KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Wearning Ornaments

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 02148 :  Wearning Ornaments

Dear Brother,

Greetings in the name of our blessed lord and saviour jesus christ.

We are from Bretheren family.  Since we are getting a marriage proposal for our son from an Independent Church.  They are born again from Roman Catholics and they are wearing a small gold chain and they have not abandoned gold, but they are instested in bretheren boy.  They are telling they give more food our soul than looking at such type of things.  According to our bretheren culture, we won't allow.  Threrefore, I request you to kindly send a decent reply quoating about to avoid ornaments.

Post by : ims  View Profile    since : 28 Mar 2011


Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 30 Mar 2011 12:17:04 PM Close

 

Dear IMS,
 
If you are looking for scriptural reasons why a person should not wear any gold Jewelry or ornaments you simply cannot find it in the Bible. This is an unbiblical [which has no basis in the Bible] teaching adopted by the Brethren & Pentecostal believers.
 
Some people think K V Simon Sir taught this. But they are wrong. He did NOT teach this. This unbiblical prohibition started seeping in to the Brethren group from Yusthuf Joseph and his disciples.
 
This is a form of ‘abstinence’ ideology rooted in the Hinduism. Bible does not teach such superficial abstinence or external conformity. Sad to say the Brethren adopted such a teaching and still continue, thinking that such abstinence is something God would approve.
 
So, if you are looking for biblical reasons against this family’s stand on letting their daughter wear Jewelry, you simply WILL NOT find it in the Bible. They [this family] are absolutely biblical and correct on their understanding. We, the so-called Brethren need to study the Bible and forget the egotistical pretence that the ‘Brethren know the Bible’ better than anyone else.
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mphilip29@hotmail.com   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2011 11:53:00 AM Close

dear mr. tom johns,

your statement is absolutely wrong. you can find enough & more Bible verses againt using ornaments. if you read Bible carefully, you can find everything in the Bible. This is not something which the Brethren and Pentacostal believers find it from somewhere else. I am quiet sure that, only the Brethrens are teaching or deviding the word of God correctly. Even the other denominational peaople are accepting this fact. And they are not at all teaching something from their own.

Brethren movement started in kerala at the time of KVS, JJ, KGThomas and so on. When they learn the Bible carefully they found the Bible says that a believer should abstain from all perishable things of this world. If a believer is having something in their heart, they will show it in their outside appearance also. Jesus Christ lived a simple life and He wants His followers also should follow that. If not then how you can say that you are a follower of Jesus Christ. A believer is suppose to follow what the Bible says. Bible is written by the inspiration of God. we cannot accept something which we think it is wright. If you think that the Brethren teaching is wrong, then why you are continuing with this group. There are so many ornaments wearing groups and you may please go and find someone which is good for your thinking.

Please read 1Tim: 2:9 Woman adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, or gold or pearls, or costly array. This verse is more than enough to clarify the subject. All scripture (including this) is given by inspiration of God, and is prifitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness 2Tim: 3:16,17. May I ask you one thing, what is the meaning of NOT WITH. Is this mean - may be, or if you think. For God, either YES or NO, and not in between.

Please note the following verses also.

1) Song of Songs : 4:9 (2) Jer: 4:30; (3) Isaiah: 3:16-25; (4) 1Pet: 1: 7, 18; (5) Exodus: 33:3-6; (6) Prov: 20:15; (7) 1Tim: 2:9,10; 1Pet: 3: 1-5 Acts : 3:6 Appostles were not using it.

When a believer sitting in the presence of God he or she should not were anything which is decorating themselves. There are more verses in the Bible, but I dont want to elaborate it.  I am not interested in any arguments on this subject. Any one who believes in God and the Bible they suppose to believe and obey what is written in the Bible. This is what the Bible says about the ornaments and costly garments. A modest apparel is God wants from a child of God. Simple life pleasing to God. This is what the Brethren and Pentacostals are following and teaching. And that is from the word of God and not from the immagination of some leaders. I think this is clear enough and no need more explanations. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2011 1:56:30 PM Close

 

Dear Bro. Philip,
 
I along with others had written on this forum several years ago regarding these issues and the verses that you have cited, concluding that wearing gold is against the principles of scriptures. Me, as a writer and some of you as readers, are indeed tired of these discussions. Yet, I respond because I see fundamental flaws in interpreting the word of God. Because of that, I am writing again. Most of these are already posted at some point in the past here at the KB forum. I am just addressing one or two passages you claim that would make your stand ‘clear enough.’ The purpose of this posting is not primarily for those who are set in this prohibition stand, but those who are interested in studying ANY verse as it should be. This is for a generation of people who are genuine in their pursuit of learning how to study [to some extent] and interpret the Bible verses. So, I have included some fundamental principles of Biblical interpretations in a practical sense, but not in academic sense.  
 
1 TIMOTHY 2:8-10

“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”
 
I hope you will realize that both the NT scriptures which refer to wearing jewelry, 1Pet 3:3 and this one, are specifically addressed to women. So there is no scripture against men wearing jewelry, unless you want to apply to men instruction that is specifically meant for women. This means that men wearing gold chains and rings can be baptized and admitted to the Lord’s supper,[in this case, consiidered worthy to be married to. Refer the 1st post.] since you have no Scripture that speaks against their wearing them. To apply to men these verses specifically directed to women would be to turn men into women.
 
In the interest of what spiritual principle would that be done?
 
I looked up the instances where Paul introduces a statement with “I wish/desire/want” (boulomai, in Greek). The first is in Phil 1:12, not particularly similar to these. The remaining three are from the pastorals, and we can compare them.

1 Tim 2:8-9 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, … that the women adorn themselves …
1 Tim 5:14 I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house...
Titus 3:8 These things I want you to affirm constantly.
 
There are more instances of the Greek synonym, thelo, used similarly by Paul. But only a few instances of the use introduce practical instruction, which I quote below.

Rom 16:19 I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.
1 Cor 7:7 I wish that all men were even as I myself am.
1 Cor 10:20 I do not want you to become sharers in demons.
 
If there is a point I wish to make by quoting these, it is this. The instruction of the apostle in 1Tim 2:9 is one of very many instructions concerning practical living we have in the NT. It does not have a unique status above all other instructions in the NT that historical KB practice has given it. Now let us look at it more closely.
 
Please note that the way we apply 1Tim 2:9 should be with the same vehemence we apply verse 8, since the selfsame Paul instructs that women should dress modestly IN THE SAME MANNER AS men should pray lifting up holy hands. So it does not suffice for some to say, “we have men who lift up hands in prayer” or that “we teach men to lift up hand in prayer.” The real point is that if women’s wearing gold is sufficient reason for refusing baptism or exclusion from fellowship, by the same logic, the apostle’s statement of the command requires like attitude against not lifting hands. However, I myself consider this a trivial and technical argument. So let us move on to consider the real issue.
 
Supposing we grant that this last bastion of the KB position teaches that women should not wear gold at all. It still leaves out men (for the important reason that when men are distinguished from women, they should not be counted with them!) and their freedom to wear gold.

It only excludes braided hair, gold, pearls, and costly garment.It excludes gold and pearls to the same extent it excludes braided hair and costly garment.It does not address inexpensive adornments like bead necklaces, simple bangles, silver anklets, etc. (since we do not treat this as a general principle, but as the foundation for a specific law, it deserves to be treated this specifically).

On the other hand, if the named items are to be regarded as representative, and designating categories, then who else should be forbidden to be baptized or to remember the Lord at the Lord’s supper? Women who wear anything with gilt or that appears golden, such as watches and watchstraps? those who wear expensive silks? Mind you, Paul says nothing about what you wear to the meeting. It is what you wear. At any time. We need to also ask if the braiding of the hair, in principle, includes slides, barrettes, ribbons, and similar devices?
 
It is my opinion that if we listen to what these verses are saying, the teaching is not different from what we have through Peter. What he says is that women should adorn themselves, with modesty and prudence, and by means of good works. When we put these against braided hair, gold, pearls, and expensive garments, the categories don’t match.
 
 It is not that good works replace braided hair or expensive garments in the functionality of braids or garments, but in providing adornment. In short, Paul teaches that true adornment of a godly woman is character, not glitter; that a woman’s adornment that consists of modesty, prudence, and good works.
I will grant that this instruction by the apostle is a strong statement in favor of modest attire and the avoidance of gold and pearl for adornment, but only to the extent that braiding of the hair is to be avoided. It cannot be granted that anyone may use this to create a new law that denies baptism or refusing to marry or fellowship on grounds that someone is wearing some ornaments, metal or non-metal. These instructions of Paul’s are not intended to create such laws any more than his desire that unmarried men would continue single, or that younger widows should marry and have children
 
I would like to suggest that historical KB Practice against jewelry was not guided by Scripture but that Scripture was used improperly to justify preconceived notions. The Brethren sought to “separate” and to show outward signs of separation as marks of holiness. This has resulted in the rise of a new legalistic error along the lines of the Galatian heresy.
 
As the best evidence of resisting Scripture on this matter, I quote to you the following lines from KVS’s “Amba Yerushalem.”
 
kanakavum muththu rathanam ivayaniyillenkilum
sumukhiyaamival kanTam bahuramaniiyamaam.
(The neck of this fair woman is exceedingly beautiful
although she will not wear gold, pearl, or precious stone)
 
He is describing “Jerusalem the Mother,” alias, New Jerusalem. It is very clear from all the other verses in the song that he is in the last chapters of the book of Revelation. It is really a description of the sight of New Jerusalem descending from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband (pallavi [refrain], and charanangal [verses] 1, 4-6—see Rev 21:9-10, 16, 23). KVS says she will not wear gold, pearl, or precious stones, but that is not what John sees or the angel shows him. Read for yourself Rev 21:10-11, 18-21. Sometimes well-intentioned people take unbiblical positions and become so entrenched in them that even God cannot speak to them. I realize that I should also be cautious that my positions on matters of faith and practice also derive from the plain teaching of Scripture.
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
 
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2011 2:52:37 PM Close

 

Some of my dear friends and some from my own family had advised me not to ‘waste’ my time on this issue. The reason [a valid one too] is that those who are set in this ideology would stick to it to the grave. If so, why bother with this? I have a different outlook in this regard. There may be ONE person out there who is truly seeking some answers to his/ her confusion. With that in mind, let me continue. As I mentioned earlier these are already posted on KB net long time ago either by me or another family member of mine. I had combined those writings here.
 
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE KB ATTITUDE ON JEWELRY

There are several problems with the jewelry ban of the KB. I will mention two pragmatic concerns and two more linked to doctrine.
 
The first pragmatic issue is the DISTORTION IN POPULAR THINKING about the nature of the gospel. [My family member wrote this as his experience and is quoted here.] A friend in my schooldays was of Catholic background. After one summer vacation, as we were approaching the end of schooldays (10+), he returned to school and announced to me how his family had received the gospel and were attending an IPC church. Later he himself received the Lord. Then one day, we were both talking to one of our teachers who was Catholic. She had a special liking for him and he was quite free in how he talked to her. On that occasion pointing to the gold chain on her neck he said, “If you go there [heaven] wearing such things they are not going to let you in, do you hear?” I was shocked.
 
 My friend, who had recently professed conversion, did not really understand the gospel. The Kerala churches that did preach the gospel also had a baggage of dogmatic legalism that distorted the message. I said nothing then, but going away from there I said to him, “What did you tell her?” He did not understand what I was so excited about. I had to clarify to him what the gospel was, and was not, and that it was not, “If you do not take off your jewelry you won’t get into heaven.”
 
The sad fact is that no one had ever told him in words the version of the particular gospel he preached that day. It was his inference from observation. The legalistic emphasis of the KB and Pentecostals had distorted his understanding. I thank God that he went on to do well, and is in the Lord’s work, preaching a clear gospel (and is also quite famous).
 
A second incident is of more somber tone. There were two of us in school who were Brethren. One of the staff took an unselfish spiritual interest in us for that reason, for our good. But she was not Brethren. In a conversation once she told me that she had been at a Brethren assembly in a city in Kerala. They told her that she could have fellowship with them, as long as she took away all her ornaments including her minnu. When I knew this dear Christian, she was not noticeably ornamented. I don’t think even that minnu was on a metal chain. Her difficulty was this: “It is after a very long wait I got this [her minnu],” she said, “and I cannot bring myself to tear it off.” If you saw her, you would probably have felt the poignancy of her statement. The Brethren would feel she was not good enough for them. But she was good enough for Jesus Christ. Many things need to go out from our lives as we come to Christ. But the symbol of a holy bond to a believing husband is not one that the Lord asked for.
 
I personally have no liking for the minnu custom. I do not consider it wrong, but I am too Brethren to like it. I know people talk about the occult and all that in that connection. However, the simple fact is that Christians who use the minnu in a wedding do not see or think of or worship a Shivalingam. And if you do, then it is a problem with your mind (Titus 1:15; also see 1Cor 8:4-7).
 
Another pragmatic issue connected with the KB practice is the NON-ACHIEVEMENT OF INTENDED PURPOSE. I recall posts on this site about this. [This is addressing what was discussed at the time of original posting.] Not wearing any jewelry at all, in the Indian context, invites attention and comment. It invites two kinds of attention. One is that in many states, women wearing no jewelry are regarded as immoral. What a statement to make! On the one hand, we are seriously concerned about the most tenuous connections of paganism to things in ornaments.
 
On the other hand, we are totally unconcerned about cultural symbols that bode evil. I have bad memories of the looks of fellow passengers on the train when traveling outside Kerala with a female member of the family. Quite vivid and unpleasant memories. The second kind of attention the total forsaking of jewelry attracts is precisely the kind that the Lord commanded us not to. If we proclaim holiness by excessive non-adornment and uniforms that scream about simplicity, is that not like the pharisaic ostentation that the Lord rebukes in Matt 6:1, 5, 16, etc.?
 
A MONASTIC GROUP?

“Can’t the Brethren make their own rules for fellowship?” someone might wonder. If the Brethren want to present themselves as representative of biblical Christianity, wherein members are those who belong to Christ, then, “No!” But certain Christians might band together, and like the Rechabites of Jer. 35, to be bound to a stricter life than Christian liberty allows. That would be a position that states, “What we do is not the general rule for all believers, but this is the additional rigor we place upon ourselves out of our burden for and commitment to certain good things.” It could be separation to particular missions, ministries and lifestyles, and then we would not be interested in talking about what is wrong about the group except by invitation. Is that what Brethrenism is, like one of the monastic orders of the Catholic church, but operating instead within the sphere of gospel preaching Christianity?
 
AFFINITY WITH THE GALATIAN HERESY
 
To conclude this criticism, I would like to point out what a fundamental biblical issue is with the KB addition of legal requirements for fellowship. It is against the spirit of the Brethren movement elsewhere, and it is against the spirit of the gospel.
The Brethren movement in UK had an ideal of believers coming together based on the truth of the one body of Christ. All who are Christ’s are part of that body. True, in course of time, some deviated from that ideal. But that is what they recognized at the outset as true. They were going to be one, not by signing on to a creedal statement, or identifying with a denomination, or human leader such as one of the reformers, but simply as Christians. The KB outlook is that you can be Christ’s by receiving Him as Savior, but to be one of us, you have to also obey these rules. The trouble with the distinctive rule of non-ornamentation is that it is neither derived from Sinai, nor added by Christ, nor something imposed by the apostles. It was a law promulgated by the “fathers” of the KB movement, on rather dubious scriptural support. The Bible contains teaching on modest apparel, humility in conduct etc., but not in the form of a legal precondition of outward holiness for baptism and fellowship (= participation at the Lord’s Supper). The KB practice is a distortion of the pure gospel. Here it is being taken against a bride who otherwise suitable for this young man. [Refer to the original posting.]
 
I would like to point out that it has points of contact with the Galatian heresy. The Galatian heresy was simply this: certain people who professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah maintained that it is not enough to believe. One must also keep the Law.
The KB are not participants in the Galatian heresy in as much as they do not believe it is necessary to keep the Law of Moses or their own law to be saved. Quite the contrary. They do maintain the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But it is worth asking the same question that Paul asked the Galatian Christians: Gal 3:2-3 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? The “flesh” Paul is referring to is “works of the Law.”
 
What the KB have going for them are works even unknown to the Law. To practice a holiness consisting in externals, or strictly tied to externals, is not what the Lord taught. To similar pharisaic teaching of holiness, the Lord gave a very clear answer. Mark 7:18-23 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." Think about it. The things that the KB proscribe with unflinching absoluteness does not even go into a man. They stay entirely external. How much more should we ignore them?
 
More can be said about the practical implications of how Paul deals with the Galatian heresy. It deserves more time, but I would like to bring this to a conclusion. I would point out from the Galatian epistle two things. One is Paul’s recounting of the situation in Antioch (Gal 2:11-19). Certain Jewish believers refused to have fellowship with gentile Christians because they had not been circumcised according to the Law. Even Peter who had disregarded this difference (rightly), under pressure went back and refused to have fellowship with them. For this Paul rebuked and publicly corrected Peter.
 
What the KB do is a version of this, except that here the ground for refusal in “table fellowship or accept as a bride” is adherence to a law they themselves promulgated. This is deplorable. If you will acknowledge that the people you refuse to have fellowship with truly belong to Christ, and are not living in sin such a way as to repudiate faith in Christ (as in the gross sins mentioned in 1Cor 5), to refuse to have fellowship with them is to engage in the same kind of heretical conduct as the Galatian legalists.
 
Secondly, the response to this heresy ought to be as inferred by Paul from the Scriptures. People mention the weak brother etc., but in the case of the KB heresy, the “weak” brothers are in the same role as the Judaizers. They are not weak but strong, and intimidating. The proper response to them is what Abraham did in regard to Ishmael (Gal 4:30—This is not a verse to use against people you dislike, but against the heresy of legalism and works of the flesh). All legalistic error is to be strongly opposed and rejected. There is no room for compromise in this area.
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2011 3:50:07 PM Close

 

When I addressed KB [Kerala Brethren] I addressed specifically, in most cases, the members of this forum who believe that wearing any Jewelry is ‘anathema’ and propagating such teachings here. Also, to those who think others who do not see any biblical objection to wearing Jewelry are to be considered less spiritual and do not deserve to be accepted into the family through marriage or offer fellowship. My intention was not to belittle the entire Kerala Brethren [who are associated by the name Brethren] but I was pointing out the errors of those who are teaching such prohibition.  
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2011 1:42:52 PM Close

One of my favorite endorsements of jewelery is the parable of the prodigal son.  What did the father do when the son returned?  He put a ring on his finger.  Our Lord Jesus, by virtue of this parable endorsed rings. 

TomJ has done a much better job of expounding than I would, so I defer to him.  But one more point:  This is just like the issue of meat sacrificed to idols with Apostle Paul.  All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.

I have heard that not wearing a wedding ring has caused irreparable harm to a testimony  (the unbeliever thought that the believer sought to hide his marital status by not wearing one).  I also am aware of problems wearing jewellery causes in Kerala.  Use the Pauline thoughts of being wise to the surroundings.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2011 1:45:29 PM Close

to the original poster:

It is your perogative as a family  to accept or reject a potential mate for your child based on this issue.  You yourself seem to understand that this is not a scriptural issue but a cultural one by use of the phrase: "According to our bretheren culture" instead of "according to scripture".  If you do choose to reject this proposal, simply tell the other family what your preferences are and what the culture is of the place in which you live.  Unfortunately, you cannot appeal to scripture (properly) as TomJ has shown above.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 5 Apr 2011 8:40:43 PM Close

There we go with Ornaments again. So sad KB people are so misled on this topic these days. Wearing ornaments is not a sin. Period!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 6 Apr 2011 7:13:04 AM Close

Well expounded my Brother Tom. It is heartening to see that God is working in the hearts of brothers like to give the real perspective of the Word and not subject it to the abuse that many among us have put it through in terms of allegorical and false interpretations.

The Statement made by Bro. Philip " I am quiet sure that, only the Brethrens are teaching or deviding the word of God correctly." is perhaps true but thats only what the "BRETHERENS!" (apparently we have privilege membership in Heaven!") are good at. Christianity is not just about dividing the Word of God but rather about living it.

I would like to ask Him a question. You asked Bro. Tom to define "Not With". if you read the subsequent verse it asks Women to be  rather "adorned with good deeds". So how can you apply that to the physical realm when clearly and obviously you have related "Not With" to the physical realm?? Not to mention there is something known as "costly array (garments)" which is also as much important as gold or silver itself. I implore you to ask yourself this question atleast 15 times before terming someone's perspective as "Absolutely wrong". Read the verses 25 times and then pray to God (sincerely - the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much) to bring out the real meaning of the text. and then please bring forward your understanding (based on the Spirit convicting you).

For God's sake please look at what God wants to emphasize through those verses and not try to bring meaning to the Text. Brethren, the Time is indeed at hand and our focus must always be to bring the message of the Gospel to the many who are losing out. To live our lives with the Grace and Love which will be able to influence our friends and many others so that they too will experience God's Love and thereby accept his Gift of Salvation (though the guiding of the Holy Spirit).

Regards

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tom_s   View Profile   Since : 6 Apr 2011 6:00:00 PM Close

 

Tom Johns,
I thank God for your patience especially with this subject in discussion. As you mentioned in your post, I been reading these discussion about ornaments for years and now I am tired of these discussions in a good sense. Many of the Kerala Brethren mixed the culture with Scripture and keep holding the culture as the Scripture. I don’t think anyone can change them. These things are deep rooted in their minds and it doesn’t matter what actually Bible speaks about it. As ‘gmat30’ pointed out the only way for a sincere person is to read the Bible and spend time in prayer with an open heart.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 6 Apr 2011 6:41:26 PM Close

Wearing of jewelry is not sin but it will lead to self-exaltation that could eventually lead to the sin by which Lucifer fell and became Satan.

 

Ezekiel 28:17 (King James Version)

 

17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

 

1 Peter 3:3-5 (New Living Translation)

 

3 Don’t be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. 4 You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God. 5 This is how the holy women of old made themselves beautiful. They trusted God and accepted the authority of their husbands.

 

Bobby Chacko

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 7 Apr 2011 8:24:11 AM Close

Dear Bro. Bobby,

From my understanding of the Word, the sin of self-exaltation can occur with any sense of materialism in our lives. I live here in the Middle East and I have seen people decking themselves not with Gold but rather Fancy Cars,Costly apparel, splendid exorbitant houses and the like. Even knowledge can/will puff us up and bring the sin of pride into us. Our isolation of Gold of being the single largest reason of materialism is definitely not well founded. It is as much guilty of bringing pride/sin as much as are the remaining factors I mentioned.

I do not personally wear any Gold but I never will condemn anyone who wears it simply because the Word of God never asks me to condemn. For me I look at how I can bring that person closer to the Love of God. He may choose to forsake Gold ornaments based on his conviction but if he chooses to do that I will encourage him to make other sacrifices for God and indeed it is my duty to tell him that throwing away of Gold or ornaments does not in any way make a man more righteous. It is surely the contriteness of his heart and honestful dependance on God that makes all the difference.

Brothers, let us awake and put aside these vain and useless arguements and move on to live the life that God has commanded us to live. Remember we are all stewards of the wealth/possession that God has given us and we will be held accountable individually for what we do with it. Any man having Gold while he was a beleiver in this World is not going to be stripped of his Salvation. It is indeed secure because the Word tells us so. So let us look around us and pray for those who are perishing and make that difference  in their lives and to tell them that there is Hope only in Christ.

May God alone be glorified

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 7 Apr 2011 3:49:18 PM Close

 

Since there are at least few who are interested and perhaps would be benefited by these discussions let me continue with some other general principles that would help with proper understanding regarding this error among [some of] the Brethren group from Kerala [hereafter, KB] and its offshoots. Creating a prerequisite for allowing a believer to be baptized other than what the scriptures mandate or disallowing participation from the Lord’s Supper by placing unbiblical yoke are not CULTURAL ISSUES. It is heresy taught among the KB and many among the KB, sad to say, are convinced this prohibition is thoroughly biblical.
 
For instance, read the posting by Bro. Philip from earlier towards the top of the thread. This brother quoted many verses and this dear brother thinks those are all convincing proof texts against wearing any ornaments. One of my Nieces once told me, “If we don’t even give up gold, what else is there to give up for my Savior and Lord?” I was troubled in my heart regarding the state of mind of these sincere yet naïve believers. With these burdens let me bring out few more points to the ones who are genuinely interested to study the word of God.
 
THE METHOD OF PROVING

And how would we go about proving the matter one way or the other? That is the challenge we have. This is what I mean by ‘the question of validating doctrine’ which is the basis of biblical studies. What would be adequate proof for establishing something as a required standard or as a forbidden practice for the life of the believer? A few things need to be pointed out in this regard.
 
INVALID ARGUMENTS: First of all, there is a kind of proof that is not at all good: “This is how we always taught/did” or “This is what our (spiritual) forefathers taught.” They proved to be exceptionally good Christians and showed great testimony of their faith. This answer is no good. If this answer can be good, Brethrenism would not exist. It was not satisfactory that the Mar Thoma church (and its parent church) always baptized infants. That was not good enough for KVS. He wanted to be bound by the Bible.
 
It was not satisfactory that the Church of England all along had a clergy-laity distinction. That was not satisfactory for JND. So, in the true spirit of Brethrenism, it shall not suffice for us if KB from the beginning did this. Our natural/spiritual forefathers could have been wrong. If you are not willing to accept this, you have no right to preach the gospel and ask anyone to place their trust in Christ as only Savior, if that is not what their forefathers also believed. If we say with Paul, “Let God be true, and every man a liar (Rom 3:4),” let us have the humility to admit that perhaps our own forefathers did not get everything right, even though they were zealous for Scripture and Christ.

A STRICT CRITERION: On the positive side, what are acceptable criteria? I recall a discussion on this forum about fasting several years ago. Two eminent participants concluded that there was not enough mandate for the church for fasting other than as an individual (secret) thing. That was interesting. The Old Testament (OT) has plenty of instances of individual and collective fasting, inside and outside Israel, and often declared and mandated. The instances certainly are not lacking.
 
But this was considered quite inadequate to form the basis of a ‘rule’ for the church. I do not disagree with that conclusion, but merely wish to point out the need they found for more compelling evidence or prescription to recommend something as the practice for the church. In addition, the New Testament (NT) has clear examples of fasting, in the example of the Lord’s life, in the life of the early church, in the practice of the church in Antioch, in the individual life of the apostles.
 
John 13:14 – “If, I then, your Lord and Teacher have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” This is Jesus Christ’s own command to the disciples.1 Tim 2:8 “I desire therefore that the men praying everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” Still, it was felt that these constitute inadequate basis for us to form rules mandated on the church. So, our evidence for any mandate concerning ornaments must also meet a stricter standard.
 
APOSTOLIC PRECEDENT: Further on the positive side, I would like to follow in the footsteps of the Brethren in this instance. This was a strong feeling to return to NT simplicity in practices. So, the Brethren did not care about the architecture of the meeting places (or even to have a special building reserved for worship). They did away with the clergy and went (with some inconsistency) to a church government practice of having multiple elders in each congregation.
 
This was from a basic desire to imitate the NT. Their meetings had a primary focus of breaking bread because they felt this was what the early church did. They broke bread every week, on Sunday, because this is what the early church ended up practicing, after starting out to do so every day.
 
One is surprised, therefore, considering this earnest desire of the early Brethren worldwide to follow in apostolic footsteps, the Malayalam Bible does not read as follows in the places shown below.
 
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth, REMOVETH ALL HIS JEWELRY, and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
 
Clearly, observing the KB practice one would think this is how the verse read. But what I added in capitals that are not part of the Bible.
 
Acts 2:38-41 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, REMOVE YOUR ORNAMENTS, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. …. 41 Then they that gladly received his word, AND TOOK OFF ALL THEIR ORNAMENTS, were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
 
Again, if you observe KB practice, one would think that this is what the Scriptures said, but the portions in capitals are not simply there.
 
Acts 8:36-38 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; BUT THEN PHILIP HESITATED. WHAT IS THE MATTER? ASKED THE EUNUCH. THOSE RINGS, WHAT ARE THEY STILL DOING ON YOUR EARS? ASKED PHILIP. THE EUNUCH REMOVED THEM PROMPTLY, and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
 
 
We may imagine the material I added in capital letters, but they are not part of the Bible.
In fact, we could go to all the NT places where baptism is mentioned, and observe that something such as the KB requirement is NEVER indicated in any place in the NT. There is NO apostolic precedent for the KB practice. Do not protest that I am mocking anyone or anything (in what I did above). It is the KB tradition that makes a mockery of apostolic teaching and practice.

In fact, consider the one place where some behavioral change is indicated in connection with baptism. It is in the gospels, in connection with John the baptizer. Luke 3:7-14 “Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, … 10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? 11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. 12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? 13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. 14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

So, if the Brethren refuse to baptize (or later excommunicate) those who will not give to the poor, I can understand. If they will not baptize government employees who continue to take bribes, I will understand. If those who are violent (beaters and strikers), those who spread falsehoods, and complainers, if such are rejected for baptism and fellowship, I can understand. There is some biblical basis for it. But the statute concerning baptism which the KB have created, which applies to external appearance (i.e., to wear no ornaments at all) does not arise from anything we find clearly practiced in the NT.


The NT evidences no linkage between baptism and a requirement to strip off all jewelry. This practice was not taught by the the Lord or His apostles. Either all first century men and women, both Jewish and pagan, had already attained to the KB standard of spirituality of eschewing all jewelry before they were even converted (this is less likely), or there was no such stipulation as the Brethren make in connection with baptism in the apostolic period (this is more likely).
 
In fact, if the KB practice were standard for the 1st century Christians, Peter had no reason to write 1Peter 3:3, where he told them, “Your adornment must not be ... wearing gold jewelry,” because, since he is writing to believers (1:9,23) who would have been baptized (based on all the evidence in the NT, the two went together), they would not have been wearing any gold jewelry at all. The admonition would be irrelevant if the KB standard in this regard were also 1st century standard. What is more, (here I am getting ahead of myself) when he asks the Christians to LAY ASIDE or remove something, it is not external things, but “malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings” (2:1). Does it seem to you that the KB believe in this (beyond words, I mean)? Aren’t such people entirely comfortable in KB assemblies, causing discomfort to those who do not conform in externals?
 
The long and the short of it is this. Apostolic practice has been a major guide for the practices the early Brethren adopted. But for this particular KB rule, there is no apostolic precedent. 
 
WHAT WE DO WITH EXPLICIT COMMANDS?

I know you are tired of reading by now. May be later?

Your brother in Christ,

Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : thad786   View Profile   Since : 7 Apr 2011 5:48:38 PM Close

I am not very good in Bible theology. But I have read the whole Bible 3 times and I haven't found any verse saying, "God's children MUST NOT WEAR ORNAMENTS". I am just 27 years of age. From what I have seen, I must say that some of the brothers who preach big time saying that KB must not wear ornaments, do not live a holy life. They are bigger sinners than the hindus and muslims I see around. Got to mention that most of them would do anything for money. I am ashamed to say this but it's the truth. Now let's leave those things to God because he's the judge. Wearing a wedding ring is not wrong at all. It's a symbol of marriage. As long as we live in this world, we must live to spread the  good news instead of criticizing our own brothers.  I totally support Tom Johns in what he has mentioned above. With an indepth knowledge that God has given him, he has clearly explained everything in detail. I pray that God might open the eyes of our brothers and sisters to understand what is written in the Bible and to live a life pleasing and acceptable in God's presence. May His name be glorified.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 6:55:41 AM Close

Even though we do not find a direct command to not wear Jewelry; the Bible position is clearly against its use:

 

Ezekiel 7:19 (Contemporary English Version)

 

19Your silver and gold will be thrown into the streets like garbage, because those are the two things that led you into sin, and now they cannot save you from my anger. They are not even worth enough to buy food.

 

Romans 12:1-2 (New Living Translation)

 

 1 And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. 2 Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

 

 

Bobby Chacko

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : varghesepunalur   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 9:13:22 AM Close

ALL KBs

Spend time in prayer. After the prayer, purchase ornaments. pierce the ears, and nose and wear ornaments. No difference between others and KBs.  The US  settled people will be happy.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 1:06:09 PM Close

 

Dear Varghese,
Please don’t get frustrated with God the Holy Spirit, who did not write anything to support the KB unbiblical practice of refusing to baptize or offer the fellowship to Christ’s redeemed. Not only that, God the Holy Spirit wrote an Epistle called “To the Galatians” to expose our urge to impose such regulations on people. My dear brother, when you say ‘the US settled people will be happy,’ do I sense some frustration on your part?
 But consider this! I am just a messenger who explained what is in the Bible.  The message came from God and was given to us in the form of Bible.
 Please quote me the ‘one verse’ [the most compelling verse] that you think that would give you the freedom to insist on such prohibition and refuse baptism or fellowship. Allow me to address that ‘one verse.’ Include a brief note from you how & why do you think that verse give the leadership of an Assembly to demand women to do such thing?
How does that verse apply to NT believers; is that an explicit command that require refusal of baptism or Lord’s Supper [such as we see in 1 Cor. 5] etc. are some of the questions you may want to ask yourself.
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 4:07:10 PM Close

Dear Brother Tom J,

This might be a sideline topic but I am curious to know.  What are your thought's on having Lord's supper with people who are not baptized.    Does your local assembly practice that ?  If no, then do you have a explicit command in the Bible  that require baptism for Lord’s Supper .

Why don't we leave the topic of ornaments to the discretion of elders of Local Assembly ?  When you say KB,  I assume you mean the malayalee brethren  fellowships all over the world.  In that case let me tell you there are few brethren believers who take part in Lord's supper with ornaments at assemblies (malayalam medium of worship ). 

Do you have a first hand experiance (I assume you & your wife wear a ring) of denying fellowship from any of the KB assemblies just because of wearing a ornament ?If yes have you discussed it with the elders of that local church ?

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 6:24:54 PM Close

 

Dear Mithun 2,
There is no explicit command that one should be baptized in order to take part in the Lord’s Supper. But Baptism that follows salvation is a clear teaching of the Bible. I would leave the decision to each local Assembly whether someone is welcomed or not, [because there is a command by the Lord to be baptized,] even though it is NOT given as a criterion for Lord’s Supper participation.
Regarding your second question – I know of an Assembly where some of the people from the Catholic background [about 10] got saved through the work of a couple who were part of that Assembly. They were denied baptism [and Lord’s Supper] and this brother made arrangements for them to be baptized with ornaments [these people were relatively poor and had nothing of any significance as ornaments] and started gathering separately. This assembly is a prominent one in Kerala and it happened in 1982.
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 7:12:18 PM Close

They were denied baptism [and Lord’s Supper] and this brother made arrangements for them to be baptized with ornaments [these people were relatively poor and had nothing of any significance as ornaments] and started gathering separately. -

So what is the issue here.  If there is a difference of opinion on certain items that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, Wouldn't it be better to start gathering separately at the begining itself.  Why would you want to say that the local assembly is wrong, Do you have verse saying that ornaments is must for baptism.?   

As per Romans 14, I believe the Elders of the assembly should consider the weak & strong brethrens already in fellowship and avoid creating division for the sake of ornaments. if a believer or family was following a pattern for so long years, it is not wise to insist a change unless you can prove what they were doing it scripturaly wrong.  And this case not wearing ornaments or not eating non veg food , not drinking coffee etc are not against scriptures.  But if a group is following these patterns for long time and bringing a new person not following similar pattern will definetly affect the fellowship and will create division in the assembly and the Elders should step in and avoid such situation.  Gatherining separately is definetly a better idea/wise decision rather than creating division/split in a local assembly.

How is this ornament issue different from some of the other patterns that local assemblies follow in other parts of the world (like, commendation letter is required for fellowship). All of the believers understand and follow these every where else.  if there is a local assembly that follow certain patterns(it could be traditional or cultural) and if they are not against scriptures, then a new person coming into the fellowship should understand and accept it.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 7:53:57 PM Close

Mithun 2,

Why didn't Apostle Paul suggest to have separate meetings for those who insisted on having the believers circumcised instead of refuting it in the Epistle to Galatians? 

Your brother in Christ, 

Tom Johns 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 11 Apr 2011 9:06:47 PM Close

Br. Mithun

One of the characteristics of the historical Brethren movement worldwide is that each assembly is autonomous to create its own policies and procedures. These variances in policies and procedures are typically concerning non-essential matters: e.g. women on one side men on the other, or order of meetings or even who gets to "break" the bread or pray for the bread/wine.

There are only 2 ordinances given to us (the church) in the NT, where ordinance is defined as something commanded/established by our Lord Jesus, practised by the early church as found in the book of acts and taught by the apostles as found in the epistles.  As such, we have clear teaching on these 2 (baptism/the Lord's supper):

Regarding baptism, there is absolutely no pre-requisite for baptism in the NT (other than salvation).  Only Paul had a "waiting period" between salvation and baptism, and that was 3 days.  Everyone else who got baptized, got baptized immediately after salvation.  Recall the Ethiopian Eunuch.  He asked "What prevents me from being baptized?" Nothing, and he was baptized immediately.   I'm not saying everyone should get baptized immediately, but pointing out that there was no time for a background check with these people.  Considering the culture of the day, one can guess that the jailer and his family may have had idols and other pagan material in his house, but we don't read that the church made him clean his house out.  Similarly, with the eunuch, asked the question mentioned above.  God knew his life, and would have told Philip to say "No" if there was a problem.  Nope.  The Eunuch was baptized immediately.

If we prevent someone who is born again from getting baptized (for whatever reason), we are in direct contradiction of the scriptures, for we are putting a man made condition to something that clearly has no condition except for salvation.   This is not an assembly freedom issue as described in my first paragraph issue above.

The Lord's Supper, on the other hand does have pre-requisites (other than salvation).  1 Cor 11 clearly tells the believer to examine themselves before participation.   Also, 1 Cor details issues of assembly discipline (ch 5, I think).   One must conclude that wearing of ornaments is equivalent to a disciplinary offence.  That is, wearing an ornament is akin to heresy or sexual sin or some other sin. 

Tom J has quite capably shown that wearing of ornaments is not sinful.  Therefore, an assembly that restricts the Lords supper to those who wear ornaments is in error.  We are adding man-made regulations to an ordinance of God.   As such, this also does not fall under assembly freedom.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 12 Apr 2011 9:36:05 AM Close

Dear Brother Bobby,

Please study the verses that you have quoted and think (and pray) about the questions I have highlighted below:

Ezekiel 7:1919Your silver and gold will be thrown into the streets like garbage, because those are the two things that led you into sin, and now they cannot save you from my anger. They are not even worth enough to buy food.

Does Silver or Gold refer to physical gold alone or does it imply of wealth (eg. possessions/cars/houses/money/gold) in general? Your understanding of what the Word wants to teach us from the verse seems to be very shallow. If you are implying literal interpretation then I am afraid you are in dangerous territory here because i can quote a lot of other verses which will make it almost impossible for us to do a lot of things we generally do in this world. (eg. Taking of a loan from anyone/institution/credit card etc.)
 
Romans 12:1-2- 1 And so, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all he has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice—the kind he will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship him. 2 Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.
 
What does this verse mean? especially the portion which you have highlighted. transformation does not necessarily mean only to forsake gold in your lives but a host of other things that we have carried along. The transformation is first inward before it becomes outward. when you interpret out of context and outside the emphasis of the text then you will definitely fall prey to false interpretation that is not the intention of the Spirit. 
 
My concern is really not the issue of gold in general, but the rather the rampant misinterpretation the Text. It has become very alarming to see our elder folks reading out a text and interpreting it literally so much so that the Spirit intended meaning is lost. majority of them do not even pray before and after reading the Word. they just go ahead and interpret without understanding and analyzing the three fundamental questions (something I learnt recently in our Assembly Bible Study):
 
a) What do I see? (Context and Characters - implying )
b) What Did (not "does") it mean? (the intention (what it meobservationant) of the verse within that context - implying interpretation)
c) How does it apply to my life? (Applying the interpretation to your situation prayerfully - implying application)
 
I was shocked to see how poorly I interpreted the Bible and I thank God for bringing my folly to my attention. (I used to directly move to application or even interpretation without first observing it). From then on I decided to always be careful in interpretation because I never want to be teaching the wrong things even if it means I have to change my hardlined viewpoints which I have carried along for years.
 
Please forgive me if this post appears to be critical but my intention is that all of us should be rightly Dividing the Word with a clear focus on the truth the Word brings to us.
 
Mathew

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ayyopavam   View Profile   Since : 12 Apr 2011 12:42:16 PM Close

Hi  bro Tom J,

can u publish a book in malayalam about this issue. if availab le let me know pls. it is realy needed in kerala. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 12 Apr 2011 3:17:22 PM Close

Dear Ayyopavam,

Please pray about it. I haven't considered that option yet and I haven't ever authored/ published a book in my life. If the Lord opens doors for me, I will be open to that suggestion. Thank you for your encouragement.

Your brother in Christ,

Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : varghesepunalur   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 7:58:36 AM Close

Dear Brother tmoj

I am not a Blble Scolar and I have not studied in any Bible School. An ordinary believer following the footsteps of my parents and grant parents.

Frustration is against people who are calling themselves as KBs and advocating for deviation or teaching against the priciples and policies set by the Elders at the time of starting of this Assembly in Kerala. Is this possible in any other Assemblies or Churches or worldly organisations to sit inside and acting against it.?

In Brethren Asseblies anybody can say anything quoting one verse from here and other from there  because evereybode have the right and all are equal.

If everybody interpretated the Bible Verse similarly there would have been only one Church in this World.


All mighty God in His own Wisdom created man  in His own image . Perfect creation. Was it difficult for God to provide holes in either ears and on nose to wear ornaments ?. Why we should unnecessarily make holes in the God given body to wear ornaments?.Remeber the body is the temple of God.

Can you show me any verse from Bible that you should wear ornaments as other direct Commandments. We wear dress to cover our nakedness and according to the position and jobs  we wear clothes. But ornaments are  extra luxury and to show our wealth only.

Somebody in this thread was quoting the example of Jesus telling the parable of the prodigal son. People  wearing ornaments  and the father giving  the son a ring to show his joy were the custom of those days . . We can see other customs practised in those days  which we are not following today. (Eg; Stonig , the jar kept near the well at the marriage at Galilee , the pool at Bedestha. etc)

Verpadu means real separation from the rituals , cultures , way of life , method of Worship  from other Christians. Calling ourselves as Verpadukar and still leading a life as others is a kind of hypocracy.

Our brethren in US or UK  or Middle East have to obey the rule and laws of that  country and violation or refusal to obey are punishable and will be sent out of the country.  It is applicable to organisation or Companies also. Like wise brethren who are in Brethren Assembly have to accept and obey the policies and principles  set by them which are  for the spiritual growth. Otherwise they can leave the Assembly and join any group where all thease are allowed and at least remain obedient to their rules.

Some one has suggested that we can take wine and not much wine.

Now wearing ornaments are recommended.

Where  Brethren Assembly is heading towards ?.

Tomoroow somebody may come with  few cigareets and not chain smokers.

Occassional cinema and not regularly.

I have written all these just to share the burden of my heart. Not to offend any body. I have not mentioned anybody's name here.

Again  I am telling that I am not a Bible scolar just a practical beleiver.

May God help us to lead a life  APPROVED UNTO GOD

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 1:58:55 PM Close

Br Varghese

Your comments were directed at Br. TomJ, but I would like to make three comments:

No one is recommending that we should do these things.  No one is saying that these things are right in all situations and in all circumstances. And no one is saying that hte Bible explicitly commands someone to wear ornaments, etc. But what I am saying ( I cannot comment for Br. Tom) is that it is

a) unbiblical and a misinterpretation of scripture to insist that wearing ornaments is wrong.  You yourself pointed out it is a cultural issue.  As such, we all should be wise.  For example.  If I fellowship at a KB assembly in Kerala, would it be wise and prudent for me to wear ornaments to church?  No!  It would cause problems.  Alternatively if I was in a culture where the absence of a wedding ring shows others that you are trying to hide your marital status, it might be wise for me to wear a wedding ring.  The problem is the incorrect Biblical misinterpretation to insist that ornaments are sinful.

b) it is wrong and blantantly a violation of scripture to deny someone baptism and/or participation in the Lord's supper over ornaments.

c) From your post:

Verpadu means real separation from the rituals , cultures , way of life , method of Worship  from other Christians. Calling ourselves as Verpadukar and still leading a life as others is a kind of hypocracy.

I am happy that you say this. For if we are consistent, we would condemn ornaments, Seiko watches (why not a timex?), fancy sarees, costly cars or houses and other such things.  But why do KB insist on focusing on ornaments?

Brother, I applaud your own heart and your own convictions.  What I am against is inconsistency and hypocrisy.  This is widespread in our community.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 2:07:37 PM Close

 

Dear Varghese,
We should not take undue liberty and impose unbiblical restrictions upon the Lord’s people. Those who trust in the Lord for salvation do belong to Him. Our Lord took serious offense and gave out a warning in Matt 18:6. “This is how we did in the past” is not an acceptable excuse before the Lord based on this verse and the whole book of Galatians & by the general principles of the Bible.
Also, when we say that we are created in the image of God, it is not speaking about our physical body. Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death.

The image of God refers to the immaterial part of man. It sets man apart from the animal world, fits him for the dominion God intended him to have over the earth [Genesis 1:28], and enables him to commune with his Maker. This is not the subject under discussion but I mentioned it for you to think about it.
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 2:07:57 PM Close

Dear varghesepunalur,

All that you talked above about 'verpadukar' is tradition and customs specific to a region called 'Kerala' in India - not outside it. Please support from the scripture what ever you are trying to prove.

***All mighty God in His own Wisdom created man  in His own image . Perfect creation. Was it difficult for God to provide holes in either ears and on nose to wear ornaments ?. Why we should unnecessarily make holes in the God given body to wear ornaments?.Remeber the body is the temple of God.***

There is a necessity below, but why no hole in the ear lobe?

Deut 15:16-18 The law of the bond-slave.   And if it happens that he says to you, “I will not go away from you,” because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever.   

****deviation or teaching against the priciples and policies set by the Elders at the time of starting of this Assembly in Kerala. Is this possible in any other Assemblies or Churches or worldly organisations to sit inside and acting against it.?****

Principles and policies in 'Christian' churhces should be based on the scripture unlike what we see in Kerala - especially policies on Ornaments. It did make a difference in those days to not wear ornaments, but does it make sense these days? There is a cult group called 'Pentacosal churches' who believes salvation can be lost and most of the KB these days are thought to be pentacostals. Our life style and spending identifies with the rich and the pagan, but Ornaments is a bug deal - Why this hypocrisy?

Other Brethren churches outside Kerala do not have problems because the church rules are based on the scripture and not man made principles..

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 2:36:46 PM Close

I agree with the previous post. To a great extent , the reason why we focus on ornaments is because outside of that "Sacrifice", we have nothing more apparent to show to the World of the Transformation that Jesus has brought into our life. We need to ask ourselves; What about forgiveness, what about Grace, what about patience, what about selflessness and many more of such questions. 

Consistency in our Christian walk is what is essential for Spiritual growth. I do not see where Bro. Tom J or anyone else for that matter recommends the use of jewellery. Bro Varghese's interpretation is more relative than anything else and essentially cultural. Forsaking of Gold is not the quintessential sacrifice that leads to righteousness. There is so much that we have failed to sacrifice to God. I personally beleive the majority of the people who have posted in favour of not condemning beleivers who wear gold  know the Scriptures to a good extent.

It looks to me that Bro Varghese and a host of other KB's take offence when we seek Scriptural reasons for our beliefs. I have not attended Bible School either but I have now learnt to appreciate Bible Scholars as much as I respect other Bible Teachers. I also had the same issue with gold and ornaments till God humbled me to realise that I need to study the Scriptures prayerfully and seek understanding of what it teaches without bringing my own prejudices to the picture.

I am hoping and praying that God will bring a change in our attitude towards Biblical interpretation and surely enough He will work through us in bringing us closer to a Truly fruitful relationship with Him.

Amen

Mathew

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bochayan   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 3:03:31 PM Close

amen to some solid spiritual insight from brethren posts above. i am curious why verghese punalur is not bothered with opulent lifestyles of believers in kerala , no different from rich and pagan as astutely observed by bro paulthomas1. Br vergshese what about dowry ,i am yet to see any "beleiver" thrown out of any assembly for dowry harrasment,spousal abuse, etc unless of course you think these things don't happen.

i am sorry but selective "verpadu" pick-and-choose won't fool anyone. either be verpadukar in the wholesense(commendable) else it is utter nonsense.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 14 Apr 2011 9:00:29 PM Close

 

Dear Readers,
 
It has been one week since we took a break from the ‘study’ part of this discussion. This part of the discussion / teaching is for those who are serious about learning the broader spectrum of these issues. In essence, these studies should help us learning how to study the Bible. I pray that this will not just focus on this particular issue. Even if you are 100% behind this ornaments ban, please continue reading and ask yourself some questions?
 
If you are an elder of an Assembly and you insist that a believer should remove her Jewelry and then only you would accept that person into the fellowship or would be baptized, my dear brother, no matter how sincere you are in your belief, you are guilty of being a stumbling block to the Christ’s redeemed. Jesus Christ does not mince words when he expressed a curse to such people in Matt 18:6-7. He tells that ‘woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes.’ Also, it says, ‘it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.’ Our Lord is very zealous about His redeemed and His children.
 
[Please read the following as continuation of what was written earlier on April 7th.]
 
WHAT WE DO WITH EXPLICIT COMMANDS:
 
The KB teaching with regard to jewelry can also be better assessed against the context of what is done with clear and explicit (sounding) commands in the NT. For instance, John 13:14 “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” This reads and sounds like a command.
 
It has to do with doing something, a practice. What the practice is, is not left uncertain. The gospel clearly says what Christ did. Still we do not practice it. This is to say, when it suits our convenience, we are able to summon highly sophisticated modes of dealing with the biblical text. We ask questions like, “Was this intended as a literal and regular practice?” “Isn’t the Lord teaching us a spiritual lesson of humility, and isn’t that more important than the mere outward action of washing one another’s feet?”
 
See, if we are able not to find a command for the practice of the church in what clearly sounds like one, how much more careful ought we to be to make commands out of what do not sound at all like stipulations of any kind, but general exhortation to godliness?
 
This is not all. “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers.” “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” In fact, there are 5 places where hospitality is commanded in the NT, twice as a requirement for elders (1Tim 3:2; Tit 1:8), and three times directed to all believers (Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9).
 
This is a very practicable instruction. It is commanded. Should we make a rule and requirement out of it? Why is this considered instruction for us to follow voluntarily, but when it comes to adornment, two less absolute sounding instructions (1Tim 2:9; 1Pet 3:3) are turned into an inviolable law for fellowship? What is the basis and procedure for such transformations of biblical instructions?

Or even consider the following one once again: 1 Timothy 2:8 “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands.” Does the KB or any Brethren teach that men must only pray with lifted hands? Why not? It is not relevant whether I think that this is the intent of the verse. But it is highly relevant that the very next statement, linked to this one, is a proof text for requiring the removal of jewelry: v. 9 “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array …” How is part of the statement in v. 9 a rule for a literal adoption and practice (“no gold”) when its obedience is to be in “LIKE MANNER” as men having to lift up holy hands in prayer? In any case, what is its connection to baptism, or permission to remember the Lord?

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS AND PROOFS
 
Here we will address the scriptural proofs and arguments used in this connection.
 
GENESIS 35:1-4

The primary support from the OT is the following: Genesis 35:1-4 “Then God said to Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel and live there, and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau." 2 So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your garments; 3 and let us arise and go up to Bethel, and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone." 4 So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had and the rings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.”
 
There is a major argument that is generated from here. It is an appeal to v.4. Jacob hid his household’s earrings under an oak. Malayalam translates this as “buried (in a pit.)” But I wish to make no argument based on whether he buried it, or hid it. For the purposes of this discussion, we will assume it was a permanent and not temporary abandonment. The major argument made in support of the KB stand is that Jacob, when he really came to God and became a worshipper of the living God, had his household abandon their ornaments.
 
This proof has many broken legs. If we want to go back to an Israelite patriarch as our father, Paul (himself a bona fide Israelite) takes us back to Abraham, not Jacob (Gal 3:7-9, 29). Was Abraham, the father of the believers, whose faith is the model and paradigm for being justified before God, less spiritual at the end of his spiritual life, than his grandson at the beginning of his? See, father Abraham, toward the end of his days, sends all kinds of ornaments (gold nose ring, gold bracelets—Gen 24:22; gold and silver jewelry—v. 53) for his would be daughter-in-law.
 
If Abraham’s sending jewelry for Isaac’s would-be wife has no lesson for us concerning the rightness of wearing jewelry, neither does Jacob’s household burying their earrings say that it is wrong. Clearly, there is something not terribly appealing about this argument. We shall see its true merits if we examine the major point made by KB who use this as proof, which is that Jacob’s household was saying goodbye to jewelry and adornment.
 
First, there is nothing in the OT to suggest that Israel said goodbye to ornaments, or even recognized such a teaching. All evidence is to the contrary. No pattern or model that Israel recognized or followed was established here as we see in Gen 32:32. Israel was guilty of idolatry afterward, but that is always condemned and corrected. But there is nothing about Israel’s becoming guilty by wearing ornaments in any part of the OT. The lessons and implications we draw from the conduct of the patriarch must not be entirely based on our imagination. Our only help to figure out exactly what he intended by this action comes from the context.
 
When we look at commentaries, no Jewish interpreter, ancient or modern, knows of such a sense to this passage. Their commentaries all connect it with idolatry. Among modern scholarly commentaries, the general opinion is that the earrings may have been “amulets,” that is, “charms believed to protect the wearer against evil or to bring good fortune.” The earrings were not necessarily feminine adornment since men also wore in those days.
 
The previous chapter reports the Dinah-Shechem episode. They had just finished slaughtering the men of Shechem, and taking the women and children from that city, along with all its wealth, as loot. The household of Jacob has significantly expanded now with the addition of Canaanite females and children. The foreign gods, therefore, are not only what Rachel stole from her father, but also, most likely, the recent acquisitions. Biblical commentator Wenham points out interesting parallels between Gen 34 and Numbers 31, where Israel attacks and raids the Midianites. In the latter incident, following the plunder of Midian is the purification of people and the looted things. He suggests that there may be something similar going on here, in Gen 34 (although they are far apart in time, it is the same Moses who writes both accounts).
 
It is possible that the earrings had to do with idols somehow. Context clearly guides us this way. The instruction from Jacob was to “put away all the foreign gods.” That was the instruction they were obeying, and is our best clue. Removing earrings does not say anything about necklaces, nose rings, bangles, etc. Did the earrings have depictions of gods? We do not know.
 
These earrings may have been amulets (charms). They may have been part of the loot from Shechem. They may have had depictions of gods. We do not know. What we do know is that this only mentions ear rings in connection with foreign gods, and nothing about ornaments in general. It does not become the basis of a new standard of (non )adornment in Israel. There is no such teaching in the books of Moses or later books of the OT.
 
The reference is specifically to earrings (the Hebrew is being translated quite faithfully with “the rings which were in their ears”), not all ornaments. And the action is directly linked to putting away false gods. These facts are enough to show that what goes on in Gen 35:4 is an inadequate basis for creating a new law to govern the life of those who come to Christ for salvation.
 
I feel ridiculous about even having analyzed this passage to this extent in this connection. Face it, we do not observe the things God explicitly commanded the children of “our father Jacob” from Mount Sinai. We have no problem with eating pork or prawn, or working on the Sabbath (I am not advocating against these.) And we invent a law, which is not even thought about in the Law of Moses, to enslave those who have been set free from the bondage of the Law (Gal 4:4-5).
 
EXODUS 33:3-6 {Relax and take a break - May be later.}
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 Apr 2011 1:59:54 PM Close

Dear Brother Tom Johns,

When you re-start from the break, could you explain (DV), at your convenient and suitable time, the following question?  Is there any passage(s) in the New Testament requiring a person to remove the ornament, if he/she was wearing them, especially when he/she is coming together with other saints as in 1 Corinthians 11?

I would like to hear your observation.  Please do not hurry.  I could wait for your suitable time.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 15 Apr 2011 5:26:28 PM Close
Dear Bro. Koshy,
Instead of me giving a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer I am considering another option.  By knowing the trend of my writings, one could easily ‘predict’ my answer to some extent. But let me take the readers to few verses that they often cite by those who ban Jewelry and deny the Lord’s Supper to anyone wearing ornaments.
When I first responded to this thread on 30th March, Bro. Philip responded by writing on the  very next day as follows –
 
 “Your statement is absolutely wrong. You can find enough & more Bible verses against using ornaments. if you read Bible carefully, you can find everything in the Bible. This is not something which the Brethren and Pentecostal believers find it from somewhere else. I am quite sure that, only the Brethren are teaching or dividing the word of God correctly. Even the other denominational people are accepting this fact. And they are not at all teaching something from their own.”
 
Also, he quoted the following verses. So, I am assuming these are some of the typical verses people quote justifying ‘ornaments ban.’
 
I hope Bro. Philip or someone else would explain how these verses justify an Assembly leadership in banning any believer from being baptized or from taking part from the Lord’s Supper.
 
In the meantime the readers may see how these verses truly could establish such a doctrine the KB had developed. Judge it impartially.
 
List of verses from Brother Philip [March 31, 2011]  
 
1Pet: 1: 7, 18
7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ: & Verse 18 - knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1Tim: 2:9,10 & 1Pet: 3: 1-5 {I have already dealt with these verses so I am not quoting 1 Tim2: 9-10}
Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.
Acts 3:5
Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."
Let me wait for someone who really thinks these verses teach ‘Jewelry ban,’  and/ or people who wear ornaments must not be baptized or be allowed to take part from the Lord’s Supper to respond! Please explain it based on proper Biblical interpretive parameters.  
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 17 Apr 2011 5:14:00 AM Close

Dear Bro. Tom,

The verses are very clear to my understanding. From what I have seen in this post, I am heartened to note that God is bringing change to hearts of the younger generations in aligning their understanding of Christian Life to the principles set out in the Word of God. When we look at our Forefathers and the sacrifices they made, it is really something that we all should consider and take note of. They did that with conviction and with the sincerity that comes from a heart that wants to follow God. I indeed salute them for their sacrifice and their faith. But somehow as time passed by the message of this sacrifice became distorted to a point it has become a ritual of sorts.

My prayer is for the younger generation to be sincere to the Word and live as those who bring hope (of the Love of Jesus Christ) to this world which is full of deceit and corruption. May God bless you and your Ministry Brother.

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 18 Apr 2011 1:16:48 PM Close

br. Mathew, I'm glad you're seeing this as a positive thing for younger generations. 

From my interactions with young people, they are leaving the assemblies (here in the U.S. & Canada) at an alarming rate.  Why?  They are told things such as this with no Biblical backup or basis.  They can read the scriptures for themselves, and htey rae faithful students of the scriptures.  When they see blatant inconsistency and disregard for the truths of the scriptures, they are more inclined to leave.  Unfortunately, they see a lot of instances where tradition is trumped over scripture, and it seems that tradition is more set in stone than the scripture is

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : elsa1   View Profile   Since : 19 Apr 2011 8:51:43 AM Close

The Brethren denominations are claiming that they are purely faithful to the word of God.  Unscriptural traditions among the nominal Christians have become part of their spiritual activities.   It is true that our forefathers left such unscriptural traditions. At the same time, unfortunately we are following the step of our forefathers thinking that they are 100% accurate. Gradually it has become 'Brethren traditions' and we are fighting for the traditions same like nominal Christians.  If the Word of God is not permitting us to continue certain traditions, no body is willing to give up such things.  It is so sad to note that they are trying to find out justifications and arguing to continue them.       

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 22 Apr 2011 1:52:08 PM Close

Dear Brother Tom J,

Apologize for the late response.  You asked  "Why didn't Apostle Paul suggest to have separate meetings for those who insisted on having the believers circumcised instead of refuting it in the Epistle to Galatians?"

I believe you are talking about the issues specified at Galatins 2 : 11- 14.    Paul rebuked Peter for joining hands with the circumcision group (who say circumcision is required for salvation) that teaches doctrinal error.   How can we relate doctrinal issues with this.  Wearing (or not wearing ornaments) is a personal thing(not doctrinal) and if a group follow that , how we can say it is wrong?

Baptism -  It is a command given to disciples (saved people), not a local assembly. A church is not required for conducting baptism . If I am convinced that 'so and so person'  is truly saved, i can baptise him.   Now let us see the practical aspect of this .  Why would people approach a local assembly to conduct baptism but not  a individual person ? why are they not willing to go and have baptism just like Philip and the Eunuch had ? Because they would like to have fellowship with a local assembly. There is no way a local assembly can baptise and deny fellowship because both of these are closely related.   No body is denying baptism based on ornaments, but they are denying fellowship (which comes under the authority of elders).

I hope I am clear here.  Let us look at this practically. it is very easy to criticize certain patterns. All the arguments you put above says  that "Wearing ornaments is not wrong".  With all due respect, I am writing "Not wearing ornaments is also not wrong". Who are we to judge each other on this.    If a group of Vegans decide to gather together, i won't say it is against Scripture.   if a group of people who speaks malayalam gathers together, i won't say it breaks Scripture.  If a new person who speaks Telugu comes there and ay, all the service needs to be in Telugu also(arguing that scripture doesn't impose language on worship), how will the elders react ?  They will try and find a  near by Telugu speaking assembly and guide him there. This is the same thing I am also suggesting here..   In all practical sense,  an assembly elders has the right to accept or deny fellowship but not the right to deny or authorise a baptism. There is no authorization/signature required from local assembly for conducting baptism

if a person is convinced that wearing ornaments is right, let him approach a group of people (local churches in Kerala) and can fellowship with them..  Why would they want to create uneasiness/disturbances in a assembly that doesn't follow certain patterns
 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 22 Apr 2011 4:12:39 PM Close

br. Mithun,

I know your comments are addressed to Br. TomJ, but I need to address your point here:

There is no way a local assembly can baptise and deny fellowship because both of these are closely related.   No body is denying baptism based on ornaments, but they are denying fellowship (which comes under the authority of elders).

denying fellowship is essentially the same thing as denying the Lord's Supper.  Let me requote for you certain posts above:

From TomJ:

Creating a prerequisite for allowing a believer to be baptized other than what the scriptures mandate or disallowing participation from the Lord’s Supper by placing unbiblical yoke are not CULTURAL ISSUES. It is heresy taught among the KB and many among the KB, sad to say, are convinced this prohibition is thoroughly biblical.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2011 12:32:04 PM Close

 

Mithun2,
Avoid_legalism had responded well and I appreciate it. Mithun2, you have raised some interesting questions regarding the roles of a local assembly in baptism and I have no disagreement in the concept. It is biblical. But, there are lots that could be discussed whether or who could deny baptism to a believer when such a request is made.  Before I do any of those let me ask you a question and wait for the answer.
The elders’ decisions are to be based on the NT principles. After all, they should act as ‘shepherds’ in the absence of the Great Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Peter 5:2-4.]That brings to my question. Suppose, Lord Jesus Christ were to be physically available to make the decision in regard to baptism and offer fellowship to a believer who is wanting to be baptized and given fellowship at that particular local gathering, but the person is wearing some ornaments, what would be His decision?
Would our Lord [a] ask this person to find someone else to be baptized by and/or [b] ask the believer to go fellowship at another ‘Local church?’ In essence, let me quote the famous cliché ‘what would Jesus do?’  .
Put you in place as a fellow elder with the Lord Jesus Christ in this local gathering and the Lord is asking you the question - "Mithun2, what do you say?"  Would you say, Lord, this beliver should be sent to such and such place?
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2011 4:51:45 PM Close

Brother Tom J,

First of all, I want to let you know that due to personal constraints, I will not be able to take part in this discussion very actively.  You might see a response from me some time in one day or some times in week or it may take a month also.  Apologize for that.

" Put you in place as a fellow elder with the Lord Jesus Christ in this local gathering and the Lord is asking you the question - "Mithun2, what do you say?"  Would you say, Lord, this beliver should be sent to such and such place? "
Rather than giving you  "YES or NO" answer,  I would like to elaborate a little more on this..
1.  A person is an elder of an assembly that has 50- 200  members
2. None of them wears ornaments
3.  Majority of them are strict on this patterns that is followed by the fore fathers.(Proverbs 22:28 -Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.)
4. If a new person approaches the elder to be baptized, I would think the elders explain him the new testament principles of baptizim and ensure that he is truly saved. Also explain him of his responsibilieties towards the local assembly.
5. if the elder is truly convinced that he is saved and needs to be baptized, explain him the need of fellowship with an assembly that follow new testament principles.
6.  Explain him of any patterns that so and so local church follows (eg.  Need to baptized for breaking bread,  need commentation letter for a new person, need to say testimony if you are away/out of fellowship for more than 2 weeks, wear/not wear ornaments).
7. Discuss the situation with other fellow elders of the church and pray together about it.
8. Also understand the situtaion/feelings of other members based on Romans 14. 
9. After much prayer, make a decision of whether to accept or redirect him to a new chapel/assembly. The decision stirctly should be based on a case by case basis.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 25 Apr 2011 8:34:52 PM Close

 

Dear Mithun2,
 
Let me comment briefly so the readers could decide the validity or lack of these. My comments are marked in colors.
 
Rather than giving you  "YES or NO" answer,  I would like to elaborate a little more on this..
1.  A person is an elder of an assembly that has 50- 200  members
 
The number can be less or more. Still there is a need for elders and elders need to be governed by the Scripture and NOT by ‘patterns.’ I wanted you to assume the place of an elder who is working with the Lord Jesus Christ and answering His questions.
 
2. None of them wears ornaments.
 
Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ as an elder of ‘your’ assembly should have made this as a criteria to be part of this assembly regulation or the congregation felt to be super spiritual by abandoning ornaments? If Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit did not approve this as a sign of spirituality it has NO validity. If your [co-elder,] our Lord Jesus Christ demanded such a ban, then He must have gone against His revealed will for His flock! So, in a congregation where our Lord Jesus Christ is an Elder, this WILL NOT be a requirement. It must be instituted by the ‘human elders’ according to their whims.
 
3.  Majority of them are strict on this patterns that is followed by the fore fathers.(Proverbs 22:28 -Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.)
 
The boundaries established at the time of Solomon were established by the elders at the command of Joshua.  Therefore they are Scriptural and came from God.  What came from God as the boundaries should not be changed by a creed of the forefathers.  If this is done, then the God given boundaries are changed.  The new boundaries are to be changed back to the God given boundaries.  The question of interest is about the God given boundaries and not what was practiced. This is one of the grossly misinterpreted verses KB regularly quotes without knowing what that verse stands for. This is not speaking about the patterns established outside the revealed word of God.
 
4. If a new person approaches the elder to be baptized, I would think the elders explain him the new testament principles of baptizim and ensure that he is truly saved. Also explain him of his responsibilieties towards the local assembly.
 
What will the elders say to the believer who wears the ornament?  What is the explanation of the elder? Remember, in the scenario I detailed, you are sitting with the Lord Jesus Christ as co-elder and how would you convince the Lord what you are trying to explain here? You are going to suggest –“Lord, she has ornaments on, and we should not allow that person to take part from the Lords Supper. Let her go worship at the ‘other’ meeting.” Will our Lord say to you – Mithun2, Well done! Faithful servant! Or would He ask you to go and read Matthew 18 where He speaks about the ones that offend His little children? {millstone on the neck and be pushed to the ocean}
 
5. if the elder is truly convinced that he is saved and needs to be baptized, explain him the need of fellowship with an assembly that follow new testament principles.
 
The new person is there because he is convinced about the fellowship.  What will the elders say about the ornament?  That is what I am asking you and the KB leaders who follow your logic.  You need to remember that you are a co-elder with the Lord Jesus Christ.  Your [and KB] logic should be accepted as Scriptural by the Chief Elder.
 
6.  Explain him of any patterns that so and so local church follows (eg.  Need to baptized for breaking bread,  need commendation letter for a new person, need to say testimony if you are away/out of fellowship for more than 2 weeks, wear/not wear ornaments).
 
Will you feel confident to explain these patterns in the presence of your co-elder, the Lord Jesus Christ? What if the Chief Shepherd asks you – who established this two week regulation? Did I or the Apostles? Do you feel confident the Lord will approve your ‘patterns?’
 
7. Discuss the situation with other fellow elders of the church and pray together about it.
 
Very good suggestion!
 
8. Also understand the situtaion/feelings of other members based on Romans 14. 
 
Generally speaking, it is a good idea as long as it is used for its intended purposes and not distorted.
 
9. After much prayer, make a decision of whether to accept or redirect him to a new chapel/assembly. The decision stirctly should be based on a case by case basis.
 
Directing to "a new chapel/assembly" implies that the practices of the new place are Scriptural, according to the person who is recommending it!!  This new place should be allowing wearing of ornaments by believers and 'muthun2' has agreed that he is recommending that chapel/assembly, but stays in what he considers as the unscriptural practice of not wearing.  There is an inconsistency of practice.  Also, if you are confident about the Lord’s blessings on this ban on ornaments, you are leading someone to a sinful environment – aren’t you?
 
My question to you Mithun2 and the KB leaders who are ‘wishy-washy’ on this issue is that whether you are confident that the Lord Jesus Christ would find you faithful servants by sending away people on the basis of their interest on what they wear as long as they are modest in their appearance?  
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 2:14:16 AM Close

 Dear Brother Tom J,

" Directing to "a new chapel/assembly" implies that the practices of the new place are Scriptural, according to the person who is recommending it!!  This new place should be allowing wearing of ornaments by believers and 'muthun2' has agreed that he is recommending that chapel/assembly, but stays in what he considers as the unscriptural practice of not wearing.  There is an inconsistency of practice."

i wrote about this earlier also.   Wearing/Not wearing ornaments are not scriptural practices.  You and me will not be able to prove that wearing ornaments is scriptural or not wearing ornaments is scriptural.  If you want to keep holding on to your point that "Wearing ornaments are 100% scriptural", Feel free to do so.     But i would term it as a heresey by mesauring with the same yard stick, you applied against KB.      You can keep writing as 'wishy washy' or  what ever,  but I don't see any scriptural reference from your postings that shows that "Not wearing ornamnets" is unscriptural.  You are purposefully avoiding that.  What scriptural reference you have to prove that  "not wearingin ornaments" is a heresy and  all the KB belevers should start wearing it. Where did i write that pointing to a different chapel means, the current one is unscriptural. Please don't read what i haven't written.

Let me conclude here, as I don't see any profitabilty in this discussion , it is now becoming for argument sake and throwing mud at others.  

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mathew97   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 6:52:23 AM Close

dear brothers in christ

 regardig wearing ornaments my conclsion is as follows. are you a desiple of christ. that dead to worldly things.if yes then you r fesh is crusified with christ and now you are a new born baby in the family of god.then why you look and run after such deadly matters. god created every human beings  for him as per his interest and liking..you better remain in that post with out adding extra artificallly. when people wear ornaments,or costly dresses you are certainly exibiting unto the world yourself persuaiding others to lust..it is adultary..awoman wearing ornaments is for projecting herself to the people she wants to attract men to hwords her.she is answerable before god for making men tolook her with badintensions.   all the referances in the bible can twisted as you like but there is unwrtten mistr is hidden in each word. the holy ghost reveals it to the predestinated  souls..because the are elected they are to be guided in the scrptural way.. wearihg ornaments is adultary and is sin..

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kbb   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 8:32:08 AM Close

 What a great insight and confession about adultery …!!!!

Poor soul had been looking at all the ornamented women lastingly …...

Who would save such wretched souls?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 1:11:19 PM Close

 

Dear Mithun2,
You have left out much of the key questions I asked. Those questions were asked you to think seriously that you have to be thinking scripturally in order for your decisions to be valid. The ultimate test is to see how Jesus would approve your decision. I am sad to see that you walked away from my sincere attempt in making you think scripturally rather than traditionally or by patterns.
My humble question to you was this. Would Jesus Christ deny fellowship to a woman for keeping her lowly symbol/ Jewelry of being married as KB are doing? Can any of the proponents of Jewelry ban confidently say that Jesus Christ [who offered fellowship to Peter whoHe knew would deny Him three times within hours, and did not even chastise Peter as we might] would turn against a woman for having some ornaments?
Seriously, my dear brothers and sisters, ‘what would Jesus do?’
Mithun2, you asked me a question whether anywhere in the Bible it says one has to have Jewelry? It is neither scriptural nor logical to ask such a question. Let me cite an example. Suppose a group deny baptism and Lord’s Supper to people who use ‘cellphones.’ We all might say it is silly and why would anyone be denied fellowship over cellphone usage? But the group may ask, just as you are asking me, where do you see in the Bible that one should use cellphone? I was trying my best not to expose the flawed logic of your ‘big’ question out of my care for you.  I have no intention to belittle anyone or mudsling at anyone.  
Your brother in Christ,
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 2:05:00 PM Close

Mathew 97,

You wrote -"she is answerable before god for making men to look her with bad intensions." - Don't try to shift the blame. It is your lust and not anyone else's. So, you are going to tell God that 'Oh God I lusted after that woman because she had ornaments on. It is her fault & don't blame me!' -  In Gen 3 our big Appachen tried similar blame shifting and it did not work.

Also, this ‘lust’ comes only when one sees ‘Brethren or Pentecostal’ women? How do you go to the market, get on a bus or train, workplace, travel outside the KB circle? Wow! We DO have a problem! Let us admit [I know it very well as a man and by the word of God] that sin comes from within and out of the flesh that wages war within us. It is a horrible thing to blame the poor sister who has some ornaments. Some such ornaments tell to the public that she is already married! Yet, we callously blame women!!!!

By the way, this is one the lame arguments put forth by the proponents of ‘Jewelry ban’ – not just by Mathew97. How sad?

Tom Johns

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mathew97   View Profile   Since : 26 Apr 2011 5:02:42 PM Close

dear  toms

i have no feelings if women wearings.but toa believer  i feel pity..apostle paul wrote in galatians 5:24"for those are  in christ jesus they crusified their flesh with all their pleasures..the flesh is dead.then why artificial decorations.also read 2:20,romans 6:6

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kbb   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 8:29:56 AM Close

 I see lot of crucified, dead flesh living in palatial mansions, travelling in luxury SUV’s & MUV’s; Sedans etc. 

These “dead fleshes” get married and produce babies; suffer complications arising from obesity. These dead bodies are seen in designer clothes, and all other fashion accessories; sporting expensive watches, specs, shirts, pants, other dresses of different shape, size, make and color. Some of the dead bodies paint their white hair black. Truly dead bodies - in what sense???. 

Assign proper meaning to passages. Compare what can be and ought to be compared. Draw right lessons or else we’ll mumble ridiculous nonsense ………

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bochayan   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 12:26:00 PM Close

thanks kbb , your sarcastic(hilarious too) but accurate depiction of  inherent contradictions among us KB was good read.i am curious to get Br verghese punalur/mathew97 respond to KBB's post above.i have no problem with believers having the above luxuries, Praise God for his blessings, material and spiritual.it is between them and the Lord how they use it,  palatial mansions/suv's/sedans/fat bank accounts/ are all ornaments/decorations(pleasures) which only the proud and haughty adorn. my heart is broken and eyes swell with tears when i read(arabian voice/thrissur brethren/spritual digest emails) of  suffering our fellow brethren in kerala and other parts of india are going thru ,just a few recent examples, no money for evangelist for surgery,for his children education,no roof in assembly hall,using tarpaulin to cover it ,evg wife contracting tb living in unsanitary conditions etc etc, there are many many such gut wrenching events.The Lord have mercy on us.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 2:03:57 PM Close

Mathew 97,

I am disturbed at seeing your interpretation of the Word. I sincerely urge you to be careful at these callous interpretations. I have come across these instances in young beleivers or those who have recently come to the faith. Please do not intrepret out of context. There is absolutely no substance to your thoughts or convictions and thats something you need to work on. Your convictions should be based on prayerful consideration of the Word. From your post it is very clear that you are using vain arguments with no intentions to learn and as you would have noticed many who are learned in the Word have ridiculed your answers and thoughts.

I humbly request you to prayerfully consider what you have written and look at the Word and seek God's Wisdom to interpret it. Dont try to look for verses that will enable you to find some word or verse to counter what is being hurled against you. We all are learning and will always be students of the Word. I can understand that you are trying to drive a point against materialism but I dont think your reason of adultery is something everyone will agree to simply because its not warranted by the Word. I hope you will not take offence to my post.

Thanks

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 2:45:35 PM Close

Brother Tom J,

It was an intresting comparison of ornaments and cell phone to prove your point . I am not buying that..  In my earlier postings, I already compared these with Vegans and different language speaking people.     I am not convinced by your logic or scriptural evidence(i haven't seen any) to have a group of people change the pattern that they follow for 100+ years.   I beleive i have already mentioned abt Baptism, not sure why you brought that point again.  

You have asked me  "Put you in place as a fellow elder with the Lord Jesus Christ in this local gathering and the Lord is asking you the question - "Mithun2, what do you say?"  Would you say, Lord, this beliver should be sent to such and such place?"

Let me also ask you the same thing  "Put you in place as a fellow elder with the Lord Jesus Christ in a local gathering that followed certain patterns and the Lord is asking you the question - "TomJ, what do you say?"  Would you say, Lord, all these people should change the patterns and start wearing ornaments?"

I am not trying to prove some point here, but I need evidence from scripture to have a group of people change some patterns that they follow for these many years.    Tom J,  you are only considering from the aspect of a new believer who is wearing ornaments, but I am here thinking from the view point of group of people not wearing ornaments.

I understand that "Wearing ornaments is not prohibited" by scripture,  but that is not a reason (scriptural evidence) to have the KB people start wearing ornaments and change the pattern of a local assembly.       

Working in Bars/pubs/acting in films are not directly prohibited by the scripture, but those are not enough reason/justification to have believers also start doing the same thing.  The people who do all these things also can come up with similar arguments like you placed above.  

The only point I am making here,  proving that "Doing some thing is not wrong"  doesn't prove that " Not doing some thing is wrong".   I hope I am clear here.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 5:20:18 PM Close

 

Dear Mithun2,
 
You asked-
 
“Let me also ask you the same thing  "Put you in place as a fellow elder with the Lord Jesus Christ in a local gathering that followed certain patterns and the Lord is asking you the question - "TomJ, what do you say?"  Would you say, Lord, all these people should change the patterns and start wearing ornaments?"
 
-      Lord, all these people should change the patters and start wearing ornaments!!!
 
Come on! Let us be reasonable. The issue here is about the people who are used to wearing ornaments and NOT asking someone to wear!!!
 
My answer to the Lord would be “what is there preventing them from being baptized? Let us go do NOW.” I don’t care if someone wears ornaments or not. Those are moot points either way. The only ‘ornament’ I have is a 10ct. wedding ring which I bought for 23 USD back in early 80s. You are portraying me as an ornament fanatic. In those days 1 USD = about 18 IRS.
 
Please get this correctly. I am opposed to the church leadership disallowing fellowship to those who desire [NOT REQUIRING HERE] to wear some.
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 5:40:05 PM Close

Dear Brother Tom J,

Thank you for your response.   I agree with you .   I also don't care some one else wears ornaments or not.  Let them do according to their conscience with God.  But at the same time, I am against judging some group of people as "heretical"  and also bringing in ornament issue to the local assembly and create division.    As you said they are moot points.  That's why i repeatedly saying , elders should consider on a case by case basis and understand the feelings/sentiments of all the current beleivers and new believer and decide accordingly.  There is no general rule(because scripture is silent) which we can enforce here to judge some one.  I can show you KB assemblies that has believers wearing ornament(I meant wedding ring) and take part in fellowship. 

I don't want to judge or call some one like K.V Simon Sir as heretical just because they decided to remove the ornaments and follow the christ faithfully.    

Thank you.  May God Bless you.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 27 Apr 2011 9:27:02 PM Close

1 TIMOTHY 2:8-10

“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

Paul's instruction is that women who "profess godliness" should attend to how they adorn themselves - clearly there is "proper" and 'improper" adorning. Proper adorning, that professes godliness is modest apparel, propriety and moderation with beautifying themselves. An improper adorning would then be immodest apparel, improper conduct and excessive beautification. To be very clear as to where to draw the line between proper/godly and improper/ungodly, Paul put in some specifics - braided hair, gold ornaments, pearls and expensive attire. One can look at these specifics as "boundary markers", which delineate proper adorning which professes godliness and improper adorning which does not profess godliness. Please note - the boundary Paul set in the verse is not delineating right from wrong, but "proper and godly" from "improper and ungodly".

To be sure, our KB fathers not only did not invade these boundaries set by Paul, but they stayed away from the things that Paul placed on the boundary itself. Call it being overly zealous, if you like, but that is what they were led to do by their convictions. In their desire to be separate and in their desire to profess godliness, they found it appropriate to do so. Interestingly, one finds similar zeal among the Puritans - godly Puritan women even considered clothing frills to be corrupt.

Now today, we the children of our zealous fathers have a choice to make, as did they. How close are we to the boundaries set by Paul and practiced by our fathers? How close can we get and still profess godliness? This should be the question we, as men and women need to ask ourselves. Unfortunately it has become a debate over legalism, when it should be a debate over godliness and how best we can profess it. Since I saw many "what would Jesus do" questions above, may I instead ask, with respect to the adornment/godliness boundaries set by Paul in 1 Tim 2:8-10, which side are you most likely to find Jesus Christ? On which side should you find His followers to be?

As a side note, it is incorrect to downplay these adornment rules given to woman, simply because men are not given similar rules or because men are not forced to pray with uplifted hands. The right approach is to consider that such unisex rules that enforce with some leniency to women (whose glory is the man) apply much more strictly with men (whose glory is Christ). Also, it should be noted that praying with lifted hands affirms a positive and commendable practice which, even when not done, does not affect the individual or the body of Christ in a negative way. On the other hand, woman's adornment is much more serious matter (and addressed in many other passages) since it has the potential to affect the individual, her family and her church as a whole.

If a church, its members and its elders have decided that they do not want to use ornaments, they must do so with the only intention being to profess godliness, not to be legalistic. And, if a new believer (who is accustomed to ornaments) wants to join such a church, it is their responsibility to assess the cost - do I join this church and enjoy the godliness they profess but at the cost of removing my ornaments OR do I hold onto my ornaments and find another place where such godliness is not professed. It is their personal decision to chose which side of the adornment boundary they want to be be on. Let us put personal responsibility where is should be - on the individual, not the church.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2011 12:36:02 PM Close

 

Dear brethren,
 
I do not know what Jesus will do? However, I know what His earthly brother, another son of Mary – the mother of Jesus, would do.
 
If a rich brother comes to the assembly with a gold ring in his finger, the brother of Jesus will invite him to sit next to him. (Note: Wearing ring was a sign of wealth, in the days of the brother of Jesus.) After a few minutes, if a poor brother comes without a ring in his finger and with vile raiment, the brother of Jesus will invite him to sit with him, as he did with the rich brother. This is what the brother of Jesus would do.
 
In doing so, he will ask neither the rich man to take off his ring, nor the poor man to go and buy one and wear it when he comes next time. He will not ask the rich man to go to another assembly were there are people with gold rings, either.
 
In closing let me say, On 23 Nov 2005, Lizy wrote, “Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.” Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2011 5:13:57 PM Close


In all sincerity I say that I did not understand what this meant.

 “Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.” 

I would appreciate if someone or Tom Johns explains what that meant.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2011 7:05:19 PM Close

 

Dear 'jjj1,'

To understand Exodus 33:6, you should read it in its context.  The context is Exodus 32 & 33.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2011 7:34:50 PM Close

 

Dear George,

I know the context.  Moses received from God “two tablets of testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18)  Chapter 32 shows us that when Moses delayed in coming down from Mount Sinai the people gathered unto Aaron and said to him to make them gods that go before them. Aaron said “Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD”. (Exodus 32:1-5)

The Lord was angry.

And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: (Exodus 32:9)
And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. (Exodus 32:35)

Then in Chapter 33 we read:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb. (Exodus 33:1-6)

So, what does the following statement means? There may be many readers like me who could not understand the following sentence. You seem to have understood fully and added another sentence to it.

“Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.”
What did you understand to add:

Quote Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day. Unquote

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 28 Apr 2011 9:11:18 PM Close

Dear George,

While I wait for your reply to my post above I have another question.  You addressed as "Dear brethren" and you wrote in your last paragraph:

quote: In closing let me say, On 23 Nov 2005, Lizy wrote, “Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.” Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day. Unquote  Reply by : George P. Koshy   Since : 28 Apr 2011 12:36:02

It seems to me that you were making that post directly to some body on this board in particular instead of making it to "Dear brethren" unless all the "Dear brethren" knew what was that context.  You quoted a reference from a lady, whose name was Lizy and obviously you made a mention of her post in 2005 (6 years before!).  I did not know that context. What was that? Look George, you made a post to be read in public. You are obliged to give an answer to my question; but first please write reply to my post made on 28 Apr 2011 19:34:50

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 29 Apr 2011 8:41:27 PM Close

Bro. Moses 2006,

I really enjoyed your post especially the below mentioned, which I think is thought provoking. Indeed a new perspective for me and perhaps others to think about:

"If a church, its members and its elders have decided that they do not want to use ornaments, they must do so with the only intention being to profess godliness, not to be legalistic. And, if a new believer (who is accustomed to ornaments) wants to join such a church, it is their responsibility to assess the cost - do I join this church and enjoy the godliness they profess but at the cost of removing my ornaments OR do I hold onto my ornaments and find another place where such godliness is not professed. It is their personal decision to chose which side of the adornment boundary they want to be be on. Let us put personal responsibility where is should be - on the individual, not the church."

I am also waiting to see Bro. George's response to jjj1 query.

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 30 Apr 2011 11:01:26 AM Close

I am curious: Is not the dress KB wear ornamental???

We wear clothe, basically, for covering nakedness. None need the kind of dresses KB wear for covering naked bodies!! Nakedness can be covered by wrapping the body in a length of cloth. But we are not wrapping our bodies in plain pieces of cloth; why? We make our dress both functional and beautiful. The kind of dress we wear adds to beauty and make our appearance more attractive!!!!

For professing godliness, which attire shall an Assembly mandate?  Which is the most appropriate dress for a godly KB according to NT??

Is it Dhoti (Mundu)? single layer or double layer?? 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 2 May 2011 7:05:12 PM Close

 

Dear ‘jjj1,’
 
The posting from Lizy was on this Forum and it was on the subject of ornaments. If you want to know more about it, you should look up for that thread. This is all I will say about it.
 
From what you wrote, you may know the immediate context. The immediate context is Exodus 32 & 33. That is what happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness. If you are wondering how that is relevant to the Christians in the 21st century, then that is easy to explain. Please read 1 Corinthians 10:11. After that, you should consider what happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness as a type. We are not a type for the children of Israel. The children of Israel are the type and we are the anti-type. After considering this prayerfully, you may post your thoughts. We will go from there.
 
You should also read Romans 15:4. It tells about the importance of what is written before, and it is written for our learning.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 3 May 2011 2:12:18 AM Close


George,

You wrote: Dear brethren, I do not know what Jesus will do? However, I know what His earthly brother, another son of Mary – the mother of Jesus, would do.  If a rich brother comes to the assembly with a gold ring in his finger, the brother of Jesus will invite him to sit next to him. (Note: Wearing ring was a sign of wealth, in the days of the brother of Jesus.) After a few minutes, if a poor brother comes without a ring in his finger and with vile raiment, the brother of Jesus will invite him to sit with him, as he did with the rich brother. This is what the brother of Jesus would do.  In doing so, he will ask neither the rich man to take off his ring, nor the poor man to go and buy one and wear it when he comes next time. He will not ask the rich man to go to another assembly were there are people with gold rings, either. In closing let me say, On 23 Nov 2005, Lizy wrote, “Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.” Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day.  Shalom Malekim!!!  George P. Koshy      Since : 28 Apr 2011 12:36:02

You wrote: The posting from Lizy was on this Forum and it was on the subject of ornaments. If you want to know more about it, you should look up for that thread. This is all I will say about it.  From what you wrote, you may know the immediate context. The immediate context is Exodus 32 & 33. That is what happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness. If you are wondering how that is relevant to the Christians in the 21st century, then that is easy to explain. Please read 1 Corinthians 10:11. After that, you should consider what happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness as a type. We are not a type for the children of Israel. The children of Israel are the type and we are the anti-type. After considering this prayerfully, you may post your thoughts. We will go from there.  You should also read Romans 15:4. It tells about the importance of what is written before, and it is written for our learning.  Shalom Malekim!!!   Reply by : George P. Koshy      Since : 2 May 2011 19:05:12

The onus of showing that thread where Lizy posted her views and context rests upon you.  You have added a sentence to her view which indicates that you have understood that statement.  I have asked the meaning of that statement. You have come forward to answer me but evaded to write your views! You have added a sentence because I think you understood that statement. You have avoided to write what you have understood and wrote "Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day". That makes me to think that you write on this forum that which you do not understand and that which has no relevance to the topic and also while addressing a person in particular on this board you pretend that you are addressing to “Dear bretrhren”! 

If you have not understood Lizy's statement be honest in admitting the fact.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 4 May 2011 4:52:46 PM Close

Dear George,

Not to contend with you, but neither did I understand what you were implying through your response. Forgive my ignorance, what did you mean by Israel being the type and we the Anti type. Rather than using complicated words, could you please elaborate in simple detail your response to JJJ1. I am eager to know and also taking the liberty to assume that you will be responding to JJJ1. I admit that I have not read Lizy's post either but since you have brought forward a point I think it best that you explain it as well.

Thanks

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2011 5:11:16 PM Close

 

Dear ‘jjj1,’
 
I gave enough information for you to find the thread in which Lizy’s statements appeared. If you want to read it you should read it going back in time on this Forum.
 
When I read a posting, what I am primarily interested to know is, whether it is scriptural or not. I find that many of them are scriptural. Some others are not scriptural. The remaining are partially scriptural, because the authors failed to include all pertaining verses in making their summary statements. There is a scriptural sanction that we should be searching the scriptures and make sure what others say or write are scriptural (Acts 17:11). This I do. In doing so, I found that Lizy’s statement in 2005 on a thread about wearing ornaments was scriptural, from its context.
 
Since you understand that I understood what was written in 2005, I do not have to explain it further. The second sentence in the third paragraph of your posting of 3 May 2011 testifies to this fact. I have a responsibility to keep this thread on its intended subject and that is wearing ornaments. On the other hand, you would like to high-jack this thread. I will not be a part of it. You will see my understanding and the context only when you study Exodus 32 & 33 using 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Romans 15:4. In Exodus we read about earrings and this thread is about ornaments.
 
Your inconsistency is evident in the third and fourth paragraph of your posting of 3 May 2011. You wrote, “You have added a sentence to her view which indicates that you have understood that statement.” After four sentences, you also wrote on the third paragraph,   
“That makes me to think that you write on this forum that which you do not understand and that which has no relevance to the topic and also while addressing a person in particular on this board you pretend that you are addressing to “Dear bretrhren”! 
If you have not understood Lizy's statement be honest in admitting the fact.” You wrote this without me writing anything about my understanding of it. After about four sentences, you contradicted yourself by writing, “If you have not understood Lizy's statement ….” You should remember that what I was interested was about being scriptural in Lizy’s statement and she was. In another thread, you contradicted yourself with about nine sentences between the contradictory statements. On this, the contradiction is only after four. The intervening sentences were reduced from nine to four. I wait to see when your contradictions will appear next to each other. That is there are no intervening sentences between them.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2011 5:12:22 PM Close

 

Dear Matthew,
 
The explanation is simple. If you read 1 Corinthians 10:11, there it can be seen that the Israel is the type of the Assembly. The type will be fulfilled on another object at a later date. This object of fulfillment is the ‘anti-type.’ For example, Adam was the type of Christ (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47), which makes Christ the anti-type on the subject mentioned there. Last month, I explained this in another thread; ‘Was John the Baptist Elijah of the OT?;’ on 14 Apr 2011, addressed to Tom S. In the verses cited above, it is written that what is written in the Old Testament are for our learning. Please read these verses.
 
The first step in explaining what I wrote is reading the portions cited above. Before we go further, we should accept these verses as they are written. (KJV is good enough for this purpose.) If we accept these scriptural instructions, then we will see that what happened to Israel in the wilderness is the type with respect to wearing ornaments in the age in which we live and practice. When I wrote “practice,” it includes both the wearing and prohibiting ornaments.
 
I will be glad to explain this further, if you need my help, after reading 1 Corinthians 10:11 and Romans 15:4 along with Exodus 32 & 33. We are to be governed by the Scriptures and not from the writings of men, and that include me also. More than one person has made reference to what happened to Israel in the wilderness as our type, without being aware of it. On the other hand, I may be wrong because they may be aware of this type and anti-type relationship.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
 
Note: ‘Type’ and ‘anti-type’ are not complicated words. They are used frequently in Christian writings, especially when dealing with the types of Christ in the Old Testament. In the New Testament we read the word ‘type’ but not ‘anti-type.’ Instead of the word ‘anti-type,’ we read the expressions ‘type of’ or ‘figure of.’
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2011 11:47:14 PM Close

 

George,

Quote: I gave enough information for you to find the thread in which Lizy’s statements appeared. If you want to read it you should read it going back in time on this Forum. Unquote  You have not, but you say you have!  Also I conclude that you added a sentence to Lizi's statement without understanding her statement.  She wrote:  “Read Exodus 33:6, Wearing Ornaments is fine, But Its easy for a Bull to come out of.  A Bull, in all its character and nature, if a helpful Aaron is also somewhere around.”  

I did not understand what is meant by that statement. If you were not in a position to explain it why did you answer my post?   You are obliged to explain where was the "Bull" in Exodus Chapter 32 or 33, what was its character or nature. Again I ask you what is meant by that statement for you to add another sentence to it Quote: Let me add to it that no golden calf was changed into an earring, on that day.  Shalom Malekim!!! Unquote:   George P. Koshy  28 Apr 2011 12:36:02

I can only say that you are deliberately avoiding to write your views on wearing ornaments and addressed that sentence to a person of your interest and you wrote as if you were addressing to "Dear brethren"!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 7 May 2011 11:05:37 AM Close

Thanks George for that enlightenment.. You have explained fair enough and your convictions are well based.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2011 5:31:35 PM Close

 

Dear ‘jjj1,’
 
I am not deliberately avoiding anything. However, I am deliberately exposing those who hold unscriptural ideas and want to propagate them on this Forum. You should read the Scriptures and not searching the cyberspace, Catholic Encyclopedia, or the writings of Origen. You are exposed as the one who holds the existence of ‘animal spirit,’ ‘cow spirit,’ ‘peacock spirit,’ and ‘human spirit,’ and you did that on another thread.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2011 5:33:28 PM Close

 

Dear Mathew,
 
As you have read and agreed that the Scriptures teach us that what happened to the children of Israel in the wilderness is a type for us, I wish to invite you to further study this type and anti-type relationship on wearing and not-wearing ornaments, which is the subject of this thread. I wish you will search the Scriptures as we progress.
 
In Exodus 32 & 33, we read about removal of the earrings and making of the golden calf. Aaron, the man God appointed as the spoke-person before Pharaoh, asked the children of Israel to “break off the golden earrings.” These earrings were on the wives, sons, and daughters of the men who came to Aaron asking for a god to worship. Aaron’s condition was that they should break off the earrings from the ears of their family members and bring them to him to make a god for them and they could worship it as their god. This they did and Aaron made a golden calf and the children of Israel worshipped that golden calf. When Moses came down from the mountain, he powdered that calf and made them drink the mixture of the gold powder and water. If we think about this, no one will say that Moses was not a meek man to make about 2,000,000 people to drink that concoction. However, God said in the Scriptures that Moses was the meekest man on the earth. Therefore we should accept that and say, obeying God and striving to help others who are saved by the blood of the Lamb to come closer to God is the meekest thing that one could do. Our meekness is not defined by the world, but by God. The action of Moses prevented the children of Israel from making earrings with the gold from the golden calf.
 
Aaron’s condition to allow them to worship a god was the removal of their earrings. When he received it they got a golden calf to worship. That golden calf was many times valuable that the earrings of individuals that were brought to Aaron by the people. The golden calf was made with the accumulation of gold from many individuals. They could not wear it in their ears, because it was too big and heavy. But they could worship that image of the Egyptian god. Aaron made an Egyptian god with the help of those who made the children of Israel a mixed multitude. May be it was those Egyptians who made them a mixed multitude that asked for a god. We may want to please others and win them over, and may include certain ideas from other religions to accommodate their feeling and trust. God did not approve of it. Moses did not approve of it. But it was a sign of piety that was acceptable to the Egyptians among the children of Israel and also many of the children of Israel. Among the Hindus, in India, rejecting everything, including ornaments, and wearing cow-dung ash and ‘RUDRAKSHA MALA’ is a sign of piety.
 
With this in mind, let us see the anti-type in the 20th and 21st centuries. On this Forum, we already read about the demand to remove the ornaments to be baptized and also to be received into fellowship. This demand was made by the elders to certain new believers who wore ornaments. The children of Israel being a type for us, the demand for the removal of ornaments happened in the wilderness by Aaron, being their leader. Aaron was the man appointed by God as the spoke-person for Moses before Pharaoh. This is similar to the elders of an assembly to be the ‘spoke-person’ to the local community. The incident in the wilderness happened without their redeemer, Moses, with them. When Moses came down from the mountain, he did not have any part with that form of worship. So is Christ, our Redeemer.
 
In the 20th and 21st centuries, those who removed the ornaments do not find anything wrong with having their golden calves and worship them in their daily life. Those golden calves could come in the form of big houses, cars, etc. If that is being worshipped, then that should be removed and made to dust and mix it with water and drink it, so that it will never be an object of worship again, or wear them as ornaments to satisfy some other desire that they thought was sin. Unfortunately, as Aaron did not find anything wrong with worshipping the golden calf, those who demand the removal of ornaments to be baptized and received into fellowship also do not see anything wrong with the worship of big houses and cars by those who removed the ornaments. However, they may find fault with those who did not remove the ornaments or not worshipping those big houses and cars. If they are not worshipped, then they do not have to be removed or destroyed.
 
Another aspect of this type and anti-type relationship is that those who did not remove their earrings to give to Aaron to make the golden calf for the purpose of worship were able to give their earrings to their God, when Moses asked for it to make the Tabernacle. Moses was their redeemer. Similarly, if our Redeemer, Lord Jesus Christ, asks us to remove our ornaments, whatever that may be, and give it to Him to make manifest the glory of God in the one who ‘Tabernacled among us,’ then we should do it. We should not do it at the command of any one who is in the leadership, because they do not have that authority to demand it. God has not given that authority to anyone. God does it through the Holy Spirit that He sent to dwell in us. If you are convicted of it, please remove it without demanding the same from others. Your example may lead them to do the same, not by demand but by example of modesty to glorify God. (Note: In this connection, my elder sister was a professor of English in a college at Thiruvananthapuram. The students gave her a name, “NIRABHARANADHARI SUNDARI.” That was her testimony at her workplace.)
 
Let me stop here, with this thought. We should be willing to remove all kinds of ornaments if we are told to do so by the Holy Spirit. Wearing and not wearing ornaments should not be a condition or a tradition to baptize a believer and to receive them into fellowship, because that is not required in the Scriptures. Being saved by the blood of the Lamb and living a life of moral (sexual) and doctrinal purity are the conditions that are in the Scriptures. All other conditions are man-made and later became traditions without Scriptural authority. A new believer should be willing to testify of their faith before the world in baptism. By receiving baptism in the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” they become the disciples of Christ. This baptism need not be in the presence of other believers or unbelievers. It should be conducted by an old believer on the new believer. It should be done in this world, before the world, before Satan and his demons, before the angels, and before God as a child of God. This baptism is the testimony that the one who is baptized has died with Christ, buried with Christ, and rose with Christ. That could be done with or without ornaments.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : gmat30   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2011 6:20:19 PM Close

Thanks George for the post. Indeed I was blessed reading it.

I personally have not worn any jewellery ever in my life and neither do I have any desire either. But I wish to point that neither do I have any issues with a beleiver wearing jewellery. I dont see it a need to ask someone not to wear jewellery just because thats what tradition/culture demands it so. My conviction, as I have indicated in my earlier post, is that a beleiver should make that choice of forsaking that which he holds dear to his heart (gold/fancy cars/lavish houses etc) based on the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the conviction that he derives from the Word (Not man).

I dont see any point in asking a person to forsake jewellery when he has not sacrificed other areas or possessions in his life. A beleiver has every right and the free will to decide what he needs to do. He is accountable to God alone. I dont find it a stumbling block when I see someone wearing gold or having a fancy car. I realise that the greater calling is to reach out to people who need to know the Gospel as well as studying and rightly dividing (Contextual interpretation) the Word of God. I really get disturbed when someone interprets out of context and that I beleive is more harmful than a person wearing a gold watch or an ornament. Time and again I have seen individuals giving wrong interpretation of the Text to prove or force their conviction of ornaments upon others and that is what I am against. My focus is not to bring a change of conviction to the older generation of beleivers but rather the younger generation who are indeed dear to my heart. That is my calling.

Nevertheless I am open to any beleiver in the Church, whether with adornment or not and whether or not he holds the same convictions as mine. I am not here to treat any individual more prominently than the other based on what he wears or possesses. I am here to edify my fellow brother as also to bring the Good news to those around me.

Mathew

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : jjj1   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2011 9:02:53 PM Close

George,

You should not write falsehood and lies and don't mix up thoughts of other thread here. I do not want to discuss anything that pertains to other thread here.  I believe animals do have spirit. I do not call it as 'animal spirit' You wrote something about 'human spirit' and you have failed to explain it.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2011 3:23:56 PM Close

 From Ornaments to "Animal spirit"???

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : in_christ_alone   View Profile   Since : 4 Nov 2011 9:40:37 AM Close

 Well .. from what I have seen and heard, the banning of ornaments is causing more bad than good ... 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 5 Nov 2011 6:28:17 AM Close

 Some of the SDA writings and goings on in Adventist Churches concerning Jewelry have similarity with the arguments and happenings in KB. KB shall not willfully accept the finding that their teaching on Jewelry and its ban are taken from Ellen G White and SDA. It is not honorable for the Pioneers (forefathers) of Separatist movement if the third generation descendants openly admit it. Adventist movement began in 1830’s, almost 80 years before the commencement of Separatist movement in Kerala. 

These are quotes from SDA’s on Jewelry:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_view_on_jewelry 

“The pioneer SDAs or the so called the SDAs of the old times never allowed its members to adorn their bodies with jewelries in any form. But, nowadays, the SDAs are becoming one with the world and corrupt and fallen and the fruits of these apostasy is very clear now; members are already allowed to wear jewelries even inside their churches. THEY ARE ONE WITH THE WORLD!” 

http://www.isitso.org/guide/sdajewel.html 

But Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) prophetess Ellen G White (EGW) taught that this did, indeed, forbid all jewelry of any kind, including a simple gold wedding band. 

And to this day, those Seventh-day Adventist women who are carefully observant of their denomination's rulings do not wear any kind of jewelry. A "special dispensation" has been made over the years in the case of some societies outside the United States in which the wearing of a wedding band was such a strong local custom that failure of a married woman to wear it would be considered scandalous, implying sexual looseness or some such. 

But the taboo on jewelry is so strong that SDA women in local congregations will put extreme peer pressure on a woman who would dare to wear even simple earrings. One non-SDA woman that I know visited an SDA congregation when looking for a place for Sabbatarian fellowship, and was appalled when several of the local women took her (a complete stranger and merely a visitor to their Church) aside after the worship service and admonished her about her tiny, plain earrings, telling her that she was dishonoring God by wearing them. She did not return after that first visit. 

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda/id40.html

Seventh-day Adventists in the United States are told not to wear jewelry. Their women should only wear dresses. They are not to drink caffeine or eat “unclean” foods. Although part of these rules stem from their interpretation of Scripture, most get their real strength from Ellen G. White quotations. It is not the “texts” that make it “plain,” but Ellen G. White! A prolific writer on these subjects, she is much more forceful and clearer about not wearing jewelry and what not to eat than the Scriptures, and must be obeyed. 

http://www.scottseverance.us/ministry/jewelry.html

Standards create controversy. In August 2002, students returning to Southwestern Adventist University were greeted by a new rule, designed to uphold traditional Seventh-day Adventist standards: no jewelry on campus. There was a great deal of discussion about the new rule, and not a little opposition to it. As I write this paper almost a year and a half later, the no-jewelry policy is no longer enforced. 

The issue of jewelry has long been contentious in the Adventist church. The traditional stance is that wearing jewelry is wrong; however, there are many who contend that the traditionalists are akin to extremists when it comes to the jewelry issue.[1] One side quotes a few Bible passages and insists that God absolutely condemns jewelry. The other side points out that there are a number of verses that mention jewelry in a positive sense and accuse the traditionalists of misinterpreting the texts they use against jewelry. At the same time, there are a number of moderates and a lot of confused people who do not take a firm stance. Some accept certain types of jewelry, such as wedding bands or non-metallic jewelry[2] while others simply do not know what to think. 

Visit the below links for more arguments on the SDA’s teachings on Jewelry. They are identical to what KB comes up with.

1.    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_view_on_jewelry

2.    http://www.scottseverance.us/ministry/jewelry.html

3.    http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contra7.htm

4.       http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda/id40.html

5.       http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

6.       http://www.amazingfacts.org/free-stuff/online-library/ctl/viewmedia/mid/447/iid/23/lng/en/sc/r.aspx?7=jewelry:-how-much-is-too-much?

7.       http://www.adventist.org/ChurchManual_2010.pdf

8.    http://www.isitso.org/guide/sdajewel.html)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 8 Nov 2011 12:55:23 AM Close

പ്രീയ ims, വിശ്വാസികൾ ആഭരണം ധരിക്കാമോ? എന്ന വിഷയത്തെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് സഹോദരൻ/സഹോദരി അന്വേഷിച്ചു വരികയാണല്ലോ. ഈ വിഷയം സംബന്ധിച്ച് ഏറ്റവും സ്പഷ്ടമായത് എന്ന് വിശേഷിപ്പിക്കാവുന്നതാണ് സുവിശേഷകൻ കുഞ്ഞുമോൻ ഡാനിയേൽ എഴുതിയ ആഭരണം തിരുവചന വെളിച്ചത്തിൽ എന്ന പുസ്തകം. വിശ്വാസികൾ ആഭരണം ധരിക്കാതിരിപ്പാൻ വ്യക്തമായ കൽപ്പന പുതിയനിയമത്തിൽ ഉണ്ടെന്ന് ഇതിൽ സമർത്ഥിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. കൂടാതെ, ഈ വിഷയം സംബന്ധിച്ച് ഉന്നയിക്കപ്പെടാറുള്ള അനവധി ചോദ്യങ്ങൾക്കു മറുപടിയും അതിൽ നൽകിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. പ്രസ്തുത പുസ്തകത്തിന്റെ pdf kunjumoncd@hotmail.com എന്ന വിലാസത്തിൽ ലഭിക്കും.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 8 Nov 2011 4:51:11 AM Close

 This is a quote from one of the articles written by a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Pastor in an attempt to prove that “No Ornament” is a Biblical command. See the section sub titled “Wearing our Wealth” by Doug Batchelor taken from the below link: 

rhttp://www.amazingfacts.org/free-stuff/online-library/ctl/viewmedia/mid/447/iid/23/lng/en/sc/r.aspx?7=jewelry:-how-much-is-too-much? 

Quote

“The reason gold and jewels are so valuable is that they are rare and expensive to mine from the earth. Angels must marvel when they see us put on jewelry to signify value and wealth. In heaven, gold is used for pavement, and diamonds are the stones that form the walls of its mansions! Just think of it. From heaven's perspective, gold is asphalt and diamonds are blocks! How silly it must appear to heavenly beings when we dangle asphalt and bricks on our ears and wrap them around our fingers. Wouldn't you look twice if someone walked into your church next week wearing a black asphalt pendant and a matching tar ring?”  Unquote  

Many such interesting arguments, defenses and explanations for “NO ORNAMENT” can be found in the web sites of SDAs. Almost all the arguments appearing in Books written by Non-SDAs including KB on “No Ornament” are verbatim copies totally borrowed from SDAs. Please someone come up with something original and not mere repetition of the arguments of Ellen G white / SDAs, treated as heretics by KB. 

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 8 Nov 2011 5:50:47 PM Close

Truth based on proper understanding of the Scripture does not change from person to person; we can even learn some Truth from the Devil - for example:

Job 1:9-10

King James Version (KJV)

 9Then Satan answered theLORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

Bobby Chacko

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 9 Nov 2011 5:32:35 AM Close

 I realize that the separation and abstinence taught and practiced by KB has not originated with KB. SDA’s were already practicing it for more than half a century before the beginnings of Verpadu movement in Kerala. 

Recently I spoke to 2 Bible School teachers among KB on the beginnings of “No Jewelry” teaching and practice among Separatists. One of the pioneers of Separatism was Yusthus Joseph (Justus Joseph) a.k.a Vidwankutty Achan. He also made prophetic calculations and did a date setting for the second coming of Jesus Christ, which turned out - as naturally could be expected - as farce. His movement was termed as “Five and Half” parties. It is possible that Vidwankutty Achan had some exposure to the teachings and date setting of William Miller and the Seventh Day Adventist movement. 

One of the requests made to the Bible Teachers was to help getting access to the historical documents of Separatist movement to see how the SDA teachings on separation impacted the “separation and abstinence” prescribed for those that embraced the Separatist movement, which was merged with the Brethren subsequently. 

One thing is very evident: The abstinence and separation taught by KB didn’t originate in Kerala; it was a teaching and practice among the SDA’s for many decades before the beginning of Separatist (Verpadu) movement in Kerala. The KB Verpadu is not in any way different from SDA practices but only inferior in many respects; and SDA’s are much stricter in their separation, abstinence teachings and practices than KB. 

SDA and KB are on the same side of the fence in the matter of Ornaments. I request the forum to critically review what I have written above. 

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 9 Nov 2011 6:10:59 PM Close

ദൈവവചനപ്രകാരം വിശ്വാസികൾ അനുസരിച്ചു വരുന്ന ഒരു വിഷയം ഏതെങ്കിലും ഒരു ദുരുപദേശ സംഘം വിശ്വസിച്ചു എന്നതുകൊണ്ട് വിശ്വാസികൾ വിശ്വസിച്ചു വരുന്നത് അബദ്ധമെന്നോ വേദവിപരീതമെന്നോ വരുന്നില്ല. ഉദാഹരണത്തിന്, യേശുക്രിസ്തുവിന്റെ ദൈവത്വത്തെ KB വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു. SDA അതു വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു എന്നതുകൊണ്ട്  KB യുടെ വിശ്വാസം വേദവിപരീതമെന്നോ അപ്രസക്തമെന്നോ  വരുന്നില്ല.  ദൈവവചനം എന്തു പറയുന്നു എന്നതാണ്  അന്വേഷിക്കേണ്ടത്.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 4:59:48 AM Close

These are some of the requirements and guidelines issued by SDA to their members for separation lifestyle which are copied by other Kerala Separatists also. 

It is not SDA that copied these practices from others; but others have copied SDA. 

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-21.htm 

Given below in blue are quotes from the above SDA Link: Many of them are indisputably acceptable. Wherever credit is due, it must be given. 

The Blessing of Temperate, Drug-Free, Stimulant-Free Living. 

Drugs have saturated our society because they offer stimulation and release from stress and pain. The Christian is surrounded with seductive invitations to use drugs. Even many innocent-appearing, popular beverages contain drugs: Coffee, tea, and colas contain caffeine, 9 and fruit-flavored wine coolers contain alcohol. Research has shown that the milder gateway drugs tend to lead progressively to stronger mind-altering drugs. The wise Christian will abstain from all that is harmful, using in moderation only that which is good. 

Tobacco.

In any form tobacco is a slow poison that has a harmful effect on the physical, mental, and moral powers. At first its effects are hardly noticeable. It excites and then paralyzes the nerves, weakening and clouding the brain. Those who use tobacco are slowly committing suicide, 10transgressing the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13, KJV). 

 Alcoholic beverages. 

Alcohol is one of the most widely used drugs on Planet Earth. It has devastated untold millions. Not only does it hurt those who use it, but it exacts its toll from society in general—through broken homes, accidental deaths, and poverty. 

Since God communicates with us only through our minds, it is well to remember that alcohol adversely affects their every function. As the level of alcohol in the system rises, the drinker progresses through loss of coordination, confusion, disorientation, stupor, anesthesia, coma, and death. Drinking alcoholic beverages on a regular basis will eventually produce loss of memory, judgment, and learning ability.11 

Movies, television, radio, and videos. 

These media can be great educational agencies. They have "changed the whole atmosphere of our modern world and have brought us within easy contact with the life, thought, and activities of the entire globe."15 The Christian will remember that television and videos make a greater impact on the life of an individual than does any other single activity. 

Unfortunately, video and television, with its almost continuous theatrical performances, bring influences into the home that are neither wholesome nor uplifting. If we are not discriminating and decisive, "they will turn our homes into theaters and minstrel shows of a cheap and sordid kind."16The committed Christian will turn away from unwholesome, violent, sensual movies and television programs. 

Reading and music. 

These same high standards apply to the Christian's reading and music. Music is a gift of God to inspire pure, noble, and elevated thoughts. Good music, then, enhances the finest qualities of character. 

Debased music, on the other hand, "destroys the rhythm of the soul and breaks down morality." So Christ's followers will shun "any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, or any language expressing foolish or trivial sentiments."17 The Christian does not listen to music with suggestive lyrics or melodies (Rom. 13:11-14; 1 Peter 2:11).18 

Reading offers much that is valuable too. There is a wealth of good literature that cultivates and expands the mind. Yet there is also a "flood of evil literature, often in most attractive guise but damaging to mind and morals. The tales of wild adventure and of moral laxness, whether fact or fiction," are unfit for believers because they create a distaste for a noble, honest, and pure lifestyle and hinder the development of a union with Christ.19

Contd....

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 5:03:00 AM Close

 Unacceptable activities. 

Adventists also teach that gambling, card playing, theater going, and dancing are to be avoided (1 John 2:15-17). They question spending time watching violent sporting events (Phil. 4:8). Any activity that weakens our relationship with our Lord and causes us to lose sight of eternal interests helps to bind Satan's chains about our souls. Christians will rather participate in those wholesome forms of leisure activities that will truly refresh their physical, mental, and spiritual natures. 

Good stewardship requires sacrificial living. 

While much of the world is undernourished, materialism lays before Christians temptations ranging from expensive clothes, cars, and jewelry to luxurious homes. Simplicity of lifestyle and appearance sets Christians in stark contrast to the greed, materialism, and gaudiness of pagan, twentieth-century society, where values focus on material things rather than on people. 

In view of these Scriptural teachings and the principles laid out above, we believe that Christians ought not to adorn themselves with jewelry. We understand this to mean that the wearing of rings, earrings, necklaces, and bracelets, and showy tie tacks, cuff links, and pins—and any other type of jewelry that has as its main function display—is unnecessary and not in harmony with the simplicity of adornment urged by Scripture.32 

The Bible associates gaudy cosmetics with paganism and apostasy (2 Kings 9:30; Jer. 4:30). As to cosmetics, therefore, we believe that Christians should maintain a natural, healthy appearance. If we lift up the Saviour in the way we speak, act, and dress, we become like magnets, drawing people to Him.33 

Clean and unclean flesh foods.

 Only after the Flood did God introduce flesh as food. With all vegetation destroyed, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat flesh foods, stipulating that they were not to eat the blood in the meat (Gen. 9:3-5). 

By nature, unclean animals do not constitute the best food. Many are either scavengers or predators—from the lion and swine to the vulture and the bottom-dwelling, sucker-type fish. Because of their habits they are more apt to be carriers of disease. 

Studies have revealed that "in addition to the moderate amounts of cholesterol found in both pork and shellfish, both foods contain a number of toxins and contaminants which are associated with human poisoning."26

By abstaining from unclean foods, God's people demonstrated their gratefulness for their redemption from the corrupt, unclean world around them (Lev. 20:24-26; Deut. 14:2). To introduce anything unclean into the body temple where God's Spirit dwells is less than God's ideal. 

The New Testament did not abolish the distinction between the clean and unclean flesh foods. Some believe that because these dietary laws are mentioned in Leviticus, they are merely ceremonial or ritualistic, and so are no longer valid for Christians. Yet the distinction between clean and unclean animals dates back to Noah's day—long before Israel existed. As principles of health, these dietary laws carry with them an ongoing obligation.27 

Most important:-

The SDA guidelines are binding on them because of the authority of Ellen G White as a prophet. What SDA believe about EGW, among others, are: 

Ø  We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.

Ø  We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.

Ø  We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.

Ø  We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture. 

SDA believes that the quality and degree of inspiration of the writings of EGW is not different form that of the Scripture. 

For imposing unscriptural abstentions on believers, arguments and justifications have been profusely copied from EGW / SDA. Attempting to prove these through fanciful interpretation of Scriptures, to claim all these to have Divine approval, is what normally most distorters resort to. 

To sum it up all, Kerala Separatists must be more obliged and loyal for the “abstinence and separation heritage”, not to the oft referred Appachans, but to Ellen G White Ammachi.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 5:35:31 AM Close

May be the Apachans were also inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired EGW Ammachi.  I believe the EGW comments on tobacco was written when doctors of her time were prescribing tobacco for various lung problems.

The more I study the writings of EGW, I am inclined to think that she is the END-TIME ELIJAH that God promised to send before the end:

Malachi 4:4-6

New King James Version (NKJV)

4“ Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,
With the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD
.
6 And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.” 

 She magnifies the Law of Moses (10 commandments) in all her writings and has written several books that bring the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers, for example:  Education.

No one with a right mind will throw stones on her after reading her books for example:

The Desire of Ages on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ:

http://www.whiteestate.org/books/books.asp

Steps to Christ is another book that human being cannot write with their own understanding of the Scripture.

She is able to explain circumstances of and also what was in the mind of Jesus and the people - only the Holy Spirit can reveal those facts from the past.

Bobby Chacko

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 2:28:51 PM Close

Dear tyt,

Dont rush into conclusions - in the earthly Sanctuary system, we can find parallel of Christ's ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, so the statement you quoted is in perfect harmony with Scriptures:

"As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away "unto a land not inhabited;" so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer the full penalty of sin in the fires that shall destroy all the wicked." 

http://www.whiteestate.org/devotional/mar/08_31.asp

Bobby Chacko

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 2:30:29 PM Close

Dear ' upadeshiappachan,'

You wrote, "ഉദാഹരണത്തിന്, യേശുക്രിസ്തുവിന്റെ ദൈവത്വത്തെ KB വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു. SDA അതു വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു എന്നതുകൊണ്ട്  KB യുടെ വിശ്വാസം വേദവിപരീതമെന്നോ?" SDA do not believe in the deity of Christ.  They mislead others by saying that they believe on that doctrine.  If they believe in the deity of Christ, they will not contradict Him, because they will have the fear of God not to contradict Christ.

The beginning of SDA is rooted in contradicting Christ about His teaching in the upper room, as written in John 14.  Please remember that SDA do not believe on the deity of Christ.  While they say that they do, in action they deny.  Thus they lie in their doctrinal statement and practice what they believe in their daily life.

Shalom Malekim!!!

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : bchacko   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 4:19:49 PM Close

Dear tyt,

Yes we are going off topic.  The following is the Scripture reference instead of man's writings:

Leviticus 16:20-21

Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

 

20 “So Aaron will make the Most Holy Place, the Meeting Tent, and the altar pure. Then he will bring the living goat to the front of the tent. 21 He will put both his hands on the head of the living goat. Then he will confess the sins and crimes of the Israelites over the goat. In this way Aaron will lay the people’s sins on the goat’s head. Then he will send the goat away into the desert. A man will be standing by, ready to lead this goat away.

Bobby Chacko

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 5:48:26 PM Close

SDA യുടെ ചരിത്രവും അവരുടെ ദുരുപദേശങ്ങളുടെ പരിണാമവും അറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്നതു നല്ലതാണ്. The four major cults by Anthony Hokeima എന്ന പുസ്തകം അൽപം പഴയതാണെങ്കിലും അവരുടെ ഉപദേശങ്ങൾ കൂടാതെ അവരുടെ ചരിത്രവും അതിൽ വിവരിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 5:58:33 PM Close

inspiration ന്റെ കാര്യത്തിൽ EGW എന്ന സ്ത്രീ എഴുതിയിട്ടുളളവ തിരുവെഴുത്തുകളോട് തുല്യമാണെന്ന് SDA പക്ഷത്തിന് അഭിപ്രായമുണ്ടത്രെ! അവൾ എഴുതിയിട്ടുള്ളവ തിരുവെഴുത്തുകളോട് തുല്യമാണെന്ന് സ്വയം കരുതുകയോ അനുയായികളെ അപ്രകാരം വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നതിലേക്ക് നയിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ അത് നിസ്സാര കാര്യമല്ല. വെളിപ്പാട് 22:18 വായിച്ചാൽ അതിന്റെ ഗൌരവം മനസ്സിലാക്കാം. എത്ര നല്ലകാര്യങ്ങൾ ഒരാൾ എഴുതിയാലും ഒപ്പം എഴുതിവയ്ക്കുന്ന വേദവിപരീത മൂഢതയ്ക്ക് ന്യായീകരണമില്ല. ദുരുപദേശം വേർതിരിച്ച് എഴുതുന്നതിനേക്കാൾ ആപത്കരമാണ് സദുപദേശത്തോടു ചേർത്ത് പാഷാണ്ഡ ഉപദേശം കലർത്തി എഴുതുന്നത്. പാലിൽ വിഷം ചേർക്കുന്നതു പോലെ അത് ആപത്കരമാണ്.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 10 Nov 2011 6:01:02 PM Close

ആഭരണ വർജ്ജനം EGW/SDA  പക്കൽ നിന്നും യൂസ്തൂസ് ജോസഫ് വഴി KB സമൂഹത്തിനു ലഭിച്ചതാണെന്ന് ഒരാൾ ശഠിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. എന്തിനാണ് ഇത്ര വളച്ചു കെട്ടുന്നത്? അവരിൽ നിന്ന് എന്നതിനു തെളിവുകളായി പറയുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങൾ ബൈബിളിൽ തന്നെ ഉണ്ടെന്നിരിക്കെ, ബൈബിളിൽ നിന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയാതാണെന്നു എന്തേ ചിന്തിച്ചില്ല? ആ സ്ത്രീയ്ക്ക് ബൈബിളിൽ നിന്നു വായിച്ചു മനസ്സിലാക്കുവാൻ കഴിയുമെങ്കിൽ ഇതരന്മാർക്കും അത് ആയിക്കൂടായോ?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 11 Nov 2011 3:58:24 AM Close

Dear Bobby & the Forum,

It would be an affront for KB to suggest that their Appachans and EGW Ammachi had been inspired by the same spirit. Though upadeshiappachan agrees with you, majority will not take it as a commendation. 

That apart, Ammachi was commanded to learn in quietness and submission, and not permitted to teach or have authority over men. 1 Tim 2:11-12 

Coming to the issue on hand: (See Romans 14)

1.    Bible contains many mandatory commands.

2.    There are disputable matters covered by non-mandatory advisories.

3.    Individual believers have been allowed the liberty to choose and decide on such disputable matters.

4.    Believers making choices, either way, are instructed not to judge others for making a choice differently from them.

5.    So, whatever one believes about such things, he has to keep between himself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

6.    Who are we to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

7.    There are no commandments in Bible telling a believer: “Thou shall not wear any ornaments” 

The advisories emphasizing on moderation and the beauty of Christian character have been distorted and misinterpreted by SDA & their borrowers to make rules and commands never ever intended thus by the Holy Spirit. 

This is a request:

Where in the Bible it is commanded – “Thou shall not wear any ornaments?” 

But the LORD Jesus Christ answered:

JOHN 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 

I would like to know, in the context of the present arguments and interpretations, how this verse from John 6:27 is explained; and what commandment is issued to KB on the basis of this verse?

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 11 Nov 2011 6:47:24 AM Close

 Dear tyt,

From the explanation you posted on Jn 6:27, I gather that you don’t intend to make a rule binding on all believers on the following lines: 

“Do not work for food that spoils. And if anyone works for food that perishes, he shall not be baptized; and if already baptized, he shall not be allowed to take part form the Lord’s Table”. 

I am positive that none would come up with a rule like this from the verse quoted. But, how different is the interpretation of similar passages for inventing and justifying Ornament ban?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 11 Nov 2011 7:49:52 AM Close

 Dear tyt,

You are absolutely right. If anyone make a rule like what I suggested from the verse quoted, it is totally meaningless and making it irrelevant. It was done to drive a point. 

In the same vein, what message, instruction or admonition can we draw form the below verse? 

1 TIMOTHY 2:9 – 10

“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God”. 

Can someone come up with a rule from the above verse to the following effect?: 

“Women shall not braid their hair, shall not wear gold or pearls or expensive clothes. If they do any of the preceding, they shall not be baptized; and in the case of those who are already baptized, they shall not be allowed to take part from the Lord’s Table”

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : upadeshiappachan   View Profile   Since : 12 Nov 2011 5:41:10 PM Close

ശാബതു മത പാഷാണ്ഡ ഉപദേശത്തെ പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കുവാൻ ഈ വെബ് പേജ് ചിലർ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതായി സംശയിക്കുന്നു. EGW എന്നവളുടെ എഴുത്തുകളെ പുകഴ്ത്തിയും ശാബതുമത ദുരുപദേശം പ്രചരിപ്പിക്കുന്ന വെബ്സൈറ്റുകളിലേക്ക് വായനക്കാരെ തിരിക്കുവാൻ പരമാവധി ശ്രമിച്ചും ഉള്ള പോസ്റ്റിംഗുകൾ അതിന്റെ സൂചനയാണ്. ശാബതുമതത്തിന്റെ മൂഢോപദേശങ്ങളെ ബൈബിളിന്റെ വെളിച്ചത്തിൽ വിലയിരുത്തുവാൻ സഹായകരമാണ് Antony Hoekema യുടെ FOUR MAJOR CULTS എന്ന പുസ്തകം.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Nov 2011 1:31:11 PM Close

Dear 'tyt,'

You wrote on 13 Nov 2011, "I was compelled from within myself to use multiple Ids for various reasons."  Previously, when you began to post with the ID, "tyt,' the Webmaster pointed out the various IDs that you used in the past.  At that time, your explanation was that you forgot your password.  It was so innocent sounding.  Now you say that the reasons are from "within" yourself.  What is it?  Did you forgot your passwords for the previous IDs, or do you have some ulterior motives?

Just being curious!  Like curious George!!

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Nov 2011 2:24:16 PM Close

Dear 'tyt,'

I was answering 'jobinsam200,' when you replied to my posting.  When you wrote that you forgot your password and have to use a new ID, you did not mention about the failed efforts of the Webmaster.  How come, you did not mention that?  Did you write down the password for your current ID, to your testimony?

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 15 Nov 2011 6:11:34 AM Close

 The biggest shock in my life was to know firsthand the activities of criminal frauds among Bible Teachers. They raise their heads occasionally from the caves they are hiding, masquerading as lovers of truth but betraying truth for pittances. 

What the world has witnessed in the past about the influence of Bible is: the Criminals leaving their evil, wicked ways by learning Bible. Now this is the first time I am witnessing unrepentant evildoers that indulge in criminal practices taking to Bible teaching; while remaining unrepentant. 

2PEter 2:1-3

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.  Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : varghesepunalur   View Profile   Since : 16 Nov 2011 9:42:48 AM Close

beracah

Is your posting on 15th Nov , the result of self examination

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 16 Nov 2011 9:56:45 AM Close

 Varghesepunalur,

Check whom is it about.  

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : arde   View Profile   Since : 23 Nov 2011 10:12:14 PM Close

It is after several months that I read the postings on KB forum.  Thanks to Tom Johns and George Koshy for their postings on the topic of ornaments; they are very helpful and scriptural. 

Also, I wish those who make arguments for the sake of it, would refrain from doing that.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 7 Dec 2011 8:09:05 AM Close

The inconsistency in interpreting Scriptures is bizarre when it comes to inventing “no-ornament” rule. It is the ‘closed minded’ adamancy, normally exhibited by cultists, that leads to such interpretations. 

There are Biblical passages containing:

v  “not for        -- but for”;

v  “not with     -- but with”;

v  “did not       -- but to” ;

v  “do not        -- but” expressions.

 

Such passages do not intend to totally prohibit the first item but to emphasize the second item.

 

Refer to John 6:27

Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

 

– this is not interpreted by ornament prohibitionists like SDA’s and Separatists as a prohibition on working for natural food but as an emphasis on spiritual food.

 

Three more similar passages are cited below. If we interpret these passages, on the same lines as 1 Timo 2:9 – 10 & 1 Peter 3:1-6 are interpreted by “SDA’s & Separatists”, what would be the possible outcome? 

1 Corinthians 1:17;

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power”.

 

The one who preaches gospel is prohibited from baptizing, he shall not baptize; i.e “The one send for preaching gospel shall not baptize”.

MT 6:19 - 21

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

Believers shall not store up treasures on earth. Therefore create and enforce a rule prohibiting storing up of treasures on earth. Do not baptize those who have treasures on earth; also do not allow such to partake from the Lord’s Table.

 

LK 12:33 - 34

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Those believers who have not sold their possessions and given to the poor shall not be baptized. They shall also not be allowed to partake from the Lord’s Table.

Thus, the following Rules could be made from the above quotes if the principles of interpretation of SDA’s & Separatists for “ornament ban” are consistently applied to the verses cited:

1.    “The one send for preaching gospel shall not baptize”.

2.    “Those who work for food that perishes shall not be baptized”

3.    “Those that have stored up possessions on earth shall not be baptized”

4.    “Those that have not sold their possessions and distributed among poor shall not be baptized”

5.     Those already baptized but coming under the categories listed above shall not be allowed to partake from the Lord’s Table.

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 30 Dec 2011 5:23:10 AM Close

This thread was opened by “ims” from Brethren family in the context of a marriage proposal for his son with a born again girl from Roman Catholic background who wears gold chain.  

The following is a real life story; it happened among KB in Kerala in the year 2011.
 
The setting was the Betrothal and Wedding of two youngsters who grew up in 2 KB churches in Kerala. The betrothal was conducted by the girl’s church and wedding by the boy’s church. Both the churches had roles in both the functions.
 
The girl was born into a Jacobite family and later her parents came to the LORD and to KB fellowship a few years ago. The girl’s family along with some others, when received into KB fellowship, was allowed to wear jewelry; as the teaching on “Jewelry ban” was not scripturally convincing to the leadership of that Church. (A letter written by one of the much respected Elders of the said church disagreeing with ornament ban is in circulation now.) The girl is a born again, baptized believer partaking from Lord’s Table wearing ornaments.
 
The boy is an only child and his father grew up in an Episcopal church and later became a KB on getting saved; whereas his mother was raised as a KB. The parents of the boy were believers and KB members before their marriage.
 
The Betrothal was conducted by the girl’s church and the bride-to-be wore ornaments of jewelry and the function went on normally without any hassles. The wedding was after 2 months from betrothal. The church of the groom who was to conduct the wedding requested to avoid jewelry for the wedding function to be officiated by the Church.
 
Abstention form anything other than those specifically commanded to be avoided in the Bible is a personal choice. Nobody normally ventures to peep into or commandeer personal liberties of others. Though there is no scriptural authority either for fellow believers or the churches to administer unbiblical abstentions; or force anyone to submit to manmade rules; yet the families obliged.
 
The families obliged and organized the function in 2 parts:
 
-      Wedding ceremony officiated by the Church and
-      Reception by the family of the groom.
 
For the wedding the bride removed her ornaments as requested. The Master of Ceremony (MC) for the Wedding was one of the Elders. When the wedding ceremony was over, after prayer and benediction, the Officiant, other Church Representatives and family members who were on the Dias, left the stage as announced by the MC. The couple left the Auditorium itself in a recessional. The MC also informed the gathering of the Reception to follow, conducted by the family of the newlyweds and handed over the remaining session and proceedings to a new MC, who was a believer and a family member of the newlyweds.
 
The stage was rearranged and the family members who had been entrusted with the various responsibilities in the Reception program like welcome, felicitations, vote of thanks and prayer were called on to the stage. The couple also returned to the stage. The bride came back to the Reception wearing her bridal jewelry.
 
Overall it was a well organized function and except for a few hard core no-ornament insisters, everyone else appreciated and spoke well of everything. The relatives, colleagues and friends of the newlyweds and their families were greatly impressed by the openness and clarity of the function as every part of the function was meaningful. The family testified to their dependence on the Lord for everything and publicly expressed their gratitude to God Almighty for His participation and involvement in their lives. The guests - mostly from Nominal Christian, Hindu & Muslim backgrounds- carries fondly the whole event even now in their memories.
 
But the most unusual part is: the bride’s church took action against the father of the bride for the bride wearing ornaments during the Wedding Reception in spite of the fact that they themselves conducted the Betrothal with ornaments; that they allow their members to wear ornaments!!!. The groom’s church followed suit, even though the family obeyed what was asked of them in the matter of ornaments in the Wedding Ceremony officiated by the Church.
 
Taking action against the fathers of the newlyweds was the easiest matter; they have submitted to the Church’s action graciously without arguing, resisting or opposing it.
 
The matters considered by the groom’s father while deciding to allow the bride to wear bridal ornaments during the Wedding Reception were:
1.    The bride, a young girl in her early 20’s, was allowed by her church to wear ornaments since day one of their joining the Church.
2.    She worships and partakes from the Lord’s Table in her church with ornaments as permitted by her church.
3.    She used to attend all the Church functions and the weddings of their church members wearing ornaments.
4.    She was allowed to wear ornaments on her betrothal conducted by her church.
5.    Some of her fellow believers from her church would be attending her wedding with ornaments.
6.    Though it was heartless and unfair to ask a bride to remove her ornaments at her own wedding, obeying the Church request, the bride had to remove bridal ornaments at the Church officiated wedding ceremony.
7.    One of the Elders of the grooms church wrote in a letter in March 2004 that:
 
“But for anyone to insist that one should forsake the ornaments before one is baptized is, to my mind, unreasonable and uncalled for”
 
 He also wrote:
“Personally I would not like to wear ornaments but I would not impose this on anyone. Nor would I refuse to baptize anyone because he/she wears ornaments. To do so would, again, to my mind, be un-Christian”
 
8.    With this backdrop, as there is no valid reason for any opposition, the bride must be allowed to wear ornaments during Wedding Reception conducted by the Family.
9.    In the unlikely event of the churches taking any action for wearing ornaments during Wedding Reception, made up his mind to accept, submit and endure it gladly for the “joy of a once in life time event” of the daughter for whom the family was waiting all along.
10.The approval of the LORD and happiness of the children during their wedding were all the more important than the unjustified displeasure of anybody else for the families.
11.Whatever consequences to follow shall be accepted as a price to be paid for the joy of their children and adherence to the conviction on the issue of ornaments from the scriptures.
 
Later, some confided that malice and jealousy worked on a few who instigated unspiritual, carnal elements to put pressure on leadership for taking action against the fathers of the newlyweds; others said personal animosity of a few also played a part. Anyways, the Lord has been gracious and good: their children are happily married. May the Lord give us all His wise counsels.
 
The information given above is first hand.

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abc   View Profile   Since : 5 Jan 2012 8:51:17 AM Close

The ancient  "golden bull" at the bottom of Sinai is doing enough damage in brethren assemblies in ernakulam these days!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : palatty   View Profile   Since : 17 Jan 2012 11:23:16 AM Close

 

 
 
The BRETHREN around the Globe are undisputedly accepted as the most knowledgeable of the Word of God and the strongest defenders of the Truth. To-day we are called upon to face a challenge.-a challenge of protecting the Integrity & Unity of the Church of God against the subtle onslaught of the Satan.
Satan has succeeded in intruding into the hearts of those weak in faith with this issue of wearing of ornaments. Once again, Women are the instruments in his hands as it has been right from the days of Eve.
As far as a believer’s relationship with God is concerned, Wearing of ornaments is a non-issue. The real issue is Envy and jealousy clubbed with an inferiority complex.
 Missionaries of the past century targeted the underprivileged of the society for evangelization. As a result, most of the older converts were from untouchables, illiterates, poor and the downtrodden of the social strata. Unlike then, today, many an enlightened people, socially, educationally and economically high and mighty, do surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They form a group of Club Class Christians and the Satan has succeeded in carving out for himself a Cult within the Kerala Brethren creating a divide between Club Class and the age old Cattle Class Christians.
The cult refuses permission to others true believers on the pretext that they wear ornaments or dress up elegantly. On the other side, eligible believers residing outside Kerala refuse to marry girls from the cult on the excuse that they are feeble in faith. With the ban on Worship Fellowship and matrimonial relationships, the divide between the two groups is widening at an alarming rate proclaiming great victory to Satan.
Those Brethren exercised with the burden of protecting the unity & Integrity of the Church should now come together once again in this forum—NOT to debate this Non-issue of ornament wearing once again—but to stand united to DEFEAT the subtle machinations of the enemy.
PRAY Almighty the Lord of Hosts, be on our side and secure for us an Astounding Victory.
 
 
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 20 Jan 2012 5:19:28 AM Close

We unfortunately, have ignored the warning singns of the end days told by our forefathers. As a result we will see our generations rejecting God from their hearts and life.Take  as an example decline of morality in America  
Things that once appalled us now have become commonplace. We have heard so much evil that it doesn't bother us anymore. Even brethren from kerala  have fallen and become desensitized.We are no longer guided by Biblical principles on seperation. Secular humanism now directs the minds of the so called kerala brethren. Our philosophy denies God and his Holiness, Christ and the Bible. When we remove God's standards, then man is free to substitute his own standards of morality and we disallow the holliness and simplicity of Christ . Then there is no longer any need for Christ likeness. We do what is right in the eyes of each individual without respect to God's standards.God's word in Judges 21:25 says, "In those days every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Is that a description of our believers today? Many people today do their own thing without regard to God's standards.Secure in prosperity and accepting of humanist philosophies , consequentially, our people has incrementally and systematically proceeded to remove  power of God's Word from assemblies.We beleive our forefathers  were bunch of illiterate uneducated ,unprivilaged adivasies, Today, we are told that what is done in one's private life is a private matter. Private behavior should not be questioned.Its personal  human rights.We beleivers too sort of embraced this as a slave to modernism . Religious principle and moral standards are no longer an integral part of our assembly standards. Immorality has so much creaped into assemblies and the leaders are quietly tolerating .  This has resulted in the moral decay of our comming generations.The movie stars,or pop stars are the role model for adults and sadly the little innocent children look at the grown ups of the assembly as role models.TV has changed to movie theaters at home ,cable TVs and children hear and see absolute dirt thru movies or commertials from the day starting to the day end .Our generations will talk and dress and behave like what they hear and see all round them.They no more see any differance in kerala brethren or a move star or a street kid.Where there was family prayer and worship at homes ,now what kids see is facebook or YouTube the first thing eveyday.Forefathers used to let us spend weakends for prayer meetings and scriptures ,we spend our weakends in partying .Where is the limit ?.

Upto what ornaments can we wear.Can we correct our children not to copy anything that the wordly street kids do?If we crossed the line a little, our kids would want to cross 100 times more.Where can we stop them? We sort of approved wedding rings, next generation approved chain and then sadly started pearcing ears .And now soon we will see all sorts of pearcing ,tatoos,hair colors,face colors and dresses,divorce,dating ,abortions and homosexual marriages tolerated .Where will we be able to stop.Tolerance by the leaders will be the end result.We are seeing some assemblies have started women deacons and leaders.Where are we heading to? If we are not defending the most fundamental of our assembly's  -----"seperation  from the world"----- principles  it will adversely influences the very essence and character  of the comming generation.Arent we supposed to be on the narrow road.We brethren are trying to compromise with world so that we will not be hated by the world and leading others to be happily on the broad way.

1John 2:15,16. Love not the world,neither things that are in the world.If any man love the world ,the love of the father is not in him.For all that is in the world,The lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes,and pride of life,is not of the father but is of the world.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 20 Jan 2012 5:50:21 AM Close

Who has authority to violate the liberty God has given to believers in the name of un-Christian traditions!!!

KB holds out to the world that they are governed by the Bible; that all their doctrines are Bible based and all their practices are in accordance with those doctrines. It is preached loudly from pulpits that all church doctrines and practices must be taught in Gospels, practiced by Apostles and explained in Epistles. Great!!!
 
But,
Are all KB practices in accordance with the above prescriptions!!
 
KB practices are validated not always from the Bible; but from the traditions of forefathers. KB appeals emotionally with sentimental fervour to the traditions of forefathers whenever their unbiblical practices are questioned!!! KB has miserably failed to search the Bible to see if what was handed down to them is true, and they are not like Bereans. They choose to trust the forefathers more than the Bible and God Himself. Fathers or forefathers, none have infallibility. The following is said of Bereans in Acts 17:11 
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
 
KB cannot claim nobility for examining the Scriptures to get convinced that the ornament related traditions handed down to them are God’s command and not from visions of Ellen G White. They sometimes behave worse than the religious fanatics like Taliban; and in the process they trample on the Liberty God has given to His children and violate even the Human Rights of fellow believers.
 
Recently, I had the misfortune of knowing from first hand witnesses the utter confused, self contradicting, absurd and disorganized actions and reactions of few KB in the matter of ornaments. There was no fixity in anything. They acted against their own declared position (and the funny part is that they have reiterated their age old policy to permit ornaments in a meeting convened to condemn ornament usage). Repeatedly they contradicted their own publicly declared stance discrediting each other and their past leadership. (There were also forefathers who from the Bible were convinced that mandatory ornament prohibition is unscriptural)
 
None has any right to violate the dignity, liberty, human rights and fundamental rights of anyone in the name of unscriptural practices. Ignorance is no excuse for misbehaving and the “ignorant and weak in faith” and those that are easily offended and waiting to be offended shall not be the leaders or decision makers.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 20 Jan 2012 10:29:23 AM Close

 

This is a repeat posting - originally posted on April 2, 2007 – and I don’t remember the thread where I posted this. 

This is taken from Dr. Scot M Peck.

 

“There are people who take a cynical view of everything and seem to believe that evil lurks behind everything. Their vision is gloom-and-doom, even in the midst of innocence and beauty. They look for the worst in everything, never noticing that which is positive and life affirming. What normally gets attention and reported are an unbalanced view of reality. When a credit card is stolen, for instance, it becomes a statistic and the headlines of News papers bombard us with crime reports. But we rarely hear any statistics about credit cards left behind on counters and quietly returned – as is almost always the case. The general exclusion of good news leaves the public with the impression that evil truly rules the day. If “no news is good news”, according to the News media, it would also appear that “good news is no news”. We do not hear or read about most of the goodness that occurs routinely – on a daily basis.

 

It is easy to despair, to simply throw our hands up and believe that the world is so evil; nothing and no one can make a difference. But if we are to look at our community realistically, we will recognize the powerful influences of both good and evil forces. The world is not all beautiful; neither is it all bad. Thus the most critical challenge we face is developing the ability to gain and maintain a balanced perspective from where we will have cause for hope, not despair.

 

The truth is that both good and evil coexist as forces in the world; they always have and will. But, it is actually much more easier to pin point with greater clarity where evil exists and whence it come than to ascertain the origins of goodness in this world without reference to God. Paul spoke of ‘the mystery of iniquity’ in 2 Thess 2:7, but ultimately it seems iniquity is less mysterious than the mystery of goodness, considering the reports from Christendom.

 

The prevailing Judeo-Christian view is that this is a good world somehow contaminated by evil; but since the coming of the Son of God and the finishing of the work of redemption, isn’t this a naturally evil world contaminated by goodness?” Quote from Dr. Scot M Peck.

 

REVELATION 22:10 - 15

Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. 11 Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."

 

    REV 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

    REV 22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 21 Jan 2012 1:47:44 AM Close

 

Dear Berach,
 
It is after many months of hibernation from this site, I was trying to catch up with at least few threads by reading few postings here and there. I am glad to see your sane postings in the midst of the whirlwind of sharing ignorance.  Such posters come out with greater force which could even threaten to topple down their already built and fortified tower of Babel of ignorance of yester years.  What you wrote below [and I am quoting,] seems to be an accurate reflection of what is the real problem among most of the Brethren. Thank you, and few other posters, for trying to defend the scriptural standards rather than the traditions. The so-called Brethren claim that they have forsaken all the traditions. But the truth is that they have yoked their neck under the tentacles of a ‘different tradition.’
 
“KB practices are validated not always from the Bible; but from the traditions of forefathers. KB appeals emotionally with sentimental fervour to the traditions of forefathers whenever their unbiblical practices are questioned!!! KB has miserably failed to search the Bible to see if what was handed down to them is true, and they are not like Bereans. They choose to trust the forefathers more than the Bible and God Himself. Fathers or forefathers, none have infallibility. The following is said of Bereans in Acts 17:11
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
 
What I have posted at the very beginning of this thread, almost a year ago, worth quoting again. I wrote the following: “If you are looking for scriptural reasons why a person should not wear any gold Jewelry or ornaments you simply cannot find it in the Bible. This is an unbiblical [which has no basis in the Bible] teaching adopted by the Brethren & Pentecostal believers.
Some people think K V Simon Sir taught this. But they are wrong. He did NOT teach this. This unbiblical prohibition started seeping in to the Brethren group from Yusthuf Joseph and his disciples.
 
This is a form of ‘abstinence’ ideology rooted in the Hinduism. Bible does not teach such superficial abstinence or external conformity. Sad to say the Brethren adopted such a teaching and still continue, thinking that such abstinence is something God would approve.
 
So, if you are looking for biblical reasons against this family’s stand on letting their daughter wear Jewelry, you simply WILL NOT find it in the Bible. They [this family] are absolutely biblical and correct on their understanding. We, the so-called Brethren need to study the Bible and forget the egotistical pretense that the ‘Brethren know the Bible’ better than anyone else. {I underlined here for emphasize.}
 
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 21 Jan 2012 5:30:36 AM Close

Thank you, dear brother Tom Johns.

It is my prayer that God’s children may live responsibly, worthy of God our Father; enjoying the liberty our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has given us. Thank you once again for the encouragement.

PTV

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 21 Jan 2012 11:24:04 PM Close

 

Dear Ann2/ Berach,
 Ann2 wrote;
 
“Upto what ornaments can we wear.Can we correct our children not to copy anything that the wordly street kids do?If we crossed the line a little, our kids would want to cross 100 times more.Where can we stop them?”
 
Berach wrote; “Recently, I had the misfortune of knowing from first hand witnesses the utter confused, self contradicting, absurd and disorganized actions and reactions of few KB in the matter of ornaments. There was no fixity in anything. They acted against their own declared position (and the funny part is that they have reiterated their age old policy to permit ornaments in a meeting convened to condemn ornament usage). Repeatedly they contradicted their own publicly declared stance discrediting each other and their past leadership.”
 
We are facing a fundamental problem. We are trying to impose some restrictions that are not sanctioned by the Bible. Once we stop doing that we can make right decisions and stick with those. This is applicable with decisions in the family and church set ups. Until then we will face such uncertainties and they lead to misguided decisions.  
 
It is a fact that we want our children to be very smart. We want them to be the best scientists, doctors, engineers, teachers and, scholars. But we are asking them to blindly follow an unbiblical tradition! Then we label them “ANUSARANAM KETTA GJATHI” [Disobedient generation.]
 
In fact, the real ‘ANUSARANAM KETTA GJATHI’ is the ones who refuse to learn what is in the Bible and start imposing such prohibition upon the Lord’s people.
 
Ann2, the answer to your dilemma is this; ‘go back to the Bible.’
 
Your brother in Christ,
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 12:29:36 PM Close

 

Thank you for your advise to go back to bible.Which I did.I understand that piercing,tatoo and body and hair colouring  and different types of ornaments are pagan practices which got creaped  into nominal christians and now satan is  bringing it into believers' assemblies too. Imagine in near future our assembly leaders standing on the pulpit full of tatoos and all piercing and colouring and preaching from the word of God.We will see all these in the end days .So it is not a surprise.But sad to see those who are used by satan to accomplish his  purpose.Please read carefully the following verses and may the Holy Spirit open the eyes of all who are allowing satan to creap into the body of Christ and  bringing divisions in the assemblies instead of edification and glory to God .

Thanks

Ann

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 12:33:37 PM Close

Dear Brother Johns,

May the Holy Spirit help all of us through these verses

  1corinthians 10:31"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." Believers are called to give glory to God by what we say and do. We are to reveal the glory of God to the world through our words, lifestyle, and behavior.
2 Corinthians 3:18 says, "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord (Ornaments are for the express purpose of admiration. You want others to see  and admire you .

Genesis 35:2: "Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: 3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. 4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem." Exodus 32:2-3: "And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron." Exo 33:4 And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. Exo 33:5 For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. Exo 33:6 And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb. (Num 31:50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD). 1st Corinthians 10:23-24

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not--   Not all things are advantageous and beneficial to the body of Christ.Ornaments itself is not  the real problem, rather it is what is in the heart of a professing Christian that moves him/her to want something like that on their bodies. And trust me, it is "not" that they are seeking another's glory, or seeking another's edification, or because it is an example of them loving God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.  Clearly these are the behaviors that we see today in our society. It is all part and parcel of the mindset to worship ourselves, our glory, and worldly idols instead of the one true God. But we are bought with a price and are not our own. Yes, this is contrary to the prevailing "Christian Liberty," and "Self-rule" mentality of modernistic Christians who want  body piercings,make ups,Ornaments But our earnest desire should be to do God's will, not our own.  And truly, what could you wear on your body or skin that would give you more beauty, witness or self-worth than the body God has provided? So let the true Christian therewith be content.  

1st Peter 3:3-5

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:"

1st Thessalonians 5:21-22

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."Abstain from all appearance of evil."

1st Corinthians 6:19-20

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?For ye are bought with a price: therefore

glorify God in your body,

and in your spirit, which are God's."

Philippians 3:19

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly,

and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things

.)  

Romans 8:4-7

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." James4:4     Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

1st Peter 2:9

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation,

a peculiar people;

that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath

called you out

of darkness into his marvellous light:"

Titus 2:12-15

"Teaching us that,

denying ungodliness and worldly lusts

, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

1st John 2:16

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  

Isaiah 3:16-24 (NIV):16 The LORD says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with out stretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
17 Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the Lord will make their scalps bald."
18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces,
19 The earrings, the bracelets and veils,
20 The head dresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms,
21 The signet rings and nose rings,
22 The fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses
23 And mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.
24 Instead of fragrance there will be a stench; instead of a sash, a rope; instead of well dressed hair, baldness; instead of fine clothing, sackcloth: instead of beauty, branding.
25 Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle.
2 Timothy 3:1-7: 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Matthew 7:15-23"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Galatians 5:22-24

.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." Matthew 12:33-35, "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.'

2 Corinthians 7:1 "Let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God."  1 Peter 2:11 "Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul"

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Romans 12:1,2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. 2 Corinthians 6:15-18  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.      Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Ephesians 5:11   "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them"
 I

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 12:35:37 PM Close

Cont.---

 I Thessalonians 1:9   "For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true Go

John 15:19      If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

  Matthew 7:13,14Enter by the Narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the Way is Broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the Way is Narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.”
  1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price Gen 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: Gen 35:3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. Gen 35:4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. Eze 7:19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.Eze 7:20 As for the beauty of his ornament, he set it in majesty: but they made the images of their abominations and of their detestable things therein: therefore have I set it far from them.Eze 23:40 And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments, Hos 2:13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim, wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the LORD   

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 2:50:44 PM Close

ann2:

Even in your vast list of verses, there is not one instance where an outright ban is instituted.  If you want to make decisions based on biblical principles, then the best verse you have quoted is:

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not

I pray you stick with your convictions as it is very evident that you have them.  But very clearly, scripture does not teach what you think it teaches.  The NT verses that explicitly mention ornaments say that a woman's beauty should not be known by them. Also, those verses also explicitly ban braided hair.  I trust, Ann2, that if you use these verses as your basis for ornament bannings, that you do not braid your hair either.  Furthermore, I trust that if you were married, that you wore a very simple sari/dress that was not at all costly and that your everyday clothes are also plain.  Finally, I trust that your watch is not a Seiko or a Citizen, but a simple timepiece that is useful for only telling time.

By the way, do you know that hte world considers a watch to be an ornament?  This is evidenced by their placement in department stores...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 6:42:38 PM Close

Thanks Brother for your reply.Truely speaking Ican say with joy that I do not use a watch not becz I took it as an ornament but somehow I dont like it.Now I think it was good so that it became a tesimony.For my wedding I wore a simple saree with no kashavu.That too I do not know how that came that way that I liked that and I never noticed that till someone commented  that it  was a  a good example.At present also I dont like very expensive dresses which Ido not know why but I praise God for what I am is only by His Grace.May His name ONLY be glorified.I got a few opportunities to testify about my LORD becz I dont wear makeups or ornaments and I looked different  . Even the worldly peaple look down on those brethrens who wear ornaments ,or live a lifestylyle like them.Ihave heard people talking about brethren people "isnt she a brethren girl or boy then  why is she or he doing this or that"World around us watches closely , expecting us to be a source of light in their utter darkness and despair.Time is short.Life is short.May our LORD help us to live a life worthy of His calling.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 23 Jan 2012 7:01:06 PM Close

 

Dear Sister Ann,
 
I am writing the following in connection with what you wrote on 23 Jan 2012 12:29:36.
 
We should not forget that tattoo is mentioned in the Bible and it is prohibited.
 
Leviticus 19:28 reads in Hebrew (capitalized) as: VKTBT QAAKA TIGV ANY JHVH. (I have transliterated the Hebrew into English. I also omitted the vowels used by the Scribes after they returned from exile, because they were not used by Moses or any others in the Old Testament.) Let me provide a word-by-word translation into English, VKTBT (and mark) QAAKA (tattoo) LA (not) TTGV (on yourself) ANY (I am) JHVH (Jehovah). In KJV we read this as: “… not print any marks upon you; I am Jehovah.”  Tattoo is printing the marks on a person’s body. A better and literal translation could be: “… nor put any tattoo writings upon you: I am Jehovah.”
 
It is a command and not a request. This is the time a believer has to make his/her decision about whom he/she would follow. We should make the right decision and do what is right.
 
The question of Tattoo also raises the relevance of the Old Testament prohibition in the New Testament time. The Old Testament and New Testament are revelations from God and are relevant for us. We read in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, “Every scripture is divinely inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for conviction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work.”
 
There are certain laws and commandments of the Old Testament that were nullified by Christ. Some of them are: Sabbath, Passover, animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc. Such are mentioned in the New Testament. All others are applicable to New Testament believers.  Tattoo comes in that category.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 25 Jan 2012 4:20:33 PM Close
There are certain laws and commandments of the Old Testament that were nullified by Christ. Some of them are: Sabbath, Passover, animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc. Such are mentioned in the New Testament. All others are applicable to New Testament believers.  Tattoo comes in that category.

Br. Koshy: honest question: what Biblical standards do you apply to distinguish which laws are applicable and which are not?  For example, OT law says not to wear garments made of two materials?  Follow or not to follow?  Also, there are consequences in the OT...are these applicable also, in your view?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 25 Jan 2012 8:15:39 PM Close

 

Dear ‘avoid_legalism,’
 
It will be helpful for me, if you could provide the verse(s) that made you write, “OT law says not to wear garments made of two materials?” There could be more than one verse. I wish to answer your query in the context of the verse or verses. I will try to give you my understanding, after reading them.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 25 Jan 2012 11:52:48 PM Close

Br. Koshy:

Deut 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 26 Jan 2012 12:29:11 AM Close

I recently read the following blog  and was impressed what even Non-KBs feel about the extend of things done on the body to change the external appearance.It shows mostly the rebellion,pride,conformity to the world and is a sign of the end days.Satan also uses scripture to tempt believers. So watch out ,humble ourslves  &  pray that Holy Spirit will help us to lead a Holy Life worthy of our Master.Pls read the following.

Thanks

Ann

 
 

Should Christians Get Tattoos or Piercing?

by Melissa J | More from this Blogger

In addition to the question of whether Christians are justified in getting tattoos and piercing, I'd like also to keep in mind other types of permanent procedures that some would go as far to suggest is mutilation.

Appearances have evolved even in many Christian churches as they have in secular society. It's not for me to suggest what is right or wrong when the apparel remains modest and gender specific as the Bible states. But what about fashion that is relatively permanent like tattoos and piercing along with more severe disfigurements? Some argue that our flesh will perish anyway and it's what is inside that God sees and matters. If this were true then I don't believe the Bible would take the opportunity to discuss modest appearance and dress in various scriptures. The truth is our outward appearance is so often a manifestation of what's inside of us. Opponents of Christians tattooing and piercing often remind us of the fact our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and are ours only on loan and belong to God. I have no doubt Satan has an influence on people who grossly distort the bodies God has made for them.

So what is it the Bible has to say regarding tattoos and piercing?

Tattoos and piercing during the Old Testament days were done in pagan tradition and to mark slaves. Under the law in the Old Testament people were instructed in Leviticus 19:28, "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD." (See Deuteronomy 14:1 as well). Though we no longer live under the law of the Old Testament, many question if this now justifies various piercing in the flesh if not done out of pagan tradition.

In Exodus 21:6 the Bible tells us if a servant wanted to remain servant to his master he would have his ear pierced as recognition that he will be so forever. In Genesis chapter 35 Jacob was told to "put away the foreign gods" among the people and to cleanse themselves. In verse 4 this included taking out their earrings from their ears.

The choice to permanently pierce or mark your body is your own. The Bible states in 1 Corinthians 10:31,

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

I've known Christians who've gotten tattoos representing their Christian faith. I don't have a solid opinion on this matter-not that I'm any authority anyway. I too have tattoos and my ears pierced which were done during a time when my walk with the Lord was miniscule

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 26 Jan 2012 6:41:03 PM Close

 

Dear ‘avoid-legalism,’
 
You provided Deuteronomy 22:11 as the verse of interest. Leviticus 19:19 is another one. There could be other verses. I leave it for others to bring into this discussion, if they desire to do so.
 
This is what I learned and understand from these two verses. In Deuteronomy 22:11, it is clearly stated that the divers garments or the garments that are mingled are with wool and linen. There is a prohibition and we do not read about its removal or contrary to it. If we follow that injunction, there may be certain benefits to us, even if we are not aware of it. To understand the benefits, we need to study the interaction between wool and linen (fine cotton) to each other and also on our body.
 
I also understand that this mingling of wool and linen was in the warp and woof, as they manufactured the cloth material. I am not insisting that this is the only mixing of the wool and linen to manufacture our clothing.
 
Please remember that this is not a doctrinal matter, but a behavior matter that is subjected to severe interpretations. How we walk in this world and how it will affect our testimony should be of concern to us. Let me make it a bit clearer. The testimony of God’s children should not be governed by the standards dictated by the world or people with good intentions. It should be governed by the Scriptures, as they are written. God made it so clear that the cloth that the children of Israel are to wear should not be mingled with wool and linen. That does not mean that they should not wear cotton under wears and woolen suits on top of it, or vis-a-vis. It only means that the material of each item should not be mixed with wool and linen at the same time. Following that will be a good Christian principle. This is my understanding.
 
Having said these, someone may ask how I am doing with this principle. I have the habit of checking the cloths that I buy. I have cloths made with wool. I wear them in summer and winter. They are certified as being made with 100% wool. I do not have any cotton cloths that are mixed with wool. That is my preference. It is not a doctrine, but a matter of clothing myself.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : avoid_legalism   View Profile   Since : 26 Jan 2012 8:35:50 PM Close

br. koshy, please see new thread...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : beracah   View Profile   Since : 27 Jan 2012 4:10:02 AM Close

 

Tattoos – Marks
 
People have also been forcibly tattooed. A well-known example is the identification system for inmates in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust. Tattoos have also been used for identification in other ways.
 
For example, during the Roman Empire, Roman soldiers were required by law to have identifying tattoos on their hands in order to make it difficult to hide if they deserted. Gladiators and slaves were likewise tattooed, exported slaves were tattooed with the words "tax paid" and it was a common practice to tattoo "Stop me, I'm a runaway" on their foreheads.
 
Emperor Constantine I banned tattooing the face around AD 330 and the Second Council of Nicaea banned all body markings as a pagan practice in AD 787.[11] The Latin word for "tattoo" was "stigma", hence the English word "stigmatise".
 
In the period of early contact between the M‚ori and Europeans, M‚ori chiefs sometimes drew their moko (facial tattoo) on documents in place of a signature.[citation needed] Tattoos are sometimes used by forensic pathologists to help them identify burned, putrified, or mutilated bodies. As tattoo pigment lies encapsulated deep in the skin, tattoos are not easily destroyed even when the skin is burned.
 
Tattoos are also placed on animals, though very rarely for decorative reasons. Pets, show animals, thoroughbred horses and livestock are sometimes tattooed with identification and other marks. Pet dogs and cats are often tattooed with a serial number (usually in the ear, or on the inner thigh) via which their owners can be identified.
 
Also, animals are occasionally tattooed to prevent sunburn (on the nose, for example). Such tattoos are often performed by a veterinarian and in most cases the animals are anesthetized during the process. Branding is used for similar reasons and is often performed without anesthesia, but is different from tattooing as no ink or dye is inserted during the process. End Quote
 
    GAL 6:17 Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.
 
Rev 7:3 "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
 
Rev 9:3 And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
                                       
Paul had marks on his body; Angel of God puts a seal on the foreheads of servants of God. Could these be considered as tattoos? Are these Christian tattoos?
 
This is in academic interest only.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ann2   View Profile   Since : 30 Jan 2012 5:31:02 PM Close

Dear Sisters if any reading this,

As I was reading thru the general Forum my heart ached to know how much the brethren have fallen  from the word of God and incresingly  indulged in all kinds of worldly thinking.They want ornamentsand divorce is ok.And I am afraid what  next.They call elders as illiterate,uneducated fools.The pride has gone so much.Philipians 2:3-7.Acts 12:21-23.Daniel 4:28-37.Please start praying before everything falls apart as Sodom Gomorrah.Lets encourage each other to spend more and more time in praying.Acts 12:5 "PRAYER WAS MADE WITHOUT CEASING OF THE CHURCH"---Satan has kept KBs bounded by chains.Prayer only is tool so that those chains will fall off.Lets all join together and pray.

Ann

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:40:54 AM Close

Beloved brethren, the following is for your prayerful consideration. Please bear with me as this is going to be rather a long post

 

Although this issue has been discussed in various forums at different times, it continues to remain a contentious issue among the brethren causing much confusion and even division in some churches. There may be some brethren who desire to dismiss the issue altogether designating it as a ‘non-issue’ or a trivial one. But is it indeed a trivial issue?

There are no trivial matters in the life of a child of God, because we are exhorted to glorify God in whatever we do. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 10: 31. We are to glorify God even in the mundane things of life, not just in few specific ministries. So then, how can we say that there are insignificant issues on which we need not seek clarity from the word of God? Moreover, we should not allow issues like this to create an atmosphere of uncertainty which will prove to be very harmful in the long run.

Even if we regard an issue as trivial, be it doctrinal or practical, a Scriptural perspective on that is necessary for a godly conduct. As followers of Lord Jesus Christ every sphere of our life must be a manifestation of our relationship with God and an expression of our faith, love and hope. How we relate in different relationships, how we use the world, how we utilize different resources etc. all must bear the mark of our new identity in Christ. Therefore let us be cautious in categorizing some issues as central and other peripheral. I do not deny that there are fundamental doctrines that are foundational, and that the rest must be built on in acceptance and application of those doctrines. But that does not mean that the other teachings and practices are trivial or negotiable.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” (emphasis mine)  Matthew 23: 23

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:42:15 AM Close

With regard to our practical living here on earth, if I have to categorize any aspect as cardinal, then it is how we are before God and unto God.  But that does not relegate the importance of how we appear before man. It only signifies that how we appear to others must be a reflection of how we are before God.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (emphasis mine) Matthew 23: 25-26 

It will be a misrepresentation of the teaching of the Holy Bible to say that God is not concerned with our outward appearance. When the Scripture says that God looks at our hearts, it is not to minimize the importance of our outward appearance, but to warn us of hypocrisy and to emphasize the need for integrity. There needs to be harmony between what we are and what we project ourselves to be. This can be achieved only when we apply His truth and live in His presence by the power of His Spirit. God is concerned with both what is going on in our hearts and what comes out of our mouth. 

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer.” Psalm 19: 14

Equal emphasis must be given to our ‘being’ and our ‘communication’ (expression of our being). Why has our Lord sent us to the world as He was sent by His Father? Is it not to communicate? It is not just by words that we communicate, in fact we communicate very little with our words. Our appearance and body language communicate much more. Therefore we should not allow us to be deceived into believing that our outward appearance does not matter.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:43:39 AM Close

There seems to be more confusion in the way brethren try to arrive at the truth in matters such as this. This is in spite of each proponent claiming his/her understanding to be Scriptural. The method we employ to obtain clarity is vital because it will have much bearing on the result we obtain. How then should we seek truth in a case such as this?

Can we arrive at the truth by probing into the origin and history of a practice? Investigation into the origin or history of a teaching or a practice to determine the correctness of it can be deceptive and sometimes a futile exercise. Rather we must stick to the Scripture. We may be diligent in our search but none of the historical records that we may refer to are accurate or unbiased except, of course, the inspired history found in the Scripture.  In any case, the fact that a particular teaching or practice is followed by a heretic group by itself does not make that teaching or practice a heresy. Many of the practices we follow may be found in other communities too, and there are those who accuse Christianity of adopting many teachings and practices from pagan beliefs and culture. And if we are to argue to and fro about the origin and history of a particular teaching or practice, we are bound to miss the truth.

When one side attributes the ‘ornament wearing’ practice to pagan culture by citing history, the other side too  cites history to attribute ‘abstention from ornaments’ to pagan or cultic culture. If one insists on accusing abstention from ornaments  to be an adoption from pagan or cultic culture, then he/she will have to do some explaining about the origin of the practice of  wearing of ornaments in the church.  Did it all begin by an explicit commandment of God, ‘thou shall wear’? Was it the result of an adherence to one or many scriptural principles?  Was it a practice imitated from the life of Jesus, His Apostles or the early church? And where did the wedding ring come from? On what mandate or obligation and for what significance have saints adopted it? My point is, we arrive at the truth not by debate or investigation but by looking at the revelation.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:47:37 AM Close

Moreover, the motive of any community for following a particular practice can only be speculated, it cannot be truthfully ascertained especially when we are far removed from them in time. We may ascertain certain facts such as what happened, when it happened etc. But ‘why it happened’ can only be speculated.  We may be sincere in our study of the historical data, but none of us are absolutely unbiased or objective. Our presuppositions, predispositions and the contemporary culture will influence both the selection and interpretation of the historical data. In any case, the Bible tells us not to judge in such cases as we have no access into the ‘hidden things’ and into ‘the counsels of the hearts’. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.” 1 Corinthians 4: 5. Let us not sit in judgment of the ancients on the pretext of being Scriptural. Commending or condemning the ancients on the basis of our available knowledge is neither called for nor within our jurisdiction, and will in no way help us in our endeavour to find a Scriptural solution to the issue. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:49:09 AM Close

Therefore we have to focus and depend totally on the only truthful authority we have, the Scripture. And as we look unto God to be led by His Spirit through His Word, we must be willing to

1.   Submit our wisdom (wisdom of the world acquired by learning, experience and reasoning) to His wisdom (wisdom of God obtained by being taught by the Holy Spirit through the word of God).  (cf.  1 Corinthians 1: 20- 2: 16)

 

2.   Submit our will to do His will. “Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.” John 7: 16- 17

But if the enterprise is to prove oneself to be wise or to justify one’s own actions, we are bound to err. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:50:24 AM Close

The oft heard question whenever the ornament issue is discussed is ‘does the Holy Bible prohibit wearing of ornaments?’; ‘Is there an explicit commandment or teaching to this effect?’

In my study I have found no explicit or direct commandment in the Scripture to the effect of, ‘thou shall not wear’. But then, there are many practices, and few doctrines too, that we follow for which we do not have an explicit or direct commandment. Unlike under the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant what we have is not a list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’, but general principles which must be applied to specific areas and instances. We have also been given clarity on the overall purpose of our life and the manner in which it must be carried out. These principles and knowledge are given as guidelines for a follower of Christ to discern what to do and what not to do. God through His Spirit has explained to us in His word all that we need to know about God; about Himself, His design, purpose, provisions and promises for our life, about us; our past, present and future; about potential dangers within and without. God wants us to be convinced of these realities and act out of conviction, not a ritualistic obedience. Christian faith is not akin to certain other religions which boast of having rules for every aspect of life laid out in their books.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:52:18 AM Close

 “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (emphasis mine) Romans 12: 1-2

Knowing the will of God is not by looking at a list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’, but by submitting our bodies in the exclusive service of God and by becoming a new person (transformed) by a new perspective (renewed mind). Apostle Paul summarizes his arguments in the previous eleven chapters as ‘the mercies of God, and exhorts us to respond to the realization of it. Our doings must be the fruits of the new beings we have become by knowing the truth. Knowing-being–doing is the divine order for our living.

And as we grow in our knowledge of God, we will not merely look for what is right and wrong, but what is beneficial and edifying because of the love that abounds in us.  Our desire then will be to discern things that are more excellent, things that will glorify God. 

“And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ,  being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” (emphasis mine) Philippians 1: 9- 11

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 2:59:03 AM Close

As we continue to see form his writings, the ‘dos’ and the ‘don’ts‘’ in the life of Apostle Paul was not determined by a specific law or two.

 

“Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” 1 Corinthians 8: 13

 

“It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” Romans 14: 21


“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.” 1 Corinthians 10: 23 – 24

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:00:56 AM Close

Our choices and actions must be motivated by love and aimed at edification (cf. 1Corinthians 8: 1-3);  by the love of God which has been perfected in us and by which we love one another (cf. 1 John 4: 12). The knowledge we obtain from the Word should lead us into that motivation. Otherwise the knowledge will only inflate our ego wherein we will be obsessed with the expression and exercise of our liberties. The liberty we have in Christ is not a blanket license to conduct our lives with no concern for our brethren. When Scripture warns us not to be under bondage again, it is to warn us of the folly in attempting to earn more worthiness before God and man through certain practices and observances.

How can we claim to be followers of Christ without imitating His attitude wherein He chose not to exercise His rights? Is insistence on propagation and practice of our rights the right attitude, attitude of Christ Jesus? Can we accomplish God’s purpose without following the pattern Christ has shown through His life?

 

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2: 5- 8)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:02:07 AM Close

Therefore, my understanding on the issue of ‘wearing of ornaments’ is not based on a specific verse or verses but on many general principles laid out in the Holy Bible and on the spirit of the overall teaching of the Scripture. These principles are not exclusive to the issue of ‘wearing of ornaments’, but are to be applied to many other things we do/buy to beautify and/or to add value to us.  Nevertheless, let us not distract ourselves from the present issue by pointing out failures on other fronts. If others have failed in other areas of life, it does not make our wrongs right.  The present concern is ornaments and therefore let me focus on that.

Ornaments are accessories which are meant to beautify. People generally wear ornaments either to beautify or to exalt themselves. There may be some others who wear it for other reasons too.  Whatever the case may be, no child of God who wants to follow the teachings of Lord Jesus and His Apostles can deem it as a need. We already are beautiful and valuable because of our identity and value in Christ. Nothing we do or possess can add worth and value to us. Therefore we need to ask ourselves as to what utility ornament has in our life, or more precisely and personally, ‘Do I need it?’

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:03:24 AM Close

Does that mean we should not adorn ourselves at all or we need not be concerned about our appearance? No, how we appear does matter, both before God and man. There must be adornment within and without. As stated earlier, we must be most concerned with how we appear before God or more pertinently with ‘how we are unto God’.  We have some specifics given in the first epistle of Peter concerning the adorning of women (cf. 1 peter 3: 1-6). But the text I want to cite is from the second letter of Apostle Paul to the saints at Corinth, which is profound and exhaustive.

“Now thanks be to God who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and through us diffuses the fragrance of His knowledge in every place. For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.” 2 Corinthians 2: 14- 15

Apostle is praising God for the triumphant life in Christ in which the fragrance of the knowledge of God is diffused through them in every place. He attributes the success of that ministry first to God and then to themselves being the fragrance of Christ unto God. God is pleased only when we are unto God first, and only when we are the fragrance of Christ. Only Christ has pleased God completely and it is by manifesting Christ to God that we can please Him and be a channel of His manifestation everywhere. We need to be unto God the fragrance of Christ if we have to diffuse the fragrance of the knowledge of God everywhere.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:04:43 AM Close

How we appear to man is no less important because we are to manifest Christ to the world too, we are to bear witness to the truth as Christ did (cf. John 18: 37). Again we do have some specific teachings about outward appearance in 1 Timothy chapter2 and elsewhere, but I would prefer to use another text from 2 Corinthians which provides us the broader principle.

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Corinthians  4: 1—2

Apostle, by citing his own example, is emphasizing the need for us to commend ourselves to others’ conscience by manifesting the truth. We ought to manifest the truth by the application and proclamation of it. That truth does not consist in one or two verse or commandments, but in the revelation of God through Christ. And it is by progressing towards conformity to the likeness of our Lord that we can manifest the truth. We are to behold the glory of our Lord and become like Him.

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 3: 18

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:06:29 AM Close

Do I, being a child of God, need to wear ornaments?

          As explained earlier, an ornament is generally something one wears to add beauty or   value to oneself. But is it necessary or how does it help me in my    Christian walk and progress towards conformity with my Lord? Can I honestly    ask God to provide me ornaments, fully realizing that it is not a need?

          Is it essential for my life and godliness, is it something for which I can give  thanks to God and glorify God with?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:08:45 AM Close

Can I, being a steward, spend money on ornaments?

          Don’t we and all that we have belong to God? Haven’t we accepted the divine ownership of our lives and all that we have when we accepted His lordship? Are we not accountable to God for what we do with all the resources He has given as the Scripture explicitly teaches us of our stewardship and accountability? In the Scripture we are also given specific guidelines on the utilization of wealth and other resources we are entrusted with (cf. Matthew  6: 19- 24; 1 Timothy 5: 17- 19).

          Therefore we need to ask ourselves, is buying ornaments for the purpose of wearing them as an adornment a responsible and productive utilization of the money God has entrusted us with?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abrahamdthomas   View Profile   Since : 31 Jan 2012 3:24:28 AM Close

Should I, being a minister of God, wear ornaments?

          Our definition of sin will become wider and rules for living stricter if we are ministry minded  like Apostle Paul. For that to happen we must realize the gloriousness of the ministry we all   are involved in (workers together with God – cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1; 3: 9). Paul appreciated it, and therefore h