Response to UPC Bible study on Make-up

image_pdfimage_print

Response to a Bible study written by Rev. M.G. Blankenship. Found at http://www.apostolic.edu/biblestudy/files/bwahprt3.htm.
Accessed 12/21/06.

I am not going to reprint the entire study because it would take too much space. What I will do is show a piece from the Bible study and then respond to it. I do recommend that you read the entire Bible study and form your own conclusions.

Spelling and editing errors in the italicized errors are the mistake of the author of the Bible study that I am responding to. Spelling and editing errors in the rest of the article are my mistake.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

This is an issue of association: Without exception, every example of makeup in the Bible is associated with wicked women. Queen Jezebel when trying to seduce Jehu: ( who was a VERY WICKED WOMAN)

II Kings 9:30 "And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard [of it]; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window."

** Let’s be honest: we would have to recognize that what we call makeup is really nothing more than painting your face. THEREFORE, I could say I am going to Builder’s Square and buy a five gallon bucket of makeup for my house. The only difference between normal & a clown is the amount. Somehow, paint sounds cheap, but makeup is "cultural." – but it’s the same thing. Even the world acknowledges someone "overdone" as a "Jezebel"

Eye makeup started in Egypt about 3000BC . Egypt is a type of sin and bondage throughout the Bible. (it sure didn’t start in Israel among God’s people)

My Response:

Just because something started in Egypt, and Egypt is traditionally a type of sin, does not make something inherently evil. Egypt was one of the first civilizations to use irrigation, so is irrigation inherently evil? Of course not! The fact is that Egypt existed for thousands of years before the Hebrews were called out, so they had plenty of ideas. Just because they did something does not make it wrong. Egypt is a type of sin because the Israelites were held in bondage there. It was not a type of sin because of any particular thing that they did.

Now let’s look at Jezebel. Jezebel was a Phoenician princess who married King Ahab (note that she was not Egyptian). Jezebel was definitely an evil woman, but she was not evil because she painted her face. That has nothing to do with it. She was evil because she persecuted the prophets of God and things like that.

The point is this: If we cannot wear make-up because Jezebel painted her face, then we also cannot "adorn" our hair or look out a window.

See the logic here? Just because an evil person happened to do something does not mean that the action is evil.

Also, for what it’s worth, the only time Jezebel is mentioned in the NT is when a prophetess is called a "Jezebel" by Jesus. The reason? She was leading Christians to commit acts of immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Nothing about make-up there.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

Look at Solomon’s advice to young men:

Proverbs 6:25 "Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids."

Painting the face is direct, simple pride & vanity at its rawest form . It is simply designed for sex appeal; it has no other purpose.

My Response:

The commandment in Proverbs 6:25 is to not lust after adulturesses. The statement, "Neither let her take thee with her eyelids" may or may not have anything to do with eye paint. The Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (one of the better Old Testament commentaries) has this to say about the subject: "The warning, ‘let her not catch thee with her eyelids,’ refers to her (the adulteress’s) coquettish ogling and amorous winking1." Of course, other commentaries (such as JFB and Clarke) think that the verse is talking about eye shadow2. We just don’t know for sure. Either way, the debate about whether or not "take thee with her eyelids" refers to eye shadow is pointless. The passage does not command women to not wear eye shadow, it only commands men to not lust after adulturesses. Men will lust over women whether or not they’re wearing eye shadow.

I also do not think it’s fair or right to say that make-up is "simply designed for sex appeal." (Note that this is the same view that the UPCI takes in their doctrinal section when they say, "Since the primary effect of makeup is to highlight sex appeal, we reject makeup as immodest3.")

This is not right.

Just because a woman uses make-up to enhance her physical appearance does not mean that she’s out looking for sex. If we follow this logic than anything that we do to enhance our physical appearance is "immodest."

Is it wrong to put on deoderant? Is trying to smell nice enhancing our sex appeal? What about brushing our hair, or wearing matching socks? See where this is heading? Everyone wants to look nice, and there’s nothing wrong with that! The problem only comes when someone is obsessed with their physical appearance to the point of neglecting modesty or inward holiness.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

In the scripture: it always denoted boldness, seduction, ostentation and even prostitution.

NOTICE THESE TYPES OF GOD SPEAKING TO BACKSLIDING ISRAEL..

Jeremiah 4:30 "And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life." Ezekiel 23:38-40 "Moreover this they have done unto me; they have defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of mine house. 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."

My Response:

Jer. 4:30 is not even hinting that women should not wear make-up. It only says, "In vain you make yourself beautiful." I will reverse the argument by making this point: If this Scripture teaches that we can’t wear make-up to make ourselves look beautiful then it also means that we can’t wear scarlet or any gold. (Of course, there are some extremely fundamental churches that teach against wearing red or any gold, but they are the minority).

If Ezekiel 23:40 is associating make-up with harlotry, then it’s also associating taking a bath with harlotry. (I haven’t showered yet this morning, so I don’t suppose I’m a harlot yet today…but that will change before I go out this afternoon.) Please forgive the sarcasm, but you see how ludicrous this train of thought is!

Rev. Blankenship writes:

Esther 2:13 "Then thus came every maiden unto the king; whatsoever she desired was given her to go with her out of the house of the women unto the king’s house. 14 In the evening she went, and on the morrow she returned into the second house of the women, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king’s chamberlain, which kept the concubines: she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and that she were called by name. 15 Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her for his daughter, was come to go in unto the king, she required nothing but what Hegai the king’s chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. And Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her."

The royal courts of the king used cosmetics & jewelry. SHE RELIED ON INNER BEAUTY RATHER THAN MAKEUP TO WIN THE KING All she used was oil of myrrh perfume, and preparations to beautify the skin: (IE: perfumes, lotions, skin care, etc…)

Esther 2:12 "Now when every maid’s turn was come to go in to king Ahasuerus, after that she had been twelve months, according to the manner of the women, (for so were the days of their purifications accomplished, to wit, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odours, and with other things for the purifying of the women"

My Response:

I do not mean to offend anyone, but this is possibly one of the worst examples of taking a Scripture out of context that I have ever seen! Esther was purified for six months with oil of myrhh and six months with spices and "things" (KJV) or "cosmetics" (NASB). (In reality the word that the KJV translates "things" and the NASB translates "cosmetics" refers to "ritual purification following menstruation4"; it is a difficult word to translate into English). Anyway, this is the point: The Bible never says Esther only used "lotions" and what-not…she was PURIFIED with them for one year. When she went into King Ahasuerus she could request whatever she wanted (verse 13), but the SECOND time that she was summoned to the King she only took what "Hegai, the king’s eunuch…advised" (verse 15).

Follow the pattern? Read the verses again: Esther goes into see the king, and she wears whatever she wants (13). Now she waits to see if the king calls her again (14). The king did call her again, and this time she goes with only what Hegai (who was the king’s eunuch, and who knew what the king liked) advised. The Bible says nothing about what Esther wore, only that she wore what Hegai advised the second time she went to see the king .

The girl could have been painted hot pink for all we know. If that’s what Hegai advised, then that’s what she did. The Bible just doesn’t say either way.

Also, let me make another point. The author of this Bible study is comparing Esther to Jezebel, like Esther is good and Jezebel is bad. Think about Esther for a second. Was she really that good?

The Babylonian diaspora (captivity) was over, and the Jews had been freed to return to their homeland, but Esther had stayed in Persia. When Esther was summoned to the king she hid her Jewish heritage. When the king selected her she married him, which was a cross-racial marriage–a direct violation of the Mosaic Law. Not only did she marry him, but she continued to keep her heritage a secret. We do not know what all she had to do to accomplish that, but it certainly involved breaking at least some of the ceremonial law (I.E. with the foods she ate, etc). THEN when she finds out that all her people are going to die, she’s still not sure what to do! Esther basically told Mordecai that she could not do anything because she had not been summoned to the king (Esther 4:11). Boo-hoo! In other words, Esther is so scared for her own skin that she’s debating whether or not to even help the Jews.

Esther finally got her act together, and it all turned out for the good. Now we view Esther as a heroine because of what she did, but the fact is that she was a backslidden, apostate Hebrew who only got her act together when the going got rough. Up until then she was hardly the role model that we make her out to be.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

DID YOU KNOW? American colonies between 1700-1800 makeup was outlawed? *** up until 1945-1950, it was considered sin by most churches

My Response:

It was considered sin for hundreds of years to defy the Roman Catholic church and to not take the sacraments. That doesn’t mean they were right. Man-made laws do not define what is Scripturally correct or incorrect.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

DO WE FOLLOW SOCIETY, OR THE SCRIPTURE?

Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather that men."

*** These are issues that do not always have specific scriptures of complete prohibition. *** ( Rather these are issues of Biblical Association )

PRINCIPLE OF INTEREST TO CONSIDER…

EXO 38: 8 "And he made the laver of brass, and the foot of it of brass, of the lookingglasses of the women assembling, which assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

The Laver of water was a piece of furniture that gained them access to the Holy Place! It was made of the mirrors of the woman…

My Response:

Are mirrors a sin? Either they are or they aren’t. Nowhere does the Bible command women to give up their mirrors or their make-up.

I agree that we should follow God and not society. The fact remains, though, that God never said anything about not wearing make-up.

Rev. Blankenship writes:

Bro. Wayne Huntley one time said…"Revival will come when we get the mirrors out of the women’s hands!" His point: (symbolically) Our woman must get over this self conscious hurdle of the world.

My Response:

If Bro. Wayne Huntley means that women [and men] need to be more concerned with inward beauty and holiness than they do outward beauty, then I agree with him (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10) (although I’m not sure that will alone bring revival).

Furthermore, I don’t think it’s right that the UPC picks on women so much about their appearance. I spent my whole life in Oneness Pentecostal churches, and I promise you that there are just as many vain men as there are vain women. The same goes for the rest of society.

My Conclusion:

Here’s the point, folks: The New Testament repeatedly makes it clear that God wants inner purity and holiness. On at least one occasion (1 Tim. 2:9-10) Paul instructs women to be more concerned with that than with outward beauty. However, the New Testament never dictates any rules of apparel–whether it be clothing, jewelry, or make-up. For that matter, the OLD TESTAMENT never taught against make-up either. It’s just not there.

Folks, holiness is necessary, but it works from the inside out. The Bible never gave any church the right to dictate standards of dress (such as no make-up). The Bible is the rule of authority, not us. If a woman has a problem with vanity and she feels that she needs to give up wearing make-up, then that’s between her and God. We have no right to create a universal rule that says make-up is inherently sinful, and women should not wear it. When we do that we are trying to force holiness into a person from the outside, and that just doesn’t work.

References:

  1. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), Prov. 6:25 []
  2. A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Prov. 6:25 []
  3. United Pentecostal Church International – Modesty, Accessed 2006-12-21 20:02:31 []
  4. The Complete Word Study Dictionary, © 1992 By AMG International, Inc., H8562 []

75 thoughts on “Response to UPC Bible study on Make-up

  1. Gracie

    Hi, I do agree with you, I have been in the UPC church since all my life. I don’t love makeup but I was born with dark, really bad dark circles and I need a concealer to hide it. I don’t wanna scare anyone at church and I don’t think God would want me to feel less confident of myself. I see makeup as a function, it has a purpose, to enhance and hide blemishes and spots that you don’t want people to see. It’s not deception, as a woman, its important to look at least presentable for the Lord. I use skin are products so that I am not in need of makeup as much but there are times when I’m sickly so I need to use a lip tint so I don’t look dead at stage. Some people wont admit it but if you look like a hermit,wouldn’t that affect the people whom you want to win to Christ? We are representing Christ, and if we don’t take care of ourselves even our appearance people outside will not want to be like you as a Christian. Sure, looks doesn’t matter, but we don’t have the same mindset with the wordly people. We should have modest apparel, not too skin showing but to the extent where we cover mostly everything up even our necks because in my own experience, the unbelievers get offended. It will certainly affect soul winning. I think makeup will only be bad if your motives are for lust and seduction, God knows what’s in our hearts. I use makeup because I wasnt born with nice skin, so I need to maintain, conceal and enhance it so I won’t misrepresent God towards the outsiders. Just stating my opinion that’s all.

  2. Kiesha

    Somehow, whenever I encounter this debate, Matthew 6:16-18 always comes to mind.
    Jesus warned us against legalism for a reason. He knew that it served no purpose other than to create disagreement amongst believers……the Bible may not specify make-up as sinful, but it does say that having a disagreeable spirit is sinful.

    Certainly, God had no problem spelling out the Law to His people. I don’t think He’d have neglected something that is and always has been such a pivotal point of religion….especially since He made it clear that it is not the most important thing to focus on….and certainly not argue about. Quite frankly, as a woman, I am tired of being blamed for mankind’s sin and the inability of men to follow God’s laws.I don’t like feeling punished for something that I had no control over – how I look and what gender I was born. From my own personal experience, make-up, jewelry and clothing have little to nothing to do with lust. If YOUR eye offends YOU, pluck it out! Eventually you will get to a sin that has nothing to do with anyone else…..and then who will you blame???

    People keep asking if it is so inconsequential, why keep doing it. You can live and not wear make-up. Well, you can also treat me as your equal – which is by the way, how God see’s us- and instead of trying to dictate how I should outwardly show my righteousness, teach God’s word as it is written and give me the tools to develop my own relationship with Him….not one dictated my a man, which has always ended in sinful disaster. Clearly if man had had the ability to lead and be perfect, free of sin, infallible and blameless, then God would not have needed to send Jesus to atone for our sins. The law didn’t cut it.

    People who turn people away from God because of how they look – which Jesus also addressed – certainly realize that this is not pleasing to God and that they will have to answer for causing the “least of these” to stumble. Jesus won souls not by making people feel less than, but by showing them how God loves in his actions. Making people feel less than one’s ownself is a fallacy, it is vanity and it is a sin. It is just as much a problem as the lust that make-up is supposed to incite. Only it is much more damaging, because it makes people less likely to seek a relationship with God because of hypocrisy of the people who claim to serve him. The Bible tells us that the ones who don’t know will be beaten with few stripes, but the ones who do will be beaten with many. Don’t get so comfy in yourself as to think you have been guaranteed entry into heaven and can tell others who’s on the guestlist. None of us will know until Judgement day. And I am sure we will be shocked at who is turned away.

    Straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel……

  3. Chris

    Normally when I run across an article of this nature, I simply pass it up. The question I have is this – If you disagree with any organizations standards or stances, and it goes beyond what you believe is necessary, then what does it matter?

    If it is beyond your beliefs, then in a sense it is “above and beyond” the call of duty. So what does it matter? They get to heaven, God says, “You didn’t have to do all that you did, but since it was above what was intended, come on in, welcome to heaven!”

    I don’t agree that everything the Amish observe is necessary, but in this day where everything goes, I at least admire anyone that still takes a stand. If you don’t agree with them, at least pray for them and ask God to give them strength, guidance and wisdom.

    If a standard is above mine, I view them as being all the more ‘safe’. So what is the harm in that? If I am too bothered by it, I must examine if I am subconsciously trying to justify where I am more than point out the error of their ways. Not saying that is the underlying issue here, just makes me scratch my head.

    Romans 14 is a great chapter I have pointed friends to it that get into conflicts over issues that to them are not even heaven or hell issues. As Paul wrote, if you believe it to be sin, to you it is sin – of course with the key words wrote being, let ever man be fully persuaded in his own heart.

    If to them it is sin, why place a stumbling-block in the path if it is a standard of holiness that is beyond or more separated than your own beliefs?

    When Jeremiah presented wine to the Recabites, they refused to drink the wine, not by God’s commandment, but a forefather (Jonadab) taught them not to drink wine, among other things, that was beyond anything God or Moses had ever commanded; Yet God used them for an example, and recognized their dedication and commitment.

    However, to that day and time, I’m sure that someone (knowing human nature) condemned them for what appeared to be legalism or extreme beliefs.

    Most of the holiness men I know, have far surpassed any requirement I can name to be on any deacon board of any major denomination. So what if their holiness is greater than mine? All the better I say. Maybe I should look to them; Better to hear, “You went beyond – but welcome”, than to hear “You almost was there, but you missed it”.

    If a line is drawn on a holiness issue, where is ‘safe’?

    Standing on the edge of a cliff is safe, but I really prefer to stand at least five feet from the edge.

    If “five feet from the edge” of a holiness line of separation is safer, should I attempt to persuade people to come crosser to the edge where I believe it to be just as safe? I say nay, let them take the greater stand and I shall at least applaud the effort.

    1. Josh (Site Admin) Post author

      Chris,

      The issue with legalistic doctrine is that it actually separates us from God. I didn’t say that, the apostle Paul did.

      In Galatians a group of Jews were trying to tell the Gentiles that they needed to be circumcised. As a man, I can’t imagine anything that would require more devotion than that! From our perspective it seems like God would be pretty pleased with that kind of devotion. You’d think that God would be giving a tip of His hat to the brave men in Galatia who were going above and beyond, right? But this is what Paul said:

      “1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
      2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

      7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:1-12 NIV, emphasis mine)

      The issue with legalism is that it naturally leads to an attempt to justify ourselves by our works instead of by Christ’s completed work. That’s why Paul wrote that if we start thinking we have to follow part of the law then we’re obligated to follow ALL of the law.

      With that said, there are plenty of things that people do that aren’t required by God. Look at Mother Theresa or Shane Claiborne, people who live their lives in service to others. Are they trying to be justified through works? Not at all. They have made vows to God with the recognition that those vows aren’t required, but yet they feel it’s what they are compelled to do. They don’t look at someone who doesn’t do those things and say, “You aren’t saved.” And that’s the crucial difference.

      If the UPC kept every holiness standard but yet still honestly believed that those standards weren’t necessary for salvation, and if they honestly and openly fellowshipped with other Christians who didn’t keep those standards, and if they honestly believed that those other Christians were really going to heaven, then I wouldn’t have a single problem with them doing it. The problem that I have is not that they feel obligated to do certain things that aren’t necessary, but that they’ve made those things necessary for salvation. They might say that they haven’t, but anyone who has spent any amount of time in a UPC church knows differently.

      In Christ,
      – Josh S.

  4. Felix

    Matt. 23:26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

    If the holiness that is in you works in the inside, then there is no reason that it will not work in the outside. If you are holy in the inside, you should be holy in the outside (that’s the mirror of you). If you look beautiful in the outside because of the make-up, what beauty will you have in the inside? Whatever normal looks you have, you are created according to the image of God.

    To those who left, here’s why.

    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
    4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

    Its true the OT did not taught make-up, it did not taught smoking either.

    1. Ayoade

      God bless you. Jesus is coming for a remnant. Ever wondered why those who steadfastly and sincerely keep this undiluted truth(s) are a minority? How come the vast majority do not? Its because Jesus is coming for a minority. Not using make-up and jewelry is not what will make youu enter the gates of heaven but doing so can save you from the very fires of hell. God is Love and Mercy. He’s also fire, wrath and j justice. Diluting his truth is putting your soul in grave danger. If you cannot appear as you are. And just simply stay well groomed and clean. And take out all the vain adornment. You may be guilty of idolatry. You just won’t let go. May God damage our sincere ignorance.

      I must add that I can’t deny that even among this minority, the majority are basically fake, legalistic, judgmental and whose inward lives contrast to the outward.

      But despite the apostacies, confusions and dilusions, The Truth is true whether you believe it or not.

      1. Josh (Site Admin) Post author

        Ayoade,

        God bless you too :). Thank you for commenting. I’d like to make a couple of points about what you said.

        First, I’d like to point out that being in a minority is not an indicator of sound doctrine. There are plenty of groups in the minority. That doesn’t make them all correct. In reality they CAN’T all be correct because they all hold disparate beliefs. By the same token, being in a minority does not indicate that you do NOT have sound doctrine. In other words, being in a minority doesn’t prove anything. You can be in the minority and be right and you can be in the minority and be wrong.

        Second, claiming that a person is diluting truth is a meaningless statement unless you can show that what they believe is not true. Saying, “I don’t agree with you so you’re diluting truth” means nothing. When people come on here and try to use scare tactics then I have trouble believing that there is any essence to what they are saying.

        I have faith in Christ, therefore my soul is not in danger.

        I make every effort to follow Christ and grow in Him every day, therefore I am not diluting truth.

        I wear clothes, therefore I am not appearing as I man. Neither are you. And neither of us is going to hell for it.

        P.S. – I’m genuinely curious. You say that the majority of the minority are legalistic. If you don’t think that refusing to wear make-up, jewelry, or have facial hair is legalistic, then what does legalism mean to you?

        In Christ,
        Josh

  5. jo ann

    i was in pentecost for 34 years. it wasn’t makeup,pants,cutting of hair,or standards of any kind that made me question the upci. my pastors wife said to me during a conversation that no one tells the pastor what to do. i thought long and hard about her reply and i began to understand why we had a maverick assistant pastor who could tell the congregation that we were lazy, etc. i don’t believe in berating a congregation from the pulpit. that’s what the office is for. call the person or persons in and in a godly manner talk with them. why is it so hard to just set down and talk with people. i had a wonderful pastor, a godly man, but when i left i saw a totally different person. he called the pastor of my new church and told him a few things about me, i hope he included that i had never missed paying my tithes in the 18 years that i had been there. i raised my children in the upc church and continued to stay there long after i felt the unction to leave, but it’s hard to leave and admit that you don’t agree with the church anymore. so i stayed until they had left home. i felt such a heavy load lift from me when i left . please talk with your pastor before you leave, if necessary and if permissable speak with the congregation, i’ve had people walk out of restaurants because they’ve seen me there, i had one man to literally snub me in front of his wife. his son glares at me as if he hates me, i pray for this young man, there were so many things said after i left, and yet so many had left before me and nothing was said.

  6. nothando

    i am a beautiful african woman living in south africa. I have received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour, I am filled with the Holy Ghost, I was baptised in water (immensed fully in water to signify the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ). I love the Lord God with all my heart. I am a make-up artist, I make people look and feel good about themselves. makeup is not about snaring a man or adultery. nuns have had affairs with priests etc, yet they dressed with only faces showing and no make up and still they have managed to seduce the ‘fathers’.
    its better to seek after holiness, godliness, righteousness and stop this nonsense of judging one another. i lead many to Christ. When I am complemented, it is all to the glory of God who created me, game me the wisdom and ability to do what I do.
    doing makeup is like trimming a beautiful garden to keep it looking pretty and show off the amazing beauty of God.
    True salvation is about liberty and living via the direction of the holy spirit not being subjected to some man made rules.
    when judgment day comes, i will be answerable to God and God alone, so its no use for me to confirm to the will of man, I only follow after the word of God. Guided by the Holy Spirit and word of God, I make decisions about right and wrong.
    one of school of thought says doing makeup is an insult to God and trying to improve on His creation by ‘enhancing’ oneself. ‘if God wanted us to have mascara He would have created us with it….’ well if you bath and moisturise your skin etc, are you not ‘enhancing’ what God created?….’if God wanted us to have supple skin would he not have created skin that is always moisturised? people please, some of these arguements are so silly, a waste of time and add no value to one’s life.
    wish all the energy invested in trying to be the ‘right doctrine’, ‘right church, way of living, faith etc was invested in helping the needy, spreading the gospel, the world would be a much better place.
    Last but not least, I am a happily married woman, who respects her husband and self, I do wear pants, obviously wear makeup, put hair extensions on my head, wear heels to look taller(i am not despising my height) and guess what I am still filled with Holy Spirt, I lead praise and worship in my church and the power of God is released and manifests in the service,I am not missing heaven because i care for my body which is the temple of the Lord the best way I know how.

    I will see you in HEAVEN!!!!!!!!

  7. Josh (Site Admin) Post author

    Hi Marijo,

    There are many theologians who differentiate between being baptized in the Spirit and being filled with the Spirit. Everyone who is saved is baptized in the Spirit. In 1 Cor. 12:12-13 Paul makes it clear that all believers are baptized in the Spirit:

    “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (NIV)

    On the other hand, it is also clear that a person can be filled with the Spirit more than once. In Acts 2:4 Peter was filled with the Spirit, and in Acts 4:8 and 31 he was filled again.

    Therefore we can conclude that the baptism of the Spirit is something that happens to all believers, whereas the filling of the Spirit is something that happens repeatedly. The baptism of the Spirit is a one time event that places us in the body of Christ, but the filling of the Spirit happens many times as we are empowered to fulfill God’s mission for us (cf. Acts 1:8). The filling of the Spirit generally accompanies the baptism of the Spirit, and sometimes the words are used interchangeably to describe initial salvation. However, after salvation a person can be filled again but not baptized again.

    The question then becomes: Does everyone who is baptized in the Spirit demonstrate outward evidence? Do they all speak in tongues, or prophesy, etc.? The answer to this question seems to be “no.” The only outward sign that the Bible says applies to all believers is the fruit of the Spirit that they go on to bear (cf. Mat. 7:16-23; Mat. 12:33; Luke 6:44; Gal. 5:22-23; Gal. 5:12-26, especially 22-23; Eph. 5:9; James 3:12).

    There are times in the Bible where people demonstrated outward signs at the same moment they were baptized / filled with the Spirit. In Acts 2 and 10 they spoke in tongues, in Acts 8 there was the famous “something” that Simon the Sorcerer saw, and in Acts 19 the disciples of John spoke in tongues and prophesied. In my mind this is nothing more than the gifts of the Spirit in action. Tongues is a gift, prophecy is a gift, and there’s every reason to think that whatever was happening in Acts 8 was a gift (it could very well have been some or all of the gifts in Acts 8, not just one).

    With that background in mine, let me answer your question. Have I ever seen someone baptized in the Spirit without speaking in tongues? Absolutely. I see it every time someone is saved.

    I hope that helps!

    God bless,
    – Josh S.

  8. Marijo Schneider

    Hi, I am kind of in the middle right now. Not knowing where to go to church. Because of the things i have found in the Bible and things people are teaching. Years ago I started seeing verses that said you need to be baptised to be saved. I was scarecd to death and so put everything on the back burner which has caused many problems. I can see that not all speak in tongues but the baptism issue seems very clear as in 1Peter 3:21 Acts 2:38 Titus 3:5-6 Romans6 to name a few.
    And being baptised in Jesus name is an issue I am searching. Have you seen someone baptised in the Spirit that did not speak in tongues? I mean at the time they were being filled. In Acts something happened that they could see. it was immediately obviouse. Thanks for your time, Marijo

  9. Aleshia

    I personally feel that if you had NOT had any bitterness you wouldn’t have went through the trouble to make an entire web site on why you left UPC. You stated in one of your other posts that felt that you were being called to be a teacher. Why not have a website teaching instead of souly dedicated to giving numerous reasons on why you no longer attend a UPC church? It is not one post or a few comments that comes off as you having bitterness, it’s the fact that obviously you are dedicated to everyone knowing about your story and why you left UPC.

    1. Josh (Site Admin) Post author

      Aleshia,

      Please remember that one of the comment rules is to “read the four introductory pages to this site (Home, About, My Story, Mission Statement) before making assumptions about my motives or the purpose of this site.” In particular, on the “About” page I say:

      This site is a place for me to express the reasons why I left the Apostolic movement (I left in November 2006, when I was 26). I originally intended it to be for friends and family, but people who I have never met discovered the site before my family did. Please understand that my goal is not to persuade anyone to leave the movement. My only desire is to open the door for honest and sincere discussion for everyone who visits–regardless of their religious affiliation. It is my prayer that people will read my story and be challenged to examine their own beliefs, and to “get into the Word” to see if what they have been taught is correct!

      In short, I don’t harbor bitterness or even try to talk people out of leaving the UPC. If they come to me with questions then I will answer them, but I do not encourage people to leave. I don’t even think people in the UPC are unsaved.

      Of course, you have the right to not believe me if you like. But please remember to read those pages before making assumptions.

      Thanks for your feedback!

      – Josh S.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *