD 57) we are told that there were many thousands (Greek word muriades or ten thousands) of Jewish believers who are zealous for the law. Paul was requested to pay for the animals that 4 of the brethren were to sacrifice as they finished a Nazarite vow. Yet many other Christians did not observe sabbaths, new moons, feast days, circumcision, animal sacrifices, tithing, etc.

A landmark would be something ALL agreed to, Sam, and usually it is a matter of principle and not law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

A landmark would be something ALL agreed to, Sam, and usually it is a matter of principle and not law.

A landmark was a landmark. Please review the following post...it was biblically accurate.

Originally Posted by pelathais

The statement you cite in Proverbs involved respecting another man's fields and inheritance. Another verse just a bit further: Proverbs 23:10, clearly shows that the landmark was to keep people from stealing land and crops from those who were weaker than they. Job 24:2 echoes this same concern.

Here's the actual verse...

Proverbs 23:10
10Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:

What we see here is that we have drifted from what the Bible is actually talking about in context because preachers have tried to "sermonize" on a word. If we drift away from what the Bible is actually addressing we'll argue over it until Jesus comes back because it's up to subjective opinion. However, if we keep it strictly within it's biblical context we can actually know the Bible and know what it was actually addressing.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Pastor Keith

Lets talk about Landmarks of the Fathers, I posted this some time back.

Have you ever been curious how the First Church regarded standards, holiness and living in a pagan culture?

Well this is a testimony by a Disciple of Polycarp named Mathetes, who most likely wrote this between 100-140AD.

I think to be an eye opener and will likely change your perspective on how the early church related to and lived in a pagan world. I highlighted some parts that I thought would be of interest to our diverse forum.

It was titled "The Manner of Christians"

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking [281] method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. [282] They have a common table, but not a common bed. [283] They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. [284] They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. [285] They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. [286] They are poor, yet make many rich; [287] they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; [288] they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

That's an awesome post, Pastor Keith.

[Billy Boy]

Originally Posted by bhoutreach

Prov 22:28
28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

I find it interesting that many after being blessed by finding the Truth, begin to seek ways to change what they have received.

Men and women before us understood the strength in Holiness, both inside and out. They were wise enough to know that the NEW BIRTH experience was just the beginning. Men were to dress like men and women like women. Because this was right in the eyes to the LORD. And still is. Men and women were to dress modestly and still should. Uncut hair on a women was her covering and showed her submission to her head and long hair on a man was a shame and still is.

Just because culture changes it's view does not mean the church should or that GOD has.

I am progressive in the sense that I believe we should change our methods for reaching the world in need. I am an old time preacher in the sense that I do not believe we should ever change our MESSAGE, any of it.

You would fit in well with the Amish!