Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Is A Mohawk Sin?


robmac68
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oy, i need to comment on this thread.

To those who have stated that a child should only have a high and tight haircut I would like to clarify one thing to you. A high and tight is a military haircut. Men with these haircuts have killed more people in the last 100 years than we have accounted for in all other history. It was originated by the U.S. military during the American Revolution and more formally the Indian wars. Technology had not advanced enough to allow for haircuts constantly and people didn't seem to care until they were being scalped. This new haircut made it very difficult for Native Americans to scalp people while they were still alive. As time progressed the U.S. military adopted this hairstyle originating from that purpose. Armies all over the world have adopted adaptations of this very haircut for their own military. Most notable, the Nazi party.

Now, I must disagree with about 90% of you who have posted. I do not believe that a Mohawk is inherently a sin. I do, however, believe that judging a person based only on their haircut and not what is in their heart, what they say, and their testimony is a sin. We are warned against these types of judgement throughout all scripture and even Christ dealt with them.

"Who is that?"

"He says he's the son of God."

"Well, he doesn't look like the Son of God! He MUST be blasphemous."

"But he knows more about the laws than you."

"Well then, lets shut him up quickly!"

 We, as Christians, are called to be held to a higher standard but we lower ourselves by this constant judgement that really only does one thing... it removed us for the real purpose we are in this world. To Glorify God and spread Scripture. If we want to get into how a fashion statement is going to hurt us as Christians I think that it should start with you first. Those plaid shirts, button up shirts, ties, suits, blouses, boots, jean skirts, stockings, bras, boxers, etc... Those would all have been considered heresy to the pharisees. We are adorning ourselves with patters, colors, excess, etc. Before you comment on the splinter make sure you don't have a log.

Don't judge people by tattoos, piercings, clothes, or haircuts before hearing their words, speaking to their heart, and listening to their testimony. While I don't see an issue with tattoos, piercings, or haircuts I do believe that modesty is important with Christian lifestyle. Having a tattoo of a naked girl on our forearm seems to very easily be a stumbling block. Lets also consider that that Christian with a naked girl tattoo found Christ after having fallen into depression in his 30's 40's 50's etc. That tattoo, while immodest, is now part of his testimony and you just ignored that person based on their looks being too 'worldly.' This is the biggest hypocrisy I see in today's fundamental churches and one that i take very seriously.

Now, to the parents of the child. This is your decision. This is not the child's decision and if your child doesn't agree with you than sparing the rod may not be an option but this is a young child who wants something he likes. I do not see an issue with it but you may see an issue with it. 100 years ago marrying someone you loved instead of who your parent's decided was right for you was considered a sin and now we think it's crazy to be any other way. Don't think that because the child wants something it isn't okay for them but don't think it is either.
Let me ask this. What do you feel about this hairstyle? Have you actually sat down, read Scripture, and prayed about what you felt was the best outcome for this situation?

If you feel that your child needs to grow up more before making that decision than that is great! Let the child make the decision when YOU feel they are mature enough and spiritual enough to do so. If the child is diabetic and wants a candycane do you allow it? No, because the child would not be mature enough to understand why not.
Do not, and i repeat, do not make a decision because of what people tell you is right and people tell you is wrong. There is only one thing that can tell you what is right and what is wrong and that is God. If God decides to speak through the voice of a pastor, a friend, a relative, etc then listen but TEST THE SPIRITS and make sure that it is from God and not a Christian who can not come to terms with the fact that we are human. If you make a mistake and change your mind later, so what? We are all sinners and we make unknowing mistakes. That's one of the best things about being a Christian. Even when we try our hardest we still make mistakes and sin unknowingly because we are not perfect but God is so merciful that those don't matter. What matters is our life, our actions, our testimony, and our salvation.

So, all that said.... To the people who are saying this haircut is a stumbling block to them I say to you:  You are a stumbling block to me for making a haircut a bigger issue than it needs to be. I can forgive that but it's my duty as your brother to let you know that your actions are hurting me and I know I would not be the only one.

I always felt that when Paul was writing to the different churches the ones who did not nitpick the small things he seemed to call the 'strong' churches. Those who nitpicked the small things, went to court, had prOBlems seemed to be the churches who were weak. These issues were not of the world but their own issues that they forced onto everyone else. Those who focused on God, were not luke-warm, ministered, reprimanded outrageous sins, and forgave those who repented were the strong church and that is the example I am willing to follow.

Looking at these comments; I'm happy I'm not a member of many of the churches you attend. Let that sink in.
 

 I have only seen what you believe and not what the word of God says would you post scripture backing what you believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To the OP:

Many things in life will not be chapter and verse, but you will have to use principles to determine how your family will operate.  For example, are electronic games sinful?  I know some families who will not let their children use electronics for games and others who will.  Each has a principle that they use for their family.

I think the bigger question is "Am I capitulating because I want to keep my kids happy since I always say no, or am I allowing this because I truly find it childish and harmless and it will be a fun time for my son and me.?"

You indicated both are true for you.  Then your parents call you out on it, seemingly ironically.

You need to decide what works for your family and go with that.  You do need to consider the testimony value, as well as the understanding your child has about your family rules and the faith from which they stem.  (At this age your child may not even be saved and should just OBey because it is your family's rules rather than in OBedience to the Bible principles about worldliness.

For our home, and our community, the mohawk style is definitely part of the "I need to stand out" "I'm different than you" "I don't conform" culture, so the Mohawk would not be a hairstyle we would be sporting or supporting.  You need to consider where you live and how things are perceived.

 

As to the brother with the mohawk, welcome.  I'm glad that you are doing what you feel is a Biblical reminder of your inner man.  We have young people in our community who tattoo themselves with Scripture references and phrases for the same purpose as your hair.  While I don't feel either is the best approach in my area of the country, I at least can say these people are trying to be spiritually alert day to day which is a great start.

would you give scripture from the word of God proving what you believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

As it is evident by my profile picture, I have a mohawk. I can also assure you that I'm a Christian, living to the best of my knowledge in a life pleasing to God. That's not to say I didn't initially receive a lot of negative feedback, particularly from church folk. I don't tell many people this, but for the sake of conversations and reasoning, I'll let you in on a secret. I have a mohawk because to me, it's a symbol of warfare. My ancestors wore their hair in this manner to signify they were warrior. It signifies the very real spiritual warfare that I am caught up in, and am struggling in. Ephesians 6:12 depicts a spiritual battle, and my hair reflects that in an outward act of symbolism. I don't have one to "be cool" (I'm from a small town that can be very judgmental, so it kinda defeats the purpose) or to "show an act of rebellion". As far as appearance goes, it can be no more a sin to have a mohawk than to shave your face. Each is an altercation to the natural way your body makes hair, and there's actually a scripture that says not to cut the corners of your beard (Leviticus 19:27). Therefore, in a moral sense, it's no more a sin to have a mohawk than to shave. I understand that the Holy Spirit may convict other people differently, which is why it is always best to pray, seek godly advice from wise people, search the scripture, and think it over long and hard before coming to a  decision. 

lets search the scriptures together my friend I think you will find a lot of what you say is wrong , what you have posted does not prove your point and you have misunderstood Gods word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm not trying to change the thread but I've been reading a lot of the post here and have a question to ask ''

 

How many here do not believe that the Entire word of God the Holly Bible '' the old and new testaments are written for our us today ?

.

Just a bit concerned of what I'm reading. I'm seeing a lot of what one believes and not what the word of Gods Says.

 

God bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Hi, Jo-welcome to the group.

 

I appreciate your thoughts on the issue at hand. Its an issue that I think begam on a somehwat light note, but it has brought about a great deal of good intelligent and surprisingly respectful discussion. I don't now if you have actually gone over all the posts on it, being pretty long, but I would encourage you to do so.

 

As was mentioned before, you gave many things to chew on abut the subject, but you really didn't give much Bible on it.

 

The Bible does give some words of what would be considered as extreme hairstyles, both in length and style. The length issue is covered in 1Cor 11, while the issue of styles is mentioned when dealing with modesty. I put up a post on this earlier, post # 70, so I am not repeating myself. Extreme hairstyles are considered immodest, as would be the peircings and tattooing that are all means of getting people's attention to yourself. Now, I suspect most would disagree with that, and insist 'No, I do it for myself because I like it!', but then, there's really no point. I will be a little transparent here about myself: when I was in the Navy, I got a tattoo-it is a small 'fish' with a cross in it, above it is a little banner with my wife's name, and below it is a banner with "Eph 5:25" I thought, Oh, a nice 'Christian" tattoo declaring my love for my wife!  My wife who left me a bit later, by the way. And for all the good feelinges behind it, it was all about being seen of men, for men to see how 'christian" i was and how much I loved my wife. It WAS to be seen of men. And all tattooing is such, despite what people may say otherwise, because if it was just to be private, why cover one's self in them? No, they are a message. The message may change but its still a message and its still immodest because it says "Look at me!". As Christians we should not seek to be conformed to the habits and fads of the world-I did it and have regretted it since almost the time I did it. I have kept it now truly for myself, to remind myself how stupid I can be and to not repeat such a mistake.

 

If a mohawk is designed to reflect one's culture, well I ask, isn't it Christ and our NEW nature we should seek to reflect? Rather than wearing a symbol of my natural warrior people, why not live as a symbol of my Saviour, the Prince of Peace? That's not to say that one must wear a high and tight-I wore that in the military but don't anymore-I just keep it short and combed, and my wife wears hers long and brushed, usually up so the goats don't get hold of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

We can learn from both Testaments. But the Mosaic Law is not for the Gentile Converts. see Acts 15 & Acts 21

 

Hold on now brother, if God thought these 'rules' were good back then,

what has changed in God that he would not still see some of these things

 still good for us.

 

This is where a lot a 'lost' people see us as 'stupid' when we carry around a 'book'

that has 'useless' stuff in it that we do not follow anymore.

 

What God thought and told mankind was wrong, is still wrong.

 

Now the different 'sacrifices' were fulfilled in Christ, but the other 'laws' are still good advice

for us to learn about and from as to health, government, and 'legal' teachings'.

 

Jesus said he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Not to destroy the what God

counsels man in God's ways of us 'living', 'thou shalt nots', but he fulfilled the commands of sacrificing

in OBedience, the critters he required.)

 

I know I might fall short of my 'thinking' here, but I ask for mercy and not condemnation for what I just said.

 

I don't believe we 'have to' keep the law, but it is proper wisdom in taking heed to what the Lord wanted man to 'live' like.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

According to Acts, Gentiles are not to be taught to keep the Law. According to Romans, one is committing spiritual adultery if one goes to the house of the Law while married to Christ. According to Galatians, one is a fool to place oneself under the authority of the Law after one has been saved. According to 1 Timothy, the Law is not for the righteous it for the ungodly.

Best to look unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,& walk in the Spirit than to choose the path of an ungodly foolish adulterer, IMO.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

According to Acts, Gentiles are not to be taught to keep the Law. [Yes, like circumcision, and keeping 'temple' service, etc.]  According to Romans, one is committing spiritual adultery [Is this possible for a born again child of God?] if one goes to the house of the Law while married to Christ [Paul went there many times himself, and so did others.]. According to Galatians, one is a fool to place oneself under the authority of the Law after one has been saved [Hello? I never said one 'had to', as a command, force himself to OBey, it comes natural to a child of God]. According to 1 Timothy, the Law is not for the righteous [this is where we get the idea of the laws of our land help to keep crime away from society, where is that at odds with what I said?].

Best to look unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith,& walk in the Spirit than to choose the path of an ungodly foolish adulterer, IMO. [so I guess you think I am a spiritual adulterer in this last statement, since I OBviously don't think it is wrong to keep the word that God himself wrote out for his people to follow as his directives for a successful way to serve him in this life?]

 

I must be saying this wrong.

I do not think it is 'natural' for a lost man to 'want' to follow that which is right. hence, we in society use the 'law' to keep crime at bay.

I do believe it is in the mind and will of a saved man to follow that which is right. That is why the 'law' is not for the saved.

And we know what is right, by what God commanded, to Moses [as well as other prophets of God].

Those things that God wanted man to do, were what pleases him, - and what God did not want man to do, the 'shalt nots', are what displeases God.

 

That is how we should live our daily lives, knowing what things in the past that the Lord commanded man, are a good source for us to 'follow' to have a peaceful and healthy existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm sorry for the question I ask and have removed it, and as I said I wasn't trying to change the topic

I was just concern of what someone believes without providing the Word of God. ( both the old and the new testaments )

 

I believe Pastor Mike post it better than I did and thank him for doing so.

 

God bless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I'm sorry for the question I ask and have removed it, and as I said I wasn't trying to change the topic
I was just concern of what someone believes without providing the Word of God. ( both the old and the new testaments )
 
I believe Pastor Mike post it better than I did and thank him for doing so.
 
God bless

Oh, no, EK - I was referring to the law vs not the law conversation that was starting. While a good subject, it would simply muddy the waters here. Your post. was fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh, no, EK - I was referring to the law vs not the law conversation that was starting. While a good subject, it would simply muddy the waters here. Your post. was fine.

Thank you very much , I saw were my question was headed and with respect to rOBomac68 thread I removed it  trying to get it back on track again.

thank you for your kindness

God bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not long. It is all the admonition we have (men).
Hair style doesn't come from God, it comes from culture.
There is no way to discuss hair style, without discussing a secondary topic parallel to hair.
For instance:
A child, under their parent's authority, is commanded to OBey their parents. Hence, if their father says "No Mohawk", then they sin to wear one.



Anishinabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is A Mohawk Sin?

 

I think the question needs to be redifined to something along the lines of "Does having a Mohawk or anything else attributed to today's worldly culture glorify God?" If it doesn't than don't do it. We are representatives of Christ in this world and as such we have a responsibility to be lights amidst the darkness ... JM2C :twocents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not long. It is all the admonition we have (men).
Hair style doesn't come from God, it comes from culture.
There is no way to discuss hair style, without discussing a secondary topic parallel to hair.
For instance:
A child, under their parent's authority, is commanded to OBey their parents. Hence, if their father says "No Mohawk", then they sin to wear one.



Anishinabe


Agree. I think some of the IFB standards pertaining to hairstyles are outside the scope of what is mentioned in Scripture. Not that the standards themselves are wrong, but labeling as Biblical what is not in it smells of adding to what is actually written. Edited by Arbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Agree. I think some of the IFB standards pertaining to hairstyles are outside the scope of what is mentioned in Scripture. Not that the standards themselves are wrong, but labeling as Biblical what is not in it smells of adding to what is actually written.

I agree. I think you have hit the nail on the proverbial haircutted head. The Bible gives basic guidelines for modesty, yes. My concern is that there are no very 'specific' verses that pertain to such other than modesty. Modesty is defined in the Bible, yes. Sometimes, it feels as though many hyper conservative fundies are adding something that parallels what they think the Scripture states and take this 'man made' definition of what is acceptable as serious as Scripture itself or quoting it as Scriptural.

Everyone has their own decisions, likes, dislikes, preferences, etc in everything in this world. We have our favorite Bible verses, our favorite friends, our favorite topics. Those are also held to a standard that need to be monitored and compared to Scriptural truth. The same applies to fashion and hairstyles. It's not what a man deems as right and acceptable or wrong and blasphemous but what that person, through their own personal study of Scripture, to be glorifying to God.

One of my favorite books is called "Tortured Texts" and it shows how easily we accept 'sayings' or 'phrasings' for truth. While they might come from what a person feels is a good place does not make it from God.

Edited by jocuserious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This whole thing about the mohawk sounds to me about a would-be rebel on an ego trip.  A Christian is to be on a trip to glory, not on an ego trip that possibly leads in the other direction. 

Strange how the young always want to be different and they end up all being the same.  They should spend more time in the Proverbs getting some good advice and listen less to their worldly peers.

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 I have only seen what you believe and not what the word of God says would you post scripture backing what you believe

 

 

would you give scripture from the word of God proving what you believe

 

 

lets search the scriptures together my friend I think you will find a lot of what you say is wrong , what you have posted does not prove your point and you have misunderstood Gods word.

 

To be honest, there are no Bible verses that talk specifically about a mohawk and all the verses speak on modesty have been brought up in previous pages on this forum. While I do agree that Scriptural relevance is important the statements I was rebutting use Scripture that is not specific towards this topic but used as the opinions of those men have attempted to make it relevant to this topic.

In my area, a mohawk (especially a low mohawk or fauxhawk) is considered modest. I do not consider it modest in Iowa. Why? There are differences on what is perceived as modest in that area, especially in the church.

 

I feel this argument is similar to such: 2014-05-05-cc318e9.png

Edited by jocuserious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...