Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

[simplyme]

I staying with The Old way of Holiness :bliss

Good! That makes at least two others here now that I can
AMEN! ;)
Lets :bliss together ok? You have the lead, I'll just follow, ;)
Robert, you comin?
:winkgrin

Perhaps we'd best head :runhills

[simplyme]

Just trying to add some light-hearted atmospheric phenomenum and rebuke any bad spirits that might be wantin to rear their ugly mugs ;) further.

[RandyWayne]

I staying with The Old way of Holiness :bliss

Please define!




And I want to see graphs, charts, and a PowerPoint! :-)

[Mrs. LPW]

Insulting seems to be an acceptable practice here so I guess I will feel free to insult as well. Or is that Christian? Or is insulting someone Christian? Ya are confusing me. What is being a Christian?

I was just adding a couple of insults that Scotty missed.. not aiming at you Brother... :) And no.. insulting someone isn't Christian.

Now Scotty apologize and say your sorry too!!!!

[ChTatum]

How old do you want to make it?

Robes, beards, sandals old?

Or just old enough to suit what you believe?

Ah, the conundrum.

[HeavenlyOne]

Being insulted by sinners or those of a false belief I can take...being insulted by an "Apostolic Friend" or so this forum calls itself is not the same. "Puppy" refers to lack of knowledge, immaturity, etc... "Boy'...if I was black would be a racial insult. I don't doubt that you are knowledgeable of the scriptures...Have you heard...A soft answer turneth away wrath or Do not provoke to anger. Scotty I may not be Mister Good Humor Man, but I don't start a reply with an insulting name to a person I don't even know yet.

Dude (can I call you dude?),

You have a dog for your avatar!!! You are a male also!

Some of us, especially CC1, will call people by other names referring to their username or avatar. Why the offense? Sheesh.....lighten up!

[HeavenlyOne]

Discussion YES...Argue...NO

I have only discussions.

[HeavenlyOne]

How old do you want to make it?

Robes, beards, sandals old?

Or just old enough to suit what you believe?

Ah, the conundrum.

LOL!

Forgive me for still wanting to keep my beard shaved off.........I guess I'm not as old-fashioned as I'd hoped......LOL!

[Kay B]

Please define!




And I want to see graphs, charts, and a PowerPoint! :-)

:cheer:hanky:igotit :bliss

That's as close as I can come to graphs & Powerpoint for now. We are in the process of learning PP program.I will be asking for help soon on the tech thread. :D
As for the chart It would take me a while to draw it as it covers from my teen years till now (60+). I rebelled for many years and finally did what I had been taught.Many a night of soul searching and searching God's word.
I was more hungry for the Lord than I was stubborn and rebellious.I'm happy the Lord kept working on me and is still at it. :D

[Kay B]

Just trying to add some light-hearted atmospheric phenomenum and rebuke any bad spirits that might be wantin to rear their ugly mugs ;) further.

I like to keep thing light-hearted. :D

[Kay B]

I was just adding a couple of insults that Scotty missed.. not aiming at you Brother... :) And no.. insulting someone isn't Christian.

Now Scotty apologize and say your sorry too!!!!

Where is granny with her stick? :D
Sis I understood you were helping Scotty and just funning.:nod

[robert]

Dude (can I call you dude?),

You have a dog for your avatar!!! You are a male also!

Some of us, especially CC1, will call people by other names referring to their username or avatar. Why the offense? Sheesh.....lighten up!

When I first saw your avatar and before you responded to me I thought I was looking at a picture of teenage boy. It's a good thing I didn't call you young man from what I thought your picture was portraying. What's an avitar got to do with some one speaking down to some one. When some one knows me they can call me lots of things...but at least get to know some one before you presume to create nick names for them. I don't require an apology, I just hope I can decline the nick name puppyboy. If some one wants to create nick names that sound insulting I hope they will leave me out of the fun. I'm Six foot tall, weigh 260 pounds, I'm a grandpa, and some ones going to call me puppy boy...get real. I would never be endeared to this name in the real world. You say you want to discuss things...how about getting back to discussing instead of arguing. I know it takes 2 to argue and I have fallen into your trap. I will try to refrain myself next time.

[robert]

Good! That makes at least two others here now that I can
AMEN! ;)
Lets :bliss together ok? You have the lead, I'll just follow, ;)
Robert, you comin?
:winkgrin

Perhaps we'd best head :runhills

I believe in the old time holiness ways, and if some one needs to ask what that is then they either are looking to argue or really don't know. I'd be glad to answer anyone who seriously wanted to discuss it. If someones looking for an argument on the subject I will run for the hills too. You lead the way Simplyme.:bliss

[Kay B]

When I first saw your avatar and before you responded to me I thought I was looking at a picture of teenage boy. It's a good thing I didn't call you young man from what I thought your picture was portraying. What's an avitar got to do with some one speaking down to some one. When some one knows me they can call me lots of things...but at least get to know some one before you presume to create nick names for them. I don't require an apology, I just hope I can decline the nick name puppyboy. If some one wants to create nick names that sound insulting I hope they will leave me out of the fun. I'm Six foot tall, weigh 260 pounds, I'm a grandpa, and some ones going to call me puppy boy...get real. I would never be endeared to this name in the real world. You say you want to discuss things...how about getting back to discussing instead of arguing. I know it takes 2 to argue and I have fallen into your trap. I will try to refrain myself next time.

Hi Robert,
I'm a newbie myself here at AFF. I'm mostly lurking or pestering my SIL. I hope you will enjoy your time here at AFF. I have learned to use the button at the bottom of the page to go back to the main page. Folks here are nice and though I don't know them personally except my SIL. I really haven't got around to any deep discussions on beliefs etc. I do have strong feelings inmany areas and one day I may wade into the deeper waters.
Guess my avatar could bring up all kinds of nicks. I'm thinking of changing it soon.
I believe this is a group of folks who love the Lord is what I'm really trying to say.
Blessings to you brother.

[robert]

Hi Robert,
I'm a newbie myself here at AFF. I'm mostly lurking or pestering my SIL. I hope you will enjoy your time here at AFF. I have learned to use the button at the bottom of the page to go back to the main page. Folks here are nice and though I don't know them personally except my SIL. I really haven't got around to any deep discussions on beliefs etc. I do have strong feelings inmany areas and one day I may wade into the deeper waters.
Guess my avatar could bring up all kinds of nicks. I'm thinking of changing it soon.
I believe this is a group of folks who love the Lord is what I'm really trying to say.
Blessings to you brother.

Well, after taking a good look at my avatar...I guess I an see where scotty might have come up with "puppy boy". I changed it...maybe now I can get some respect. lol. I know I've started out on the wrong foot here. I'm going to try on some new shoes and hope they fit better. Heavenlyone I know you're listening...I'll lighten up if you will:friend

[Kay B]

I believe in the old time holiness ways, and if some one needs to ask what that is then they either are looking to argue or really don't know. I'd be glad to answer anyone who seriously wanted to discuss it. If someones looking for an argument on the subject I will run for the hills too. You lead the way Simplyme.:bliss

I pretty much already in the hills up here in the last frontier. I will invite you to scroll down to the Fellowship hall and get acquainted with the other bro & sis here. You can always wade back into the fray up here anytime. :D

[robert]

I pretty much already in the hills up here in the last frontier. I will invite you to scroll down to the Fellowship hall and get acquainted with the other bro & sis here. You can always wade back into the fray up here anytime. :D

Thanks hnhisle,

I'm feeling a little welcome here all of a sudden. I'll have to check out that Fellowship hall. I hope they have some donuts and coffee over there. The meat they're serving over here is kinda tuf.:)

[robert]

I was just adding a couple of insults that Scotty missed.. not aiming at you Brother... :) And no.. insulting someone isn't Christian.

Now Scotty apologize and say your sorry too!!!!

Mrs. LPW, I'm sorry for bringing you into my frustration over being called Puppy boy One time on my job a worker kept calling me "DOG" I asked him to quit, but he kept doing it. I was getting really mad. It eventually led to us both being called to the Super. office. Needless to say I had to swallow my pride and apologize. I guess this whole Puppy boy thing kinda brought out that meaness in me all over again. Thanks for your kind reply to my mean one.

[Cindy]

Y'all don't make me come up in here and straighten y'all out....... READ MY SIGNATURE!

:D

[HeavenlyOne]

When I first saw your avatar and before you responded to me I thought I was looking at a picture of teenage boy.

That's gotta be the queerest looking boy you ever saw then!!! LOL!

I have bangs, Have shoulder-length curly hair, girly glasses, and you thought I was a boy?

But I will take the teenage part as a compliment! ROFL!!

It's a good thing I didn't call you young man from what I thought your picture was portraying. What's an avitar got to do with some one speaking down to some one. When some one knows me they can call me lots of things...but at least get to know some one before you presume to create nick names for them. I don't require an apology, I just hope I can decline the nick name puppyboy. If some one wants to create nick names that sound insulting I hope they will leave me out of the fun. I'm Six foot tall, weigh 260 pounds, I'm a grandpa, and some ones going to call me puppy boy...get real. I would never be endeared to this name in the real world. You say you want to discuss things...how about getting back to discussing instead of arguing. I know it takes 2 to argue and I have fallen into your trap. I will try to refrain myself next time.

Again, I don't argue.

And Grandpa, find your funny bone. Maybe the grandkids took it and hid it on ya.

:ursofunny

[HeavenlyOne]

Well, after taking a good look at my avatar...I guess I an see where scotty might have come up with "puppy boy". I changed it...maybe now I can get some respect. lol. I know I've started out on the wrong foot here. I'm going to try on some new shoes and hope they fit better. Heavenlyone I know you're listening...I'll lighten up if you will:friend

I noticed you changed your avatar. I was going to call you bully dog, but didn't want you to be offended......ROFL!!

Actually, it's very cute. I have cats, but love dogs too.

[HeavenlyOne]

Mrs. LPW, I'm sorry for bringing you into my frustration over being called Puppy boy One time on my job a worker kept calling me "DOG" I asked him to quit, but he kept doing it. I was getting really mad. It eventually led to us both being called to the Super. office. Needless to say I had to swallow my pride and apologize. I guess this whole Puppy boy thing kinda brought out that meaness in me all over again. Thanks for your kind reply to my mean one.

Bob (can I call you Bob?)

You will find that most of us here are fun-loving folks. We arg.....er.....discuss and sometimes even get a bit heated, but we all stick together and come together when we are in need.....from the ultra lib to the ultra con.

And a lot of us got off to a bad start when we arrived, but thankfully someone straighted us out! LOL!!

[simplyme]

:cheer:hanky:igotit :bliss

That's as close as I can come to graphs & Powerpoint for now. We are in the process of learning PP program.I will be asking for help soon on the tech thread. :D
As for the chart It would take me a while to draw it as it covers from my teen years till now (60+). I rebelled for many years and finally did what I had been taught.Many a night of soul searching and searching God's word.
I was more hungry for the Lord than I was stubborn and rebellious.I'm happy the Lord kept working on me and is still at it. :D

Seems we have a lot in common then. :D

[simplyme]

Bob (can I call you Bob?)

You will find that most of us here are fun-loving folks. We arg.....er.....discuss and sometimes even get a bit heated, but we all stick together and come together when we are in need.....from the ultra lib to the ultra con.

And a lot of us got off to a bad start when we arrived, but thankfully someone straighted us out! LOL!!

Girl make up u mind, whats it gonna be
Dude or Bob? :D

Perhaps we should let 'him' decide how he would prefer to be addressed.
I feel safe with just Robert.. :whistle

[Kay B]

Girl make up u mind, whats it gonna be
Dude or Bob? :D

Perhaps we should let 'him' decide how he would prefer to be addressed.
I feel safe with just Robert.. :whistle

:toofunny well I already know a few Roberts,Bob,Bobby and it is my hubby and nephew. I'll go with whatever the brother likes to be addressed as also.

[tv1a]

I'll call him whatever he wants, but I won't kiss his ring.

:toofunny well I already a few Roberts,Bob,Bobby and it is my hubby and nephew. I'll go with whatever thr brother likes to be addressed as also.

[robert]

I noticed you changed your avatar. I was going to call you bully dog, but didn't want you to be offended......ROFL!!

Actually, it's very cute. I have cats, but love dogs too.

I'm the white dog...not the puppy boy dog.:) Can you read the words on the picture. I guess my last Dog did look a little rediculous. You really got me good on that explanation of the puppy boy remark I got from scotty. I was so mad I didn't even remember my avatar was a dumb looking puppy dog. Well it goes to show think before you act. lol. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings with the remark about your avatar. I guess I'm a little to out spoken.

[robert]

Girl make up u mind, whats it gonna be
Dude or Bob? :D

Perhaps we should let 'him' decide how he would prefer to be addressed.
I feel safe with just Robert.. :whistle

Wow, simplyme...You're pretty sharp, how did you figure out my name is robert...ooooh...could it have been I wrote it by my avatar? I still think your smart. It was so simple to figure out my name...mmmmmmmmm maybe that's why they call you simplyme.:)

[robert]

Well, now that I got my name figured out, I'd like to say I think the old way of Holiness Standard should stay.But I'd like to stay at least in this generation. The thread says old not ancient. How about a thought on womens pants. Does any one even know what caused pants to be popular with women. Was it just a fashion that happened to come along or was it something else. What caused women in the U.S.A. to change the traditonal way to dress...no pun intended. Now you modern women go easy on me...please.

[HeavenlyOne]

I'm the white dog...not the puppy boy dog.:) Can you read the words on the picture. I guess my last Dog did look a little rediculous. You really got me good on that explanation of the puppy boy remark I got from scotty. I was so mad I didn't even remember my avatar was a dumb looking puppy dog. Well it goes to show think before you act. lol. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings with the remark about your avatar. I guess I'm a little to out spoken.

LOL! Not at all! I'm still happy that you thought I looked like a teenager!!! ROFL!!!!

I was still thinking about that comment this morning as I got ready for school (oh, I'm in college.....but hardly a teenager....LOL!) and looked in the mirror up close to see that I really don't look like one, but it's nice that someone thought so!!!

You can be as outspoken as you want about my youthful appearance.....hahahahaha.

[HeavenlyOne]

Well, now that I got my name figured out, I'd like to say I think the old way of Holiness Standard should stay.But I'd like to stay at least in this generation. The thread says old not ancient. How about a thought on womens pants. Does any one even know what caused pants to be popular with women. Was it just a fashion that happened to come along or was it something else. What caused women in the U.S.A. to change the traditonal way to dress...no pun intended. Now you modern women go easy on me...please.

I believe it was basically for the same reason that men went from wearing skirts and robes to pants.....safety issues, better protection from the elements, etc.

BTW, traditionally, women started wearing pant-like garments centuries before men did in some countries.

There is a problem with teaching a 'no pants on women' standard in this country. Mainly because people from other cultures and countries live here. For instance, Indian women wear a pant-like garment and it's a women's garment. If we preach that wearing pants is cross-dressing, they will find you strange and delusional.

However, let's preach modesty in regard to matters of any and all dress. Now there you cannot go wrong. It will also cover (no pun intended) all eras of time. This might seem impossible, but understand that modesty definitions change from era to era. For instance, when men started wearing pants, not only were they considered women's apparel, but the men were considered to be immodest. Also, consider what was immodest for women 100 years ago and look at our Apostolic women today. Dressed immodestly for the standards of yesteryear.

This is my understanding and how I teach my children about what the Bible says. I live it, and so do they.

[robert]

I believe it was basically for the same reason that men went from wearing skirts and robes to pants.....safety issues, better protection from the elements, etc.

Wow, Do you think if women continued as Eve was commanded by God...to be with the children and please her husband they would need pants for safety reasons...Seems Adam would have more need for pants toiling in the heat of the day to provide for the family.:)

BTW, traditionally, women started wearing pant-like garments centuries before men did in some countries.

Women were trying to wear the pants even before men did.lol...Where did you learn this info?

There is a problem with teaching a 'no pants on women' standard in this country. Mainly because people from other cultures and countries live here. For instance, Indian women wear a pant-like garment and it's a women's garment. If we preach that wearing pants is cross-dressing, they will find you strange and delusional.

Seems that if you come to another country from some where else it could be because you were not happy with where you came from. Kinda like people that don't want to learn the language, they want to have the benefits of the USA but not really completely become a citizen. Philippians 4:11...I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, wherewith to be content. Maybe we shouldn't use another culture as an excuse to do something different from our own culture and thse of other cultures should accept the new culture they chose to be in. I think we need to live for God in our country accordin to our customs. If modesty in our country in the beginning of it's existence was women wearing dresses then maybe it should have stayed that way.

However, let's preach modesty in regard to matters of any and all dress. Now there you cannot go wrong. It will also cover (no pun intended) all eras of time. This might seem impossible, but understand that modesty definitions change from era to era. For instance, when men started wearing pants, not only were they considered women's apparel, but the men were considered to be immodest. Also, consider what was immodest for women 100 years ago and look at our Apostolic women today. Dressed immodestly for the standards of yesteryear.

From my studies of pants on women, I found it interesting that many of the things that modern day women accept as OK today was all part of the feminist movement. Amelia Bloomer was the feminist that came out with the Bloomer costume..(The first womens pants)..and at first it was not widely accepted. This happened in the 1920's...the roaring 20's...the flappers...The women cutting their hair off Era.The beginning of a whole new way of women becoming liberated from their oppression by men. I don't believe in oppressing women. I believe in loving my wife as I love myself. Heavenlyone all I'm trying to get at is the liberation of women into a new and better way of lifestyle could have roots that are far from God's will. You may think I'm a paranoid idiot. I just believe the change that has occured to the modern woman ought to be looked into a little closer. Between periods of time when Israel went from pleasing God to disobeying God was hundreds of years. There were many changes occuring during these periods of time. Many things were gained and many things were lost. Israel had to start over each time God came back into the nation and find out what was acceptable that had been changed and forgotten. If we are entering into the latter day rain of the Holy Ghost...shouldn't we as well reexamine what we are doing and get back to the old landmarks that was the correct way of living in God's mind.

This is my understanding and how I teach my children about what the Bible says. I live it, and so do they.

I understand you are wanting to teach your children the
Bible way, but are you sure your not actually teaching them to accept what is the fashion of this particular time and era. Jesus said we would be living in a time as Noah before his return. I believe we are living in that time. That is why we should not accept the new modern way of religion. We need to get back to the original way of living for God. Seperation from the world does not mean to embrace and compromise with the world.

[Cindy]

I believe we are to keep inward holiness principles and our standards will reflect that.

[Dan'D]

I believe we are to keep inward holiness principles and our standards will reflect that.



Anyone looking for an excuse will find one.

Dan'D

[Dan'D]

I believe it was basically for the same reason that men went from wearing skirts and robes to pants.....safety issues, better protection from the elements, etc.

BTW, traditionally, women started wearing pant-like garments centuries before men did in some countries.

There is a problem with teaching a 'no pants on women' standard in this country. Mainly because people from other cultures and countries live here. For instance, Indian women wear a pant-like garment and it's a women's garment. If we preach that wearing pants is cross-dressing, they will find you strange and delusional.

However, let's preach modesty in regard to matters of any and all dress. Now there you cannot go wrong. It will also cover (no pun intended) all eras of time. This might seem impossible, but understand that modesty definitions change from era to era. For instance, when men started wearing pants, not only were they considered women's apparel, but the men were considered to be immodest. Also, consider what was immodest for women 100 years ago and look at our Apostolic women today. Dressed immodestly for the standards of yesteryear.

This is my understanding and how I teach my children about what the Bible says. I live it, and so do they.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are not UPC. If not are you Apostolic.
Dan"D

[tv1a]

Labels are for the shallow in thinking.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are not UPC. If not are you Apostolic.
Dan"D

[Dan'D]

Labels are for the shallow in thinking.

Tulsa Tango Discussion of the WWPF meetings in Tulsa and related sidetracks. Which is UPC and/or WPF.

Dan'D

[RandyWayne]

I have this image of a game from the Price is Right (I know, TV show. Boo Hiss....)

It is a little swiss yodeler yodeling as he slowly moves back in time. YOUR job is to say "STOP" when he gets to the time that represents the "Old Paths" and "Old Ways". What time would that be?

Simple question..... But it is never answered.

[CC1]

Labels are for the shallow in thinking.


Not really. Labels are descriptive terms to catagorize people, philosophies, proucts etc. They make sense and serve a purpose.

It is just a worn out cliche' to attack labels.

[HeavenlyOne]

I understand you are wanting to teach your children the
Bible way, but are you sure your not actually teaching them to accept what is the fashion of this particular time and era. Jesus said we would be living in a time as Noah before his return. I believe we are living in that time. That is why we should not accept the new modern way of religion. We need to get back to the original way of living for God. Seperation from the world does not mean to embrace and compromise with the world.

But are you not living the fashion of this particular time and era in how you dress? You surely don't dress like Jesus did, do you? Don't laugh....I know one guy who does....LOL!

Seriously though....where are 'holiness standards' ever preached in the Bible as we preach them today? Where is separation from the world in dress ever preached in the Bible? Where do we find Jesus or any of the apostles ever preaching on dress standards?

There are bigger problems in the church than what we wear. When our attitudes are right, we will dress right. This doesn't mean we have to be given a list of 'holiness attire'. There is no scripture to support such a concept. How can I preach to my children what 'holiness attire' is when there is no scriptural support?

I find lack of scripture a big problem. My kids are teens. They want to be shown where things are in the Bible.

[HeavenlyOne]

Would I be correct in assuming that you are not UPC. If not are you Apostolic.
Dan"D

I am Apostolic, yes.

[HeavenlyOne]

I have this image of a game from the Price is Right (I know, TV show. Boo Hiss....)

It is a little swiss yodeler yodeling as he slowly moves back in time. YOUR job is to say "STOP" when he gets to the time that represents the "Old Paths" and "Old Ways". What time would that be?

Simple question..... But it is never answered.

Oh yodelelayhehooyodelelayhehoo....STOP!!!

DING! DING! DING!!! You landed between 1940 and 1950. Rod, light up that year!!

[RandyWayne]

I am Apostolic, yes.

But.... But.... How can you be? Your avatar doesn't show the pentecostal poof!

Book of Paul, chapter 8, versus 7: "And by their poofs shall ye know them. For without the poof, shalt thou be cast out."

[Lacey]

But.... But.... How can you be? Your avatar doesn't show the pentecostal poof!

Book of Paul, chapter 8, versus 7: "And by their poofs shall ye know them. For without the poof, shalt thou be cast out."


It's not nice to make fun of us who have PHD's!!! ...........

Pentecostal
Hair
Doos

:):):)

[tv1a]

A label only paints oneself in a corner. A label such as apostolic is so diverse and subjective that no one person can legitimately have a monopoly on the word.


Not really. Labels are descriptive terms to catagorize people, philosophies, proucts etc. They make sense and serve a purpose.

It is just a worn out cliche' to attack labels.

[robert]

[QUOTE=HeavenlyOne;406539]But are you not living the fashion of this particular time and era in how you dress? You surely don't dress like Jesus did, do you? Don't laugh....I know one guy who does....LOL!

Seriously though....where are 'holiness standards' ever preached in the Bible as we preach them today? Where is separation from the world in dress ever preached in the Bible? Where do we find Jesus or any of the apostles ever preaching on dress standards?

There are bigger problems in the church than what we wear. When our attitudes are right, we will dress right. This doesn't mean we have to be given a list of 'holiness attire'. There is no scripture to support such a concept. How can I preach to my children what 'holiness attire' is when there is no scriptural support?
I find lack of scripture a big problem. My kids are teens. They want to be shown where things are in the Bible.[quote/]

Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Ephesians....How many things can be said about this one scripture. Volumes! You as a parent are the one that decides what is acceptable attire for your children. Unless you just say...children I trust you to make the right choices. How can you trust them unless they are taught what is right and what is wrong. So whether you want to admit it, you as a parent must decide and enforce what is proper and improper for your children.

[Kutless]

[QUOTE=HeavenlyOne;406539]But are you not living the fashion of this particular time and era in how you dress? You surely don't dress like Jesus did, do you? Don't laugh....I know one guy who does....LOL!

Seriously though....where are 'holiness standards' ever preached in the Bible as we preach them today? Where is separation from the world in dress ever preached in the Bible? Where do we find Jesus or any of the apostles ever preaching on dress standards?

There are bigger problems in the church than what we wear. When our attitudes are right, we will dress right. This doesn't mean we have to be given a list of 'holiness attire'. There is no scripture to support such a concept. How can I preach to my children what 'holiness attire' is when there is no scriptural support?
I find lack of scripture a big problem. My kids are teens. They want to be shown where things are in the Bible.[quote/]

Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Ephesians....How many things can be said about this one scripture. Volumes! You as a parent are the one that decides what is acceptable attire for your children. Unless you just say...children I trust you to make the right choices. How can you trust them unless they are taught what is right and what is wrong. So whether you want to admit it, you as a parent must decide and enforce what is proper and improper for your children.I agree with this. NOw if we could just get the preachers to understand it.

[robert]

[QUOTE=robert;406627]I agree with this. NOw if we could just get the preachers to understand it.

Me having an avatar with a picture of dogs, and your signature about spaying and nuetering pets kinda makes me nervous talking to you.

[scotty]

You can't. This just another spot in scripture where it is ones interpretation. Some read it one way and some read it another. One can just as easily make the argument either way.

[RandyWayne]

It's not nice to make fun of us who have PHD's!!! ...........

Pentecostal
Hair
Doos

:):):)


Naw, I don't make fun of you ladies so much as the men who decide how you must look. :)

[RandyWayne]

Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Ephesians....How many things can be said about this one scripture. Volumes! You as a parent are the one that decides what is acceptable attire for your children. Unless you just say...children I trust you to make the right choices. How can you trust them unless they are taught what is right and what is wrong. So whether you want to admit it, you as a parent must decide and enforce what is proper and improper for your children.

"Because I said so!" IS a valid reason for a parent to give their kid..... When their kid is 7, 8, or 9, or younger. However, as they get older, they do need some reasons. When I was in my middle teens I heard "because the Church says...." or more commonly "because the pastor says!" as "reason enough!" to do something. When I became an adult, the freedom from that sort of reasoning was very liberating!

[JTULLOCK]

Doesn't the Bible say that 'old things have passed away and behold all is new'? May not refer to this exactly but it is a principle that can be applied in several areas, right?

[scotty]

Doesn't the Bible say that 'old things have passed away and behold all is new'? May not refer to this exactly but it is a principle that can be applied in several areas, right?

Yes, as matter of fact it can be applied much the same as where the bible says He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

so what now?

[Fiyahstarter]

I have this image of a game from the Price is Right (I know, TV show. Boo Hiss....)

It is a little swiss yodeler yodeling as he slowly moves back in time. YOUR job is to say "STOP" when he gets to the time that represents the "Old Paths" and "Old Ways". What time would that be?

Simple question..... But it is never answered.

Like Randy, I continue to wait for the answer on this one.

Why won't the proponents of "old way of holiness" answer this question??? Just how far do you go back, and who gets to decide?

[CC1]

Like Randy, I continue to wait for the answer on this one.

Why won't the proponents of "old way of holiness" answer this question??? Just how far do you go back, and who gets to decide?


You have forsaken the "old ways of holiness" once those sleeves rise above your sexy elbows and / or you start playing card games with real cards rather than Rook!:ursofunny

[JTULLOCK]

Yes, as matter of fact it can be applied much the same as where the bible says He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

so what now?

God does not change at all. You are correct. But what is perceived as God speaking does change once you eyes are open. IMO. Because God does not change does not mean He does not allow things to change.

[scotty]

Like Randy, I continue to wait for the answer on this one.

Why won't the proponents of "old way of holiness" answer this question??? Just how far do you go back, and who gets to decide?

Very good question, I believe we should model ourselves after the new testemant church that the apostles were building.

What was he saying when he was talking about the hair?

What was he saying when he was teaching the "holiness ways"?

Was it just for the new testament church,?

How do we know??

[scotty]

God does not change at all. You are correct. But what is perceived as God speaking does change once you eyes are open. IMO. Because God does not change does not mean He does not allow things to change.

But the Word of God has not changed has it?

wouldn't His word still mean the same now as it did then?

[CC1]

But the Word of God has not changed has it?

wouldn't His word still mean the same now as it did then?

God's word is a world away from the wild leaps in logic old time Oneness Pentecost makes in legislating so called "holiness".

[scotty]

God's word is a world away from the wild leaps in logic old time Oneness Pentecost makes in legislating so called "holiness".

I have not mentioned a support of old time OP....I am asking about the New Testament church and what the apostles taught.

[HeavenlyOne]

Children obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Ephesians....How many things can be said about this one scripture. Volumes! You as a parent are the one that decides what is acceptable attire for your children. Unless you just say...children I trust you to make the right choices. How can you trust them unless they are taught what is right and what is wrong. So whether you want to admit it, you as a parent must decide and enforce what is proper and improper for your children.

Wanna hear something funny? While I've raised my children in the UPC all their lives, I've always abided by my own standards except for a period of time when I was a member of the choir, but even during that time, I never subjected my daughter to 'standards' as taught by the UPC.

That said, she is now 14. She hasn't had her hair cut in almost 3 years. She reads her Bible faithfully, as well as church attendance. She is in the altar praying with her peers. All she has to do is get rid of her pants and she'll be an ultra-con.....LOL!

But I allow her to follow her own beliefs. I've taught her to live by her convictions. At her age, she is close to being responsible for her own salvation. I'm proud of her.

[RandyWayne]

Like Randy, I continue to wait for the answer on this one.

Why won't the proponents of "old way of holiness" answer this question??? Just how far do you go back, and who gets to decide?

The correct answer is probably "The New Testament" except that an UC cannot say this because they cannot then answer the question as to why we're not wearing robes and sandals and riding donkeys. As soon as they bring up the word "culture" to describe why we're not currently doing those things THEN they have no answer as to why we all need to look like were "lost in the 50's tonight".

[scotty]

So what is the answer?

Who is right and who is wrong?

Are we left to determine holiness for ourselves?

[OneAccord]

Very good question, I believe we should model ourselves after the new testemant church that the apostles were building.

Its easy (and tempting) to look back into history for a model of the New Testament Church. And, the model is there. But, in looking back, we have to ask ourselves: Is this the plan for the church of the last days? We mistakenly think (or want to think) the NT Church was the perfect example of what God wants of His church, but, this simply isn't the case. The early church was full of division and sin. Just look how many time Paul found it necessary to rebuke and chasten the early church. In fact, an honest survey of the early church reveals are very similar view of the modern day church.

Our model cannot be the early church, but, rather, its Founder, Jesus Christ. He is our model and our example of what God wants His church- His people- to be. Even if the early church was a better model, we still do not get a clear picture of what God plans for us.

Hag 2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The modern-day church (latter house) is greater than the early church (former house), according to this prophecy. But we see the same problems today as Paul encountered in the 1st Century Church. So, other than Jesus Himself, we have no clear pattern for the church of today.

But, we do, Jesus Himself. And, we catch glimpses of the last days church throughout the Bible.

Does this church exist? Yes, as long as WE, the church, strive to be the model of God's Church. We should not, (and really, can't) look to the past as a model of the church. Jesus said No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Looking to the past halts our forward progression. Paul adds: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.Phl 3:13-14
The "prize", our objective is in front of us, not behind us. People say "Back to Pentecost!". But revival is not behind us. Its a head. The American Pentecostal Movement has been blessed with Revival many times in its history. There is, at least one more major move of God ahead- A Revival of Restoration. We may miss it if we're looking back to the "good ol' days". In the midst that revival, we will finally see the emergence of what God really wants for His people-
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

[JTULLOCK]

But the Word of God has not changed has it?

wouldn't His word still mean the same now as it did then?

No God's words have not changed. However people attribute the 'oldways' as being Gods words because they seem to be listed in the Bible. First, I dissagree with the interpretation of many of them not because I refuse to see it cause I am open to the convictions. The men speaking about the things or what many say they are talking about were done in teaching. Much of what is being said is a missinterpretaion of the truth, IMO.

[scotty]

Its easy (and tempting) to look back into history for a model of the New Testament Church. And, the model is there. But, in looking back, we have to ask ourselves: Is this the plan for the church of the last days? We mistakenly think (or want to think) the NT Church was the perfect example of what God wants of His church, but, this simply isn't the case. The early church was full of division and sin. Just look how many time Paul found it necessary to rebuke and chasten the early church. In fact, an honest survey of the early church reveals are very similar view of the modern day church.

Our model cannot be the early church, but, rather, its Founder, Jesus Christ. He is our model and our example of what God wants His church- His people- to be. Even if the early church was a better model, we still do not get a clear picture of what God plans for us.

Hag 2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The modern-day church (latter house) is greater than the early church (former house), according to this prophecy. But we see the same problems today as Paul encountered in the 1st Century Church. So, other than Jesus Himself, we have no clear pattern for the church of today.

But, we do, Jesus Himself. And, we catch glimpses of the last days church throughout the Bible.

Does this church exist? Yes, as long as WE, the church, strive to be the model of God's Church. We should not, (and really, can't) look to the past as a model of the church. Jesus said No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Looking to the past halts our forward progression. Paul adds: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing , forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.Phl 3:13-14
The "prize", our objective is in front of us, not behind us. People say "Back to Pentecost!". But revival is not behind us. Its a head. The American Pentecostal Movement has been blessed with Revival many times in its history. There is, at least one more major move of God ahead- A Revival of Restoration. We may miss it if we're looking back to the "good ol' days". In the midst that revival, we will finally see the emergence of what God really wants for His people-
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

[I]So what then was the point in all the scripture? why not just write about Jesus life and the prophecies and not mess with including the teachings of Paul.

[OneAccord]

Are we left to determine holiness for ourselves?

Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. We are to determine holiness for ourselves. You see, keeping "standards", no matter how "holiness",doesn't make us holy. And, as someone else has said, "holiness" cannot be legislated. Standards can be, but "standards" and "holiness" are not one and the same.
We are made "Holiness unto the Lord" by His Bllood. "Holiness" is what He has done for and in us.

"Standards" are the principles that we develop through the Word, and by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, that helps us to maintain the Holiness God gives us. Think of the Parable of the talents. "Holiness" are the talents God entrusts to us. The Chritstain principles are the ways that we maintain those "talents".

But, yes, we are to determine "holiness" for ourselves with, of course help from the Word, and the Holy Ghost which, incidently includes the 5-fold ministry.

WE determine holiness for ourselves by:

The Word-

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hbr 2:1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let [them] slip.

Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

The Holy Spirit-

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Ministry -

Eph 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

[scotty]

So it is left to each individual and their walk with God?

Then there is no right or wrong.

Doesn't that statement itself just sound wrong? What about "He is not a God of confussion"?

So then what truly is the argument about? How is it wrong for some to say that to teach holiness standards is wrong, yet also say it is up to the person? You laid it upon the Ministry also. So if God gives the Minisrty what is needed to perfect and edify the Body then who has the right to say they are wrong for having dress standards or jewelry standards or hair standards?

[OneAccord]

So what then was the point in all the scripture? why not just write about Jesus life and the prophecies and not mess with including the teachings of Paul.

Because we'd be absolutely lost without Paul's teaching. Paul left a blueprint by which we are to build God's Church. Pauls teaching is every bit the Word of God as was Jesus' Words and the prophecies. But we have to bear in mind that Pauls writings were primarily written to the early church. Some things are not applicable for our day, as least not in the way that Paul wrote them. For example, Paul gave instruction on how masters were to treat their slaves. That may have been appliclable in the 1800's but those instructions aren't applicable in the way Paul wrote them for today. However, even those can be applied to the employer/employee relationship of today- within reason.

So, we have to decide for ourselves (with the help of the Holy Spirit) what is, and what is not, applicable to us today. Paul said this: 1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. He also said 1Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment. Some things He wrote was "Thus saith the Lord". Some things were his opinion or of a cultural nature. How do we know the difference? Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Jesus said He would leave us His Spirit to guide us. Follow Him.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

[OneAccord]

So it is left to each individual and their walk with God?

Absolutely! God wants us to be an army of individuals- not an army of robots that all do, say, think and act the same. We are individuals, free-will, thinking, intelligent individuals that have been filled with His Spirit. His Spirit, Jesus said, will lead us into the truth. If we ren't discovering truth,then, we aren't being lead by the Spirit. Its that simple.

Then there is no right or wrong.

Of course there is right. And there is wrong. But does it always have to be that what is right for me, must also be right for you? What is wrong for me has to be wrong for you as well? Look at it this way. Circumcision. Peter preached that men had to be circumcised after the Law. Paul did not preach that. Who was right? They both were. Because their respective ministies were directed to two different cultures. Paul spoke of some who "ate meat" and those who didn't. Who was right? They both were in that they were serving God according to their convictions. Convictions differ. I have one against debating the Scriptures. I believe it is wrong to do so. Others feel it is okay. Who's right, and who is wrong? I tell you who is wrong- anyone who isn't led by the Spirit to conform (not to standards) by to His divine image.

Doesn't that statement itself just sound wrong? What about "He is not a God of confussion"?

God is not the author of confusion, that is true. Then why this long thread? Because people think to follow God we all have to be mindless robots with no independent thinking that just "obey" because they must obey. We obey Gods Word, we listen to His Spirit. In so doing, we are not confused. I'm not, in the least. I try to seek the leadership of His Spirit in all I do. I study His Word for what It says to me, and not for what somebody tells me it says or means. Read the Book for what it says, not for what someone thinks it says or for what we want it to say. Its really that simple. And not confusing at all!

So then what truly is the argument about? How is it wrong for some to say that to teach holiness standards is wrong, yet also say it is up to the person? You laid it upon the Ministry also. So if God gives the Minisrty what is needed to perfect and edify the Body then who has the right to say they are wrong for having dress standards or jewelry standards or hair standards?

There is no argument- except for those who just love to argue. I don't know that anyone has said "teaching standards is wrong". We can teach whatever we feel the Lord leads us to, but, don't expect people to swallow it "hook, line and sinker" just because we say so. Two things have to agree: The Spirit and Truth. If I hear someone preaching what He says is truth, He has to have Bible for that truth. And the Spirit within me bears witness with that truth. Then, I follow the Voice of the Holy Spirit to that truth.

We have the right, no, the duty, to preach Truth. Again, Word and Spirit must agree. Jhn 17:17 1Jo 5:6. We have the right to preach whatever standards we feel we need to preach. But, the question is...does that Standard pass the Bible test? It must rest squarely in Scripture, without interpretation. If its doesn't than its mere tradition and must be preached as such.

[Raven]

Its easy (and tempting) to look back into history for a model of the New Testament Church. And, the model is there. But, in looking back, we have to ask ourselves: Is this the plan for the church of the last days? We mistakenly think (or want to think) the NT Church was the perfect example of what God wants of His church, but, this simply isn't the case. The early church was full of division and sin. Just look how many time Paul found it necessary to rebuke and chasten the early church. In fact, an honest survey of the early church reveals are very similar view of the modern day church.

Our model cannot be the early church, but, rather, its Founder, Jesus Christ. He is our model and our example of what God wants His church- His people- to be. Even if the early church was a better model, we still do not get a clear picture of what God plans for us.

Hag 2:9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.

The modern-day church (latter house) is greater than the early church (former house), according to this prophecy. But we see the same problems today as Paul encountered in the 1st Century Church. So, other than Jesus Himself, we have no clear pattern for the church of today.

But, we do, Jesus Himself. And, we catch glimpses of the last days church throughout the Bible.

Does this church exist? Yes, as long as WE, the church, strive to be the model of God's Church. We should not, (and really, can't) look to the past as a model of the church. Jesus said No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Looking to the past halts our forward progression. Paul adds: Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.Phl 3:13-14
The "prize", our objective is in front of us, not behind us. People say "Back to Pentecost!". But revival is not behind us. Its a head. The American Pentecostal Movement has been blessed with Revival many times in its history. There is, at least one more major move of God ahead- A Revival of Restoration. We may miss it if we're looking back to the "good ol' days". In the midst that revival, we will finally see the emergence of what God really wants for His people-
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Great words OneAccord. You continue to impress me with your wisdom. It seems there are those who are afflicted with Mary's error. At the empty tomb Mary wept for where Jesus used to be. She wanted to go back and recapture the past but could not. It was only upon hearing someone call her name behind her that she turned and saw the resurrected Christ. This is not a time to look back but to turn around and look forward to where Jesus is now. The future of the Church is bright and nothing will ever be the same again!!!

Raven

[robert]

"Because I said so!" IS a valid reason for a parent to give their kid..... When their kid is 7, 8, or 9, or younger. However, as they get older, they do need some reasons. When I was in my middle teens I heard "because the Church says...." or more commonly "because the pastor says!" as "reason enough!" to do something. When I became an adult, the freedom from that sort of reasoning was very liberating!

Traln up a child in the way that he should go; and when he is old , he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6... Are you saying your parents failed to train you correctly?

[JTULLOCK]

Traln up a child in the way that he should go; and when he is old , he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6... Are you saying your parents failed to train you correctly?

I know the question was not directed to me, but here is how I see it. If you do your job at training they will not depart. But depends on what you teach. If you teach them that God's word is supreme and that they need to seek out truth for what it is then they will not fall back. I was raised up to follow what I was taught, but also to seek the answers to what I was learning. I believe this is key to why the verse uses train instead of teach. Reason being is it does not benefit you as an idividual to just memorize info like multiplication tables in math or verses in the Bible. If benefits you to search for the answer or to work the problem so you know what the answer is. It is not good to go on what is said you have to go on what you know.

[RandyWayne]

Traln up a child in the way that he should go; and when he is old , he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22:6... Are you saying your parents failed to train you correctly?

Telling a 14, 15, or 16 year old that "we do this because that is what our Church teaches", is not "training". It is simply making a young adult follow the house rules, then when he moves out he is free to do what he wants or believes.
It is just another version of the principles versus standard "debate" (although why it is even a debate it beyond me....).

[Dan'D]

Wanna hear something funny? While I've raised my children in the UPC all their lives, I've always abided by my own standards except for a period of time when I was a member of the choir, but even during that time, I never subjected my daughter to 'standards' as taught by the UPC.

That said, she is now 14. She hasn't had her hair cut in almost 3 years. She reads her Bible faithfully, as well as church attendance. She is in the altar praying with her peers. All she has to do is get rid of her pants and she'll be an ultra-con.....LOL!

But I allow her to follow her own beliefs. I've taught her to live by her convictions. At her age, she is close to being responsible for her own salvation. I'm proud of her.

So we are to pick and choose what we want to believe from what the pastors say but we believe what we want because……

Dan’D

[NW Pastor]

Wanna hear something funny? While I've raised my children in the UPC all their lives, I've always abided by my own standards except for a period of time when I was a member of the choir, but even during that time, I never subjected my daughter to 'standards' as taught by the UPC.

That said, she is now 14. She hasn't had her hair cut in almost 3 years. She reads her Bible faithfully, as well as church attendance. She is in the altar praying with her peers. All she has to do is get rid of her pants and she'll be an ultra-con.....LOL!

But I allow her to follow her own beliefs. I've taught her to live by her convictions. At her age, she is close to being responsible for her own salvation. I'm proud of her.


I hope you continue to be so because the odds are not in your favor. I always thought that our mandate was to train up our children in the way they should go, not the way they choose for themselves. The natural inclinations of human beings still is bent toward sinning, regardless of what secular theology promotes.

Our children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. I always try to remind myself of that. We are cultivating and raising children, not uncurried weeds.

God bless. I hope all works out for you and your precious daughter.

[HeavenlyOne]

So we are to pick and choose what we want to believe from what the pastors say but we believe what we want because……

Dan’D

It lines up with Bible? YES!!

[HeavenlyOne]

I hope you continue to be so because the odds are not in your favor. I always thought that our mandate was to train up our children in the way they should go, not the way they choose for themselves. The natural inclinations of human beings still is bent toward sinning, regardless of what secular theology promotes.

Our children are the heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. I always try to remind myself of that. We are cultivating and raising children, not uncurried weeds.

God bless. I hope all works out for you and your precious daughter.

You don't think I'm training her in the way she should go? At the age of 14, when most girls her age aren't virgins any longer, I think I'm doing a fine job so far!

[NW Pastor]

You don't think I'm training her in the way she should go? At the age of 14, when most girls her age aren't virgins any longer, I think I'm doing a fine job so far!

I don't know anything accept what you write. I was just giving thoughts based upon your comment.

As one who has worked with youth on a variety of levels for many years, one thing I have observed is this. It often takes awhile for everthing to "shake out" so to speak. The bible uses the term, "when he is old" he will not depart from it. We are interested in nurturing children who will become lifelong christians, and reach their final reward.

Btw, if my 14 year old daughter was not a virgin, I would berate myself as an abject, pitiful failure as a father, not worthy of the gift of her life. That does not mean that if she maintained her virginity at 14 that I could say I was doing great job as a parent. I would need to base my success on a lot more data than that.

God's blessings upon you!

[HeavenlyOne]

I don't know anything accept what you write. I was just giving thoughts based upon your comment.

As one who has worked with youth on a variety of levels for many years, one thing I have observed is this. It often takes awhile for everthing to "shake out" so to speak. The bible uses the term, "when he is old" he will not depart from it. We are interested in nurturing children who will become lifelong christians, and reach their final reward.

Btw, if my 14 year old daughter was not a virgin, I would berate myself as an abject, pitiful failure as a father, not worthy of the gift of her life. That does not mean that if she maintained her virginity at 14 that I could say I was doing great job as a parent. I would need to base my success on a lot more data than that.

God's blessings upon you!

I totally agree. There is much more to her life and the life of her 16 yr old brother where I determine my success thus far.

I also know how I was raised, and that I will not nor have ever raised my children in the same fashion.

I thank you for your comments. I like to read advice from someone who's been there.

[robert]

It lines up with Bible? YES!!

Heavenlyone, are you ever wrong? It seems you have an answer for everyones post. I have found myself wrong many times and it is humbling. Could it be your lining up the Bible with your own ideology.

[Dan'D]

It lines up with Bible? YES!!

If you disagree with your pastor that much you won’t be fed there because you will be second guessing everything he says.

There are standards that are not in the bible but some are for our best interest to follow. If you can not follow your pastor advice your children will not either because as you they will think they know more than the pastor.

Your pastor needs to be someone you look up to. Not someone you feel is not telling the truth.

You might need to find a pastor you can look up to.

Dan’D

[CC1]

Heavenlyone, are you ever wrong? It seems you have an answer for everyones post. I have found myself wrong many times and it is humbling. Could it be your lining up the Bible with your own ideology.

I don''t know about her but I was wrong once. What happened was I thought I was wrong but it turned out I wasn't so I was wrong in thinking that I was wrong.:bliss:gaga:bliss:gaga:party

[Tina]

I haven't read any of this thread, and if I have time, I'll go back and do so. Just reading the title of the thread-- brought back something that the evangelist said last night.

"If the condition of the heart isn't right.... you could hold every old time standard there is, and it wouldn't make any difference. Just because a person looks holy, doesn't mean they are holy. Looks can be deceiving."

Adding the scriptures he used if anyone wants to read them.

1 Peter 1:15-16
Hebrews 12:14-17
Psalm 51:10
Psalm 139:23-24
2 Corinthians 7:1
Luke 6:45
Titus 2:11-13

[dizzyde]

I haven't read any of this thread, and if I have time, I'll go back and do so. Just reading the title of the thread-- brought back something that the evangelist said last night.

"If the condition of the heart isn't right.... you could hold every old time standard there is, and it wouldn't make any difference. Just because a person looks holy, doesn't mean they are holy. Looks can be deceiving."

Adding the scriptures he used if anyone wants to read them.

1 Peter 1:15-16
Hebrews 12:14-17
Psalm 51:10
Psalm 139:23-24
2 Corinthians 7:1
Luke 6:45
Titus 2:11-13


Tina,

My pastor preached along the same lines Sunday night, the title of his message was ""It" will not save us".

The message was about taking a look at your life and seeing whatever "It" was that was giving you the feeling that you had it all together.

Whatever "It" is, it usually is a good, righteous thing but we are only redeemed by Him. We should live our lives in obedience, but never mistake the fact that our obedience does not redeem us, only He redeems us.

[OneAccord]

Scotty asked...
What about "He is not a God of confussion"?


As Brother Scotty correctly stated, confusion doesn't come from God. If we get our instuction from Him, and Him alone, then we won't be confused either. Thats where Paul said this: Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
This was written at a time when there was confusion as to what "standards" were required in Pauls day. Some believed that the law regarding Sabbath days and meats was to be observed and others felt that these Jewish laws were not applicable to the Roman Christians. In fact, Paul found it necessary to deal with this controversy several times. Paul, it seems, being a good "moderate", took the middle road. To him, whether one observed the 7th day as the Sabbath or the first, was a "non-issue". Whether one ate meat, or whether one abstained, was a "non issue". His tact was to let each person decide for himself (or herself) which day they would set aside as a day of rest, or what their diet would consist of. He urged "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." If...IF...we are fully persuaded in our own mind as to what we believe, or how we dress, or whatever, then how can we be confused over the matter?

So, where does this "confusion" come from? James said: Jam 3:16 For where envying and strife [is], there [is] confusion and every evil work.
To understand what CONFUSION is, we have to know where it comes from. James tells us that quite claerly: It comes from ENVYING and STRIFE. Get rid of the ENVY and STRIFE, there will be no confusion. But, what is ENVY and STRIFE?

ENVYING:
1) excitement of mind, ardour, fervour of spirit

a) zeal, ardour in embracing, pursuing, defending anything

1) zeal in behalf of, for a person or thing

2) the fierceness of indignation, punitive zeal

b) an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy

Of course we should have zeal, we should stand up for what we believe, but not to the point of indignation and contention. These are works of the flesh and lead to strife.

STRIFE:
1) electioneering or intriguing for office

a) apparently, in the NT a courting distinction, a desire to put one's self forward, a partisan and fractious spirit which does not disdain low arts

b) partisanship, fractiousness

Now, see what STRIFE is promoting? "A desire to put one's SELF forward"
When we strive over the word of God, we stop defending what we believe to be truth and we start promting SELF! "Im right, you're wrong!". or "I believe...". When we argue and strive, its no longer about the Bible, or about God or anything else, but its about "I'm right and you are wrong!".

In fact, of the 5 times we see the word ENVYING in the Bible, the word STRIFE appears with it 4 times. The two go together hand in hand, for when we begin ENVYING, we end up with STRIFE... virtually everytime. As we study and discuss the Scriptures, maybe it would do us all good to study and discuss that word "envy" some more. It lies at the very root of our confusion.

Now, what is confusion?

CONFUSION: 1) instability, a state of disorder, disturbance, confusion

We are confused when we are unstable in the faith. Or when we are in a state of disorder. Or disturbed. Or...well... confused. We get confused when we are not fully persuaded about what we believe. However, if we "are rooted and grounded in the faith", then what difference does it make what another person believes?

[SavedLou]

Everyone, to one degree or another, is willing to explain away an action while either condemning or "not approving" of someone doing something similar. Case in point, condemning television but allowing the net. Condemning "costly apparel"/jewelry on someone, then driving away in their Lincoln or wearing an $$$ suit. (What IS the difference between an expensive piece of jewelry and a high end car anyways?? -I don't think EITHER are wrong, but can't see how one can be condemned and the other not.)
Complaining about loud "rock music" then turning the church music to 11 on the volume scale. The list is endless.... And as Spock would say "Very very 'human'."

LOL! so true...i thought of a friend on this one that told me once that she probably wouldn't be wearing a wedding ring when she got engaged but instead she said her fiance' could just get her a gucci purse and a fancy watch with little diamonds around the face. lololol! like 400 lb preachers wearing rolex watches and $1000 suits preaching against rings and tv. ah the irony. :)

[CC1]

LOL! so true...i thought of a friend on this one that told me once that she probably wouldn't be wearing a wedding ring when she got engaged but instead she said her fiance' could just get her a gucci purse and a fancy watch with little diamonds around the face. lololol! like 400 lb preachers wearing rolex watches and $1000 suits preaching against rings and tv. ah the irony. :)

Yup. Just like those "plain faced" women at GC with no makeup on but a $500 dress and a watch that cost more than all of my wifes jewelry combined!

[robert]

You can literally come up with a scriptural ban for anything.
It requires a bit (or a lot) of hoop jumping and more then a couple of translations back and forth, *but it can be great fun!

Works both ways...You can literly come up with scriptures to allow anything as well. You don't even have to jump through hoops or use several translations. There's a scripture about a fountain not bringing forth at the same time sweet water and bitter. This scripture implies that wisdom and sarcasm should not come from the same mouth. But the person doing such could just say...What about a faucet that can brings forth hot and cold water? Then someone could say... be hot or cold but if you get in the middle your lukewarm and will be spued out. While some are looking to get closer and more pleasing to God, there are others that are trying to see how close they can get to their own thoughts with out leaving God's thoughts completely out of their way of thinking. When Jesus comes back for his people will they be searching the scriptures for truth or trying to think up witty replies to people who are willing to give up pleasures and comforts in an attempt to be closer to their God. You are not right to be displeased with those that challenge others to be different from the norm...

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the council of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, * nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

[Cindy]

I don''t know about her but I was wrong once. What happened was I thought I was wrong but it turned out I wasn't so I was wrong in thinking that I was wrong.:bliss:gaga:bliss:gaga:party

You were wrong............:ursofunny:gaga

[HeavenlyOne]

Heavenlyone, are you ever wrong? It seems you have an answer for everyones post. I have found myself wrong many times and it is humbling. Could it be your lining up the Bible with your own ideology.

I'm not sure how my answer was seen to have anything to do with being right or wrong. I was asked a question and I answered it.

And there is a difference in making the Bible line up with one's ideology and making one's ideology line up with the Bible.

The Bible is my authority, not my carnal flesh.

[HeavenlyOne]

If you disagree with your pastor that much you won’t be fed there because you will be second guessing everything he says.

There are standards that are not in the bible but some are for our best interest to follow. If you can not follow your pastor advice your children will not either because as you they will think they know more than the pastor.

Your pastor needs to be someone you look up to. Not someone you feel is not telling the truth.

You might need to find a pastor you can look up to.

Dan’D

Who said I disagreed with my pastor? I never said that.

The problem with pastors making standards for everyone to follow 'with their best interests in mind' is that it's made into a heaven or hell issue, which is wrong.

I once had a pastor that gave us suggestions, but we weren't going to hell if we didn't follow them. He allowed us to make up our own mind as Christians and adults.

[RandyWayne]

Works both ways...You can literly come up with scriptures to allow anything as well. You don't even have to jump through hoops or use several translations. There's a scripture about a fountain not bringing forth at the same time sweet water and bitter. This scripture implies that wisdom and sarcasm should not come from the same mouth. But the person doing such could just say...What about a faucet that can brings forth hot and cold water? Then someone could say... be hot or cold but if you get in the middle your lukewarm and will be spued out. While some are looking to get closer and more pleasing to God, there are others that are trying to see how close they can get to their own thoughts with out leaving God's thoughts completely out of their way of thinking. When Jesus comes back for his people will they be searching the scriptures for truth or trying to think up witty replies to people who are willing to give up pleasures and comforts in an attempt to be closer to their God. You are not right to be displeased with those that challenge others to be different from the norm...

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the council of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, * nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

You are absolutely correct. Some try to use scripture to ban anything/everything and others use it to approve of anything/everything. The question is, what does scripture say? A person is cursed who ADDS or REMOVES from the Word.

[robert]

You are absolutely correct. Some try to use scripture to ban anything/everything and others use it to approve of anything/everything. The question is, what does scripture say? A person is cursed who ADDS or REMOVES from the Word.

Heres some scriptures you and me and a whole lot of others on this forum ought to heed to...Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: buy contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing...What really hurts me is that the things we argue "discuss" about concerning what people call standards used to be so beautiful to so many. Is it really wise to disregard these things that so many brothers and sisters held so dear? I remember hearing Pastors warn that if the children were not taught to love this holiness that we loved then it would be lost in the next generation. I guess they were right. The ways of holiness seem to be at an end. We did not try to be lost in the 50's in the 50's we were living a lifestyle that was intended to bring glory and honor to Jesus. I don't remember seeing people flaunting their way of dress as a being holier than thou as so many here have described in their post. I rememberd Saints that were humble and good people. Many of these good people have changed, left the church, or just faded into the background...giving way to the reformation. I just wonder if this change that has obviously taken over the "old time holiness movement" really accomplished to make things better or made things worse.

[Kutless]

Heres some scriptures you and me and a whole lot of others on this forum ought to heed to...Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: buy contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing...What really hurts me is that the things we argue "discuss" about concerning what people call standards used to be so beautiful to so many. Is it really wise to disregard these things that so many brothers and sisters held so dear? I remember hearing Pastors warn that if the children were not taught to love this holiness that we loved then it would be lost in the next generation. I guess they were right. The ways of holiness seem to be at an end. We did not try to be lost in the 50's in the 50's we were living a lifestyle that was intended to bring glory and honor to Jesus. I don't remember seeing people flaunting their way of dress as a being holier than thou as so many here have described in their post. I rememberd Saints that were humble and good people. Many of these good people have changed, left the church, or just faded into the background...giving way to the reformation. I just wonder if this change that has obviously taken over the "old time holiness movement" really accomplished to make things better or made things worse.Bro Robt, I think that part of the problem is that what you call holiness and others call dress-code standards is so extremely varied from church to church it has caused confusion.

[CC1]

Bro Robt, I think that part of the problem is that what you call holiness and others call dress-code standards is so extremely varied from church to church it has caused confusion.

Yeah, but if they would all just check with Robert he could make sure they all are doing what is right for real!:gaga

[HeavenlyOne]

Heres some scriptures you and me and a whole lot of others on this forum ought to heed to...Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: buy contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing...What really hurts me is that the things we argue "discuss" about concerning what people call standards used to be so beautiful to so many. Is it really wise to disregard these things that so many brothers and sisters held so dear? I remember hearing Pastors warn that if the children were not taught to love this holiness that we loved then it would be lost in the next generation. I guess they were right. The ways of holiness seem to be at an end. We did not try to be lost in the 50's in the 50's we were living a lifestyle that was intended to bring glory and honor to Jesus. I don't remember seeing people flaunting their way of dress as a being holier than thou as so many here have described in their post. I rememberd Saints that were humble and good people. Many of these good people have changed, left the church, or just faded into the background...giving way to the reformation. I just wonder if this change that has obviously taken over the "old time holiness movement" really accomplished to make things better or made things worse.

I think it evolved into that way of thinking because it wasn't taught right. We have holiness because God is holy, not because we wear certain items of apparel.

In the 50's, everyone from the Catholics to the UPCers were holiness, because they all wore 'the uniform', especially to church, did they not? So the attitude present today didn't exist because everyone dressed that way for church.

We went wrong when others started changing and we started judging. We viewed ourselves as being holy and them unholy.

I'm speaking in generalities, but I'm sure everyone gets the point.

Teach a principle and we won't have this problem.

[HeavenlyOne]

Bro Robt, I think that part of the problem is that what you call holiness and others call dress-code standards is so extremely varied from church to church it has caused confusion.

A dress code standard isn't holiness, but that's what holiness in the church evolved into.

[Dan'D]

A dress code standard isn't holiness, but that's what holiness in the church evolved into.

Do you feel there should be any dress standard?

Dan’D

[JTULLOCK]

Do you feel there should be any dress standard?

Dan’D

Question is not for me, but want to give my opinion. Dress standard, no. Platform/ministry standards sure that is fine cause you gotta follow your leader/pastor. I honestly think there needs to be more focus on modesty inside and out. If modesty is taught correctly people will not want to walk around unclothed or immodest. Your opinon of immodesty is different than mine mostlikely. Hair cutting and makeup wearing, I see no problem with as long it does not become the only thing one lives for. IMO it all comes down to workout your salvation-with fear and trembling.

[tv1a]

If the dress code was universal, legalists may have a point. Legalists do no have an universal dress code. so how could they judge another's code?

Do you feel there should be any dress standard?

Dan’D

[simplyme]

Yeah, but if they would all just check with Robert he could make sure they all are doing what is right for real!:gaga

Gee how nice!

[HeavenlyOne]

Do you feel there should be any dress standard?

Dan’D

As to specifics, no. Why should there be if we teach modesty?

For my children, I teach modesty. This means they don't wear short shorts, no sleeveless shirts, no halters and such. If I taught them only what NOT to wear, what have I taught them? Nothing, really.

But if I teach them modesty, I have taught them what is appropriate and what isn't without preaching them a clothesline.

At 14 and 16, they dress themselves and I don't ever have to tell them to change their clothes before they leave the house.

[robert]

Yeah, but if they would all just check with Robert he could make sure they all are doing what is right for real!:gaga

Standards according to robert.
This book would probably not be a big seller especially here at the AFF.

[Cindy]

Standards according to robert.
This book would probably not be a big seller especially here at the AFF.

Now that is just funny Robert. Good one............:ursofunny

[HeavenlyOne]

Standards according to robert.
This book would probably not be a big seller especially here at the AFF.

LOL!

On FCF, there was once a thread about the world's thinnest books. I've been thinking about starting another thread about that. It was pretty funny...LOL!

[CC1]

Standards according to robert.
This book would probably not be a big seller especially here at the AFF.

You could market it as sort of a volume two of "Robert's Rules Of Order". This would be "Robert's Rules of Standards".

The blurb on the inside cover could be something like;

"Tired of varying dress code rules from church to church and pastor to pastor? Then this is the book for you! Once every pastor and saint has read this book all will be on the same page in life and preaching and teaching EXACTLY the same "standards'. Robert has taken his unique position as THE ONE who knows exactly what is and is not biblical and once and for all clearly spells out the do's and don'ts that moder Oneness Pentecostals are so anxious to make sure they adhere to as to secure their salvation."

[Kutless]

A dress code standard isn't holiness, but that's what holiness in the church evolved into.But I think dressing modestly is. I want to teach my daughter the same as you have taught yours......in modesty.

The problem occurs when my view of modesty (allowing her to dress out for P.E. etc.) clashes with the pastors. Then we find ourselves on the slippery slope.........:bliss............which leads to instilling something in my child that I don't believe so that I can be involved in the church.

Because God knows that if you allow your child to be a part of that demonic volleyball squad you can't lead song service.

[CC1]

But I think dressing modestly is. I want to teach my daughter the same as you have taught yours......in modesty.

The problem occurs when my view of modesty (allowing her to dress out for P.E. etc.) clashes with the pastors. Then we find ourselves on the slippery slope.........:bliss............which leads to instilling something in my child that I don't believe so that I can be involved in the church.

Because God knows that if you allow your child to be a part of that demonic volleyball squad you can't lead song service.


ROFL!!!!!!:reaction

[robert]

You could market it as sort of a volume two of "Robert's Rules Of Order". This would be "Robert's Rules of Standards".

The blurb on the inside cover could be something like;

"Tired of varying dress code rules from church to church and pastor to pastor? Then this is the book for you! Once every pastor and saint has read this book all will be on the same page in life and preaching and teaching EXACTLY the same "standards'. Robert has taken his unique position as THE ONE who knows exactly what is and is not biblical and once and for all clearly spells out the do's and don'ts that moder Oneness Pentecostals are so anxious to make sure they adhere to as to secure their salvation."

Wow, not bad...could you be my publisher...I'll share all my royalties:bliss

[robert]

LOL!

On FCF, there was once a thread about the world's thinnest books. I've been thinking about starting another thread about that. It was pretty funny...LOL!

I don't suppose you'd want a copy of my book would you.:nutso

[OneAccord]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m75/OneAccord_2006/thumbnailCAD5RJFO.jpg

Does anyone remember the old movie Mr. Roberts?

[CC1]

Wow, not bad...could you be my publisher...I'll share all my royalties:bliss

Perhaps I could interst you in my line of Burqa clothing for Pentecostal women? I have the clothing line and marketing plan all worked out but just need a conservative partner who has all of the right contacts to get our booth or table in the right conferences and churches.

I see the WWPF as very fertile ground for the Burqa movement. It promises modesty, seperation, and "holiness" on a scale only dreamed of in the past.:bliss

[HeavenlyOne]

I don't suppose you'd want a copy of my book would you.:nutso

Would be cheap to ship! LOL!

[Pressing-On]

Perhaps I could interst you in my line of Burqa clothing for Pentecostal women? I have the clothing line and marketing plan all worked out but just need a conservative partner who has all of the right contacts to get our booth or table in the right conferences and churches.

I see the WWPF as very fertile ground for the Burqa movement. It promises modesty, seperation, and "holiness" on a scale only dreamed of in the past.:bliss

That might not be a bad idea considering none of them have any "natural beauty" to speak of.

:bliss

[Pressing-On]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m75/OneAccord_2006/thumbnailCAD5RJFO.jpg

Does anyone remember the old movie Mr. Roberts?

I have that movie!

"Captain, it is I, Ensign Pulver, and I just threw your stinkin' palm tree overboard!"

:ursofunny

[robert]

I have that movie!

"Captain, it is I, Ensign Pulver, and I just threw your stinkin' palm tree overboard!"

:ursofunny

Is this the movie revue thread...ooops....I'm in the wrong place....Hey, Wait a minute this is the standards thread. Oh I get it, Back during the time of this movie holiness standards were at their best. Ohhhhh... And there were holiness standards in every religion. Some were preached about and some were just a given. Well...everyone gave up and became free and liberated even the Apostolics...The Apostolics held out the longest...does that give us more points or something.

[robert]

Perhaps I could interst you in my line of Burqa clothing for Pentecostal women? I have the clothing line and marketing plan all worked out but just need a conservative partner who has all of the right contacts to get our booth or table in the right conferences and churches.

I see the WWPF as very fertile ground for the Burqa movement. It promises modesty, seperation, and "holiness" on a scale only dreamed of in the past.:bliss

What does WWPF stand for...We Were Pentecostals First....or....We Will (be) Pentecostals Forever...or...Why Won't Preachers Follow (God's Word)

[HeavenlyOne]

What does WWPF stand for...We Were Pentecostals First....or....We Will (be) Pentecostals Forever...or...Why Won't Preachers Follow (God's Word)

LOL!

Bob, I love your sense of humor. And here we didn't think there was a funny bone in your body!! LOL!

[robert]

LOL!

Bob, I love your sense of humor. And here we didn't think there was a funny bone in your body!! LOL!

Funny bone! Do you mean humerus. I do have a sense of humerus.

[HeavenlyOne]

Funny bone! Do you mean humerus. I do have a sense of humerus.

ROFL!

Good one!

[robert]

ROFL!

Good one!

If you could just be this sweet when replying to serious post.:)

[LadyChocolate]

Perhaps I could interst you in my line of Burqa clothing for Pentecostal women? I have the clothing line and marketing plan all worked out but just need a conservative partner who has all of the right contacts to get our booth or table in the right conferences and churches.

I see the WWPF as very fertile ground for the Burqa movement. It promises modesty, seperation, and "holiness" on a scale only dreamed of in the past.:bliss

That might not be a bad idea considering none of them have any "natural beauty" to speak of.

:bliss

:kickcan:kickcan I am so sick of you all with your ideas of pentecostal women. Are we really that bad? Honestly, is that how you really see us? Hmph! Makes me wanna spit nails....
























Do you have any burqa's in a size 14? I will take 2 in brown, one in brown and to be a little wild, I will have one in light brown!.... I am headed to Nashville in several weeks for the conference!!! :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

(...it was all tic) LOL

[Pressing-On]

:kickcan:kickcan I am so sick of you all with your ideas of pentecostal women. Are we really that bad? Honestly, is that how you really see us? Hmph! Makes me wanna spit nails....
























Do you have any burqa's in a size 14? I am headed to Nashville in several weeks!:ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

(...it was all tic) LOL
LC,
My comment was also TIC. I've been ribbing CC1 with it.

[LadyChocolate]

LC,
My comment was also TIC. I've been ribbing CC1 with it.

:friend I was just having fun with the whole burqa thing! Sorry if I put you on the spot there.... wasn't really picking at ya! I find it funny....:friend

[Pressing-On]

:friend I was just having fun with the whole burqa thing! Sorry if I put you on the spot there.... wasn't really picking at ya! I find it funny....:friend

No problem! :friend

[CC1]

:kickcan:kickcan I am so sick of you all with your ideas of pentecostal women. Are we really that bad? Honestly, is that how you really see us? Hmph! Makes me wanna spit nails....
























Do you have any burqa's in a size 14? I will take 2 in brown, one in brown and to be a little wild, I will have one in light brown!.... I am headed to Nashville in several weeks for the conference!!! :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny

(...it was all tic) LOL


LOL!! You had me going for a minute. I thought I was going to have to move and get an unlisted phone number,that the Pentecostal Female Mafia had a hit out on me!!!

[CC1]

By any chance does anybody have the lyrics of the "Burqa Babes" song from back in the FCF days?

[LadyChocolate]

LOL!! You had me going for a minute. I thought I was going to have to move and get an unlisted phone number,that the Pentecostal Female Mafia had a hit out on me!!!

:ursofunny:ursofunny

By any chance does anybody have the lyrics of the "Burqa Babes" song from back in the FCF days?

...you've got to be kidding... you guys actually made a song about it? too funny!:ursofunny

[CC1]

:ursofunny:ursofunny



...you've got to be kidding... you guys actually made a song about it? too funny!:ursofunny

Yes, one of the ladies came up with it and it was a riot. I hope someone has the lyrics and posts it.

[Dan'D]

Perhaps I could interst you in my line of Burqa clothing for Pentecostal women? I have the clothing line and marketing plan all worked out but just need a conservative partner who has all of the right contacts to get our booth or table in the right conferences and churches.

I see the WWPF as very fertile ground for the Burqa movement. It promises modesty, seperation, and "holiness" on a scale only dreamed of in the past.:bliss

How short would you make a burqa before it is not considered a burqa.

Dan'D

[CC1]

How short would you make a burqa before it is not considered a burqa.

Dan'D

Shhh!!!! I am going to leave that for you conservatvies to argue about among yourselves.

We will only be marketing the full length burqa's. What women do with them once they own them is out of our control!

I would imagine truly controlling...er.....I mean concerned pastors would issue a "no cutting" edict regarding burqas.

[angelwannabe]

And you still didn't address what I said!!

Are you even reading my posts?

Ok, let's start over.

Are you saying that a pastor has the right to say what is a heaven or hell issue in regard to standards, even if he claims to have scripture?

And I'm definitely not anti-standard. Not sure where you got that idea, since you don't even know me.

Yes, modesty applies to both men and women, but when did you last hear a standards message about how men should dress??

I've been in the church over 30 years under 6 pastors and I can tell you that I have yet to hear a 'men's standard message' preached.

So, what is your take on the question you asked above?

You say you're not anti-standard, then why are you arguing about standards?...church for 30 years under 6 pastors...and you still cut your hair?, what are you a slow learner or something? All these years and never heard a message concerning men's standards?, WOW, there must be some bad churches in your area, maybe you should move somewhere where you can be fed, you must be starving. Do you need any suggestions where to go?, I'm sure some one here could help you out. I truly feel sorry for you.:tissue

[HeavenlyOne]

You say you're not anti-standard, then why are you arguing about standards?...church for 30 years under 6 pastors...and you still cut your hair?, what are you a slow learner or something? All these years and never heard a message concerning men's standards?, WOW, there must be some bad churches in your area, maybe you should move somewhere where you can be fed, you must be starving. Do you need any suggestions where to go?, I'm sure some one here could help you out. I truly feel sorry for you.:tissue

I suggest you read the rules of this forum. This isn't a good way to start out making friends here.

Your post is out of line and completely uncalled for.

[Brother Price]

You say you're not anti-standard, then why are you arguing about standards?...church for 30 years under 6 pastors...and you still cut your hair?, what are you a slow learner or something? All these years and never heard a message concerning men's standards?, WOW, there must be some bad churches in your area, maybe you should move somewhere where you can be fed, you must be starving. Do you need any suggestions where to go?, I'm sure some one here could help you out. I truly feel sorry for you.:tissue

Well, AWB, I see this. Standards are great for each individual. However, when one attempts to force standards on others as salvational, that negates the Cross and Christ, and makes one's salvation based on man's works. It is not about what men preach, but what the Bible says. Men can lie and pervert the Bible, and I should know. I did for many years. But, when I came to myself, I came out of the lie of forced standards, and saw the full fulfilled life in Christ.

Do not feel sorry for HO. She is not to be pitied, but to be thanked for, for she is a survivor. :friend

[Brother Price]

Shhh!!!! I am going to leave that for you conservatvies to argue about among yourselves.

We will only be marketing the full length burqa's. What women do with them once they own them is out of our control!

I would imagine truly controlling...er.....I mean concerned pastors would issue a "no cutting" edict regarding burqas.

:ursofunny

Burqas-R-Us, specializing in coverings for ministry.

:ursofunny

[angelwannabe]

I suggest you read the rules of this forum. This isn't a good way to start out making friends here.

Your post is out of line and completely uncalled for.

OOOPs excuuuse me. I didn't notice you were a moderator. The way you post, I thought it was appropriate to be confrontational. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander doesn't work here. Except my apology PLEEEEESE......:friend

[simplyme]

OOOPs excuuuse me. I didn't notice you were a moderator. The way you post, I thought it was appropriate to be confrontational. I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander doesn't work here. Except my apology PLEEEEESE......:friend

Hey I think I LIKE this newbie, welcome AWB, and pls enjoy your stay, however brief it may be, :D
*FTR I saw your post as not worse than many I've read here, and it made me laugh, lol*
Serious or not. ;)

[angelwannabe]

Hey I think I LIKE this newbie, welcome AWB, and pls enjoy your stay, however brief it may be, :D*FTR I saw your post as not worse than many I've read here, and it made me laugh, lol*
Serious or not. ;)

What? Am I being banned or something, what did I say wrong? I've read some post here and confrontation seemed to be the norm. Do you supposed to be here a while before confronting people on there post. Is this a place to make friends or to comment and make remarks that then become a discussion. Hey, Simplyme, thanks for the POSITIVE reply, but be careful I may disagree with you too. :campfire

[angelwannabe]

Well, AWB, I see this. Standards are great for each individual. However, when one attempts to force standards on others as salvational, that negates the Cross and Christ, and makes one's salvation based on man's works. It is not about what men preach, but what the Bible says. Men can lie and pervert the Bible, and I should know. I did for many years. But, when I came to myself, I came out of the lie of forced standards, and saw the full fulfilled life in Christ.

Do not feel sorry for HO. She is not to be pitied, but to be thanked for, for she is a survivor. :friend

So, are you admitting to what I bolded?....How do we know your telling the truth now and what you preached before was the truth. You an admitted lier and perverter of the bible are now being asked to be taken serious. No disrespect really intended, but I think I'd take advise from someone who has always known the truth and preached it than some one who was decieved and self proclaims to finding a NEW revelation. Isn't this called being double minded?

[angelwannabe]

Well, AWB, I see this. Standards are great for each individual. However, when one attempts to force standards on others as salvational, that negates the Cross and Christ, and makes one's salvation based on man's works. It is not about what men preach, but what the Bible says. Men can lie and pervert the Bible, and I should know. I did for many years. But, when I came to myself, I came out of the lie of forced standards, and saw the full fulfilled life in Christ.

Do not feel sorry for HO. She is not to be pitied, but to be thanked for, for she is a survivor. :friend

If it weren't for the liers and perverters of the word, she wouldn't have to be saved from anything.:bored

[OneAccord]

Wow, angelwannabe, lighten up. Seven posts and not one kind thing to say...to anyone? Hey, we don't always agree here, and some do get a little heated in the conversations, but, we do, at least, try to remember to speak with kindness. Its the Apostolic FRIENDS Forum. Lets try to make some friends....okay?

[AmazingGrace]

What? Am I being banned or something, what did I say wrong? I've read some post here and confrontation seemed to be the norm. Do you supposed to be here a while before confronting people on there post. Is this a place to make friends or to comment and make remarks that then become a discussion. Hey, Simplyme, thanks for the POSITIVE reply, but be careful I may disagree with you too. :campfire

WHooa there chic... dont know who you think you are but you seem to have an issue... well a lot of them and the first is that you seem to forget you are a newbie around here and with that attitude probably all you will ever be if you arent banned by the end of the day with your lovely angel like disposition... However please let me remind you since you seem to be a long time lurker by all that you "pretend" to know... we are a family around here and you arent making a grand entrance into the family so... I suggest you get to know everyone a little by maybe making some kind posts then try to be confrontational if you choose but Id get to know people first or you are gonna have a whole lotta people on your tail like stink on a skunk... which is about all you are representing right now... Wanna be is right... and it sure aint an angel you are wanting to be!!!

[Brother Price]

So, are you admitting to what I bolded?....How do we know your telling the truth now and what you preached before was the truth. You an admitted lier and perverter of the bible are now being asked to be taken serious. No disrespect really intended, but I think I'd take advise from someone who has always known the truth and preached it than some one who was decieved and self proclaims to finding a NEW revelation. Isn't this called being double minded?

AWB, you need deliverance from the spirit of religion in the worst way. This post proves this. I will pray for you. You would rather attack than discuss it seems. Sounds a lot like me some time back. Hope it does not take for you to see this error as it did for me.

[Brother Price]

Forgive me if I seemed harsh in the last post, but I mean what I said. I guess I am still learning to be more diplomatic among the brethren. :D

[Fiyahstarter]

AWB, you need deliverance from the spirit of religion in the worst way. This post proves this. I will pray for you. You would rather attack than discuss it seems. Sounds a lot like me some time back. Hope it does not take for you to see this error as it did for me.

Another been there, done that confession. Praise God for His deliverance!! Nice testimony, Bro. Price. (Stands saluting in respect!)

[Brother Price]

Thanks FS!

[Sister Alvear]

May we keep a right spirit no matter how we believe...it is by love that people will know we are HIS disciples...

[TalkLady]

May we keep a right spirit no matter how we believe...it is by love that people will know we are HIS disciples...

Preach it, Sister...Preach it!!!

[angelwannabe]

WHooa there chic... dont know who you think you are but you seem to have an issue... well a lot of them and the first is that you seem to forget you are a newbie around here and with that attitude probably all you will ever be if you arent banned by the end of the day with your lovely angel like disposition... However please let me remind you since you seem to be a long time lurker by all that you "pretend" to know... we are a family around here and you arent making a grand entrance into the family so... I suggest you get to know everyone a little by maybe making some kind posts then try to be confrontational if you choose but Id get to know people first or you are gonna have a whole lotta people on your tail like stink on a skunk... which is about all you are representing right now... Wanna be is right... and it sure aint an angel you are wanting to be!!!

I don't remember replying to you, nor do I know You. I've disagreed with one person here and commented to one preacher who made some disturbing confessions. Now you are telling me how I'm supposed to be...Will anyone here defend me from your unFRIENDLY comments. Calling me a stinky skunk is your way of wanting to make friends? I'm sorry, I didn't know speaking your mind was against the rules to "newbies." A long time lurker? I've been on this for about two weeks and have just been allowed to post. I see a lot of disagreeing and back talking by many posters. Why don't everyone play by the same rules.

[Brother Price]

Sounds like while he's congratulating himself for making a change from a self confessed mistake, that he is in turn condemning many other men of God at the same time.

AWB, you almost made me post in the way my flesh would have liked. I was about to call out the spirit of religion. But, ya know what? I do not know you. I do not know your past, your history, your testimony. I have no place to judge you. I have no right to judge you. And, I will no longer judge you.

Let there be no strife between us. If you want to continue, so be it. I will not. I will not allow that spirit to try to bring me back to that religiously hateful, arrogant, judgmental man that Christ has delivered me from.

You say what you want. I just wanna stay in the shadow of the Cross.

Baruch Ha'Shem!

[angelwannabe]

Please everyone, I ask for your forgiveness. I have seen the error of my ways, thinking and words. I will do my best not to do this again. Please forgive me.
:bow

[AmazingGrace]

I don't remember replying to you, nor do I know You. I've disagreed with one person here and commented to one preacher who made some disturbing confessions. Now you are telling me how I'm supposed to be...Will anyone here defend me from your unFRIENDLY comments. Calling me a stinky skunk is your way of wanting to make friends? I'm sorry, I didn't know speaking your mind was against the rules to "newbies." A long time lurker? I've been on this for about two weeks and have just been allowed to post. I see a lot of disagreeing and back talking by many posters. Why don't everyone play by the same rules.

It does not matter if you replied to me or not... you replied to my friends and family... One thing about this forum... we have all pretty much been together for a long time and dont take to someone coming in and acting like you have... No I dont think anyone here will defend you! You will probably find a lot more who feel the same way I do if you continue with your current posting style. And nope this is not my way of attempting to make friends.. have no desire to make friends with someone who comes in like you have with the slams you have against those we all care about here... As for just being allowed to post.. I am so glad they have that included there... might be a good thing... And yes you will see a lot of disagreeing and fussing... but the one thing you will see is when one of the dysfunctional aff family LOL is in need... we are all together 150% and no one can break it... when someone needs someone to pray... no one can stop it and when we all need a friend... We can find tons... I would ask you to please consider what you have done and what I have suggested you change... It might help in your future here on the forum if you plan to have one... and have a fun time... we will welcome those gladly who come with a right spirit... its those with a nasty attitude that get us to all turn somewhat protective...

[AmazingGrace]

Please everyone, I ask for your forgiveness. I have seen the error of my ways, thinking and words. I will do my best not to do this again. Please forgive me.
:bow

Well glad to see a change.. I pray its to stay... And BTW... Welcome to AFF... :)

[Ferd]

Yes. you should keep the old way of Holiness.

[Jehoram]

Throw em all out.

[CAD/JPY]

I am a true lurker of this forum. This is my first post, but I was challenged by the solid thinking of some posters that I felt I must contribute… for better or for worse.

When Uzziah entered into the temple to offer sacrifice was he trying to be less “spiritual” or more “spiritual”? The Bible tells us that when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. The problem with “spiritual” pride is it tends to make people more religious… which was exactly the problem with Uzziah when he decided that he was “spiritual” enough to be able to offer incense where only priests were allowed.

How does all that tie into a discussion on standards? Many people as they become more “spiritual” with pride will allow themselves liberty in interpreting scripture to fit their religious standard. Somehow Uzziah thought he was correct in his deeds, the Bible actually says he became angry with the priests when they confronted him. Just like today, many people become angry if questioned why this belief, why this standard, and then if you confront someone to prove it scripturally….. that makes it even worse!
We should often remind ourselves of the example of Uzziah.

IF it is truth, then we should not be scared to discuss it or QUESTION it. Truth will stand on its own.

The majority of Pentecostal holiness standards are simply the choice of what conservative men and women of North America would have chosen to live by at the time our UPCI manual was written. These conservative men and women were Atheist, Mormon, Baptist, Trinitarian, etc. and the majority dressed a certain way.

I believe in principled standards. The principle being the concern, the standard we choose to express that principle will vary depending on the culture we are in and the situation.
Example: Dressing modestly for a man and a woman is a scriptural teaching. However if you say that a woman must always wear a dress in order to distinguish herself from a man, and then apply that rigidly across the world, you will face situations where it is impossible for a woman to wear a dress and be modest. So what to do? I choose the principle first, because that is Biblical, the standard becomes my interpretation for the culture and situation I live in.

We run into problems when we try to prove our conservative “holiness” standards as ancient writings of biblical truth. People so strongly want to prove their traditional holiness standards as “truth” that they take biblical verses and stretch and twist them in an effort to support their cause. (For the sake of respect, I choose not to give specific examples.) This is no different than Uzziah becoming lifted up and believing he could make his own rules….

It is not disrespectful to ask questions and look for Biblical support of holiness standards. Nor is it wrong to suggest that certain things may need to change… especially if we are aligning ourselves more clearly to the Word of God. Scripture actually encourages us to do so. (Search the scriptures… Work out your own salvation… etc)

Now the real issue that concerns me. How many people are lost and not finding salvation because our Apostolic churches have become so focused on traditional holiness standards that we inadvertently create a stumbling block for the lost in our cities?? Our focus becomes “enforcement” instead of “evangelism”, “labeling” instead of “love”, and “standards” instead of “salvation”. What have we become........?

[Fiyahstarter]

Nice post CAD.

Welcome to the forum!

[ForeverBlessed]

I am a true lurker of this forum. This is my first post, but I was challenged by the solid thinking of some posters that I felt I must contribute… for better or for worse.

When Uzziah entered into the temple to offer sacrifice was he trying to be less “spiritual” or more “spiritual”? The Bible tells us that when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. The problem with “spiritual” pride is it tends to make people more religious… which was exactly the problem with Uzziah when he decided that he was “spiritual” enough to be able to offer incense where only priests were allowed.

How does all that tie into a discussion on standards? Many people as they become more “spiritual” with pride will allow themselves liberty in interpreting scripture to fit their religious standard. Somehow Uzziah thought he was correct in his deeds, the Bible actually says he became angry with the priests when they confronted him. Just like today, many people become angry if questioned why this belief, why this standard, and then if you confront someone to prove it scripturally….. that makes it even worse!
We should often remind ourselves of the example of Uzziah.

IF it is truth, then we should not be scared to discuss it or QUESTION it. Truth will stand on its own.

The majority of Pentecostal holiness standards are simply the choice of what conservative men and women of North America would have chosen to live by at the time our UPCI manual was written. These conservative men and women were Atheist, Mormon, Baptist, Trinitarian, etc. and the majority dressed a certain way.

I believe in principled standards. The principle being the concern, the standard we choose to express that principle will vary depending on the culture we are in and the situation.
Example: Dressing modestly for a man and a woman is a scriptural teaching. However if you say that a woman must always wear a dress in order to distinguish herself from a man, and then apply that rigidly across the world, you will face situations where it is impossible for a woman to wear a dress and be modest. So what to do? I choose the principle first, because that is Biblical, the standard becomes my interpretation for the culture and situation I live in.

We run into problems when we try to prove our conservative “holiness” standards as ancient writings of biblical truth. People so strongly want to prove their traditional holiness standards as “truth” that they take biblical verses and stretch and twist them in an effort to support their cause. (For the sake of respect, I choose not to give specific examples.) This is no different than Uzziah becoming lifted up and believing he could make his own rules….

It is not disrespectful to ask questions and look for Biblical support of holiness standards. Nor is it wrong to suggest that certain things may need to change… especially if we are aligning ourselves more clearly to the Word of God. Scripture actually encourages us to do so. (Search the scriptures… Work out your own salvation… etc)

Now the real issue that concerns me. How many people are lost and not finding salvation because our Apostolic churches have become so focused on traditional holiness standards that we inadvertently create a stumbling block for the lost in our cities?? Our focus becomes “enforcement” instead of “evangelism”, “labeling” instead of “love”, and “standards” instead of “salvation”. What have we become........?

awesome post.. *thumbsup*

[OneAccord]

I am a true lurker of this forum. This is my first post, but I was challenged by the solid thinking of some posters that I felt I must contribute… for better or for worse.

When Uzziah entered into the temple to offer sacrifice was he trying to be less “spiritual” or more “spiritual”? The Bible tells us that when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. The problem with “spiritual” pride is it tends to make people more religious… which was exactly the problem with Uzziah when he decided that he was “spiritual” enough to be able to offer incense where only priests were allowed.

How does all that tie into a discussion on standards? Many people as they become more “spiritual” with pride will allow themselves liberty in interpreting scripture to fit their religious standard. Somehow Uzziah thought he was correct in his deeds, the Bible actually says he became angry with the priests when they confronted him. Just like today, many people become angry if questioned why this belief, why this standard, and then if you confront someone to prove it scripturally….. that makes it even worse!
We should often remind ourselves of the example of Uzziah.

IF it is truth, then we should not be scared to discuss it or QUESTION it. Truth will stand on its own.

The majority of Pentecostal holiness standards are simply the choice of what conservative men and women of North America would have chosen to live by at the time our UPCI manual was written. These conservative men and women were Atheist, Mormon, Baptist, Trinitarian, etc. and the majority dressed a certain way.

I believe in principled standards. The principle being the concern, the standard we choose to express that principle will vary depending on the culture we are in and the situation.
Example: Dressing modestly for a man and a woman is a scriptural teaching. However if you say that a woman must always wear a dress in order to distinguish herself from a man, and then apply that rigidly across the world, you will face situations where it is impossible for a woman to wear a dress and be modest. So what to do? I choose the principle first, because that is Biblical, the standard becomes my interpretation for the culture and situation I live in.

We run into problems when we try to prove our conservative “holiness” standards as ancient writings of biblical truth. People so strongly want to prove their traditional holiness standards as “truth” that they take biblical verses and stretch and twist them in an effort to support their cause. (For the sake of respect, I choose not to give specific examples.) This is no different than Uzziah becoming lifted up and believing he could make his own rules….

It is not disrespectful to ask questions and look for Biblical support of holiness standards. Nor is it wrong to suggest that certain things may need to change… especially if we are aligning ourselves more clearly to the Word of God. Scripture actually encourages us to do so. (Search the scriptures… Work out your own salvation… etc)

Now the real issue that concerns me. How many people are lost and not finding salvation because our Apostolic churches have become so focused on traditional holiness standards that we inadvertently create a stumbling block for the lost in our cities?? Our focus becomes “enforcement” instead of “evangelism”, “labeling” instead of “love”, and “standards” instead of “salvation”. What have we become........?


Very good post, Cad. Very balanced. And welcome!

[theoldpaths]

I am a true lurker of this forum. This is my first post, but I was challenged by the solid thinking of some posters that I felt I must contribute… for better or for worse.

When Uzziah entered into the temple to offer sacrifice was he trying to be less “spiritual” or more “spiritual”? The Bible tells us that when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. The problem with “spiritual” pride is it tends to make people more religious… which was exactly the problem with Uzziah when he decided that he was “spiritual” enough to be able to offer incense where only priests were allowed.

How does all that tie into a discussion on standards? Many people as they become more “spiritual” with pride will allow themselves liberty in interpreting scripture to fit their religious standard. Somehow Uzziah thought he was correct in his deeds, the Bible actually says he became angry with the priests when they confronted him. Just like today, many people become angry if questioned why this belief, why this standard, and then if you confront someone to prove it scripturally….. that makes it even worse!
We should often remind ourselves of the example of Uzziah.

IF it is truth, then we should not be scared to discuss it or QUESTION it. Truth will stand on its own.

The majority of Pentecostal holiness standards are simply the choice of what conservative men and women of North America would have chosen to live by at the time our UPCI manual was written. These conservative men and women were Atheist, Mormon, Baptist, Trinitarian, etc. and the majority dressed a certain way.

I believe in principled standards. The principle being the concern, the standard we choose to express that principle will vary depending on the culture we are in and the situation.
Example: Dressing modestly for a man and a woman is a scriptural teaching. However if you say that a woman must always wear a dress in order to distinguish herself from a man, and then apply that rigidly across the world, you will face situations where it is impossible for a woman to wear a dress and be modest. So what to do? I choose the principle first, because that is Biblical, the standard becomes my interpretation for the culture and situation I live in.

We run into problems when we try to prove our conservative “holiness” standards as ancient writings of biblical truth. People so strongly want to prove their traditional holiness standards as “truth” that they take biblical verses and stretch and twist them in an effort to support their cause. (For the sake of respect, I choose not to give specific examples.) This is no different than Uzziah becoming lifted up and believing he could make his own rules….

It is not disrespectful to ask questions and look for Biblical support of holiness standards. Nor is it wrong to suggest that certain things may need to change… especially if we are aligning ourselves more clearly to the Word of God. Scripture actually encourages us to do so. (Search the scriptures… Work out your own salvation… etc)

Now the real issue that concerns me. How many people are lost and not finding salvation because our Apostolic churches have become so focused on traditional holiness standards that we inadvertently create a stumbling block for the lost in our cities?? Our focus becomes “enforcement” instead of “evangelism”, “labeling” instead of “love”, and “standards” instead of “salvation”. What have we become........?

You raise some good issues here and I'd like to express my opinion concerning some of the things that you have raised.

Not everyone in the bible that was strong had their heart lifted up to destruction.

His strength came from God blessing him, not from himself or because anything he had done; perhaps he lost sight of this fact.

Now some things are written in the bible such as long/short hair and women dressing modest. Now long/short are not exact measurements and modesty in and of itself is not clear, therefore a line needs to be set; who better to set that line than the pastor. Now, for example, a woman's sleeves should not be too short so that when they lift up their arms to worship, they expose something that could be a stumblingblock to some men. Now if you ask a whole bunch of people for their opinion on woman's sleeve length, you are going to get a whole bunch of opinions; but a line must be drawn. I believe the Pastor is the one that should draw the line.

Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves...

Now here is something interesting to think about. In Acts, some Jewish believers said that the Gentiles should be circumcized and it caused such a big uproar that Paul and Barnabbas decided to have a conference with the apostles and elders at Jerusalem concerning this. A decision was made, a letter was written, and 2 from Jerusalem were sent back with Paul and Barnabbas to basically be a witness to the conference, the decision, the letter that was written, and to Paul and Barnabbas's testimony as to the decision. One of the rules/decisions that was made was that the Gentiles did NOT need to be circumcized. Now AFTER that, Paul took Timotheus whose mother was a Jew, but his father was a greek and CIRCUMCIZED him. Now why did Paul do that? Now do you think Timothy said to Paul, show me scripture saying that I should be circumcized and then I will do it? Not only could Paul NOT produce scripture saying that he NEEDED to be circumcized, it was recently decided in a written decision/rule/ordinance that the Gentiles need NOT be circumcized. Yet we know that Timothy submitted and allowed himself as a grown male to be circumcized.

If any man have left...for my sake and the gospels. Some things are done for Jesus sake, because it is written, and some things are done for the gospel's sake. In Timothy's case, it was so as to not offend the Jews.

The point is that it was NOT written that we in the NT need to be circumcized; in fact upon inspection, the opposite seems to be true in the NT. Yet Paul HAD Timothy circumcized. Timothy obeyed and submitted to Paul in this regard. Was it something physical - yes it was something physical.

Now holiness is of God and there is no doubt about it - both inward holiness and outward holiness. We don't throw out holiness! Now while some men may come up with holiness standards due to spiritual pride, I do not believe that all men do it due to spiritual pride. I believe some do it in an effort to be obedient to holiness and to be pleasing and acceptable unto God and NOT to compete with others to see who is holier.

Now in my church, my pastor tells us not to discuss holiness with visitors that we are trying to win to the Lord. Salvation and being born again and winning people to Christ is more important.

That is why Jesus said to his disciples, I have more to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, he will lead you and guide you into all truth. Jesus had more to say unto them, but they would NOT be able to bear it until AFTER they got the Holy Ghost. That's why Jesus didn't say much or anything at all about external holiness. Jesus didn't teach about hair, women dressing modest, not the wearing of gold/silver etc. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to bear it BEFORE they get the Holy Ghost. But, at some point AFTER one is born again and grows in grace and in knowledge, they are going to learn the other things that Jesus wants and should be willing to obey and submit and do it for him to be pleasing and acceptable to him.

So in conclusion, I agree that holiness should not keep God's people from witnessing and evangelizing and trying to win people to the Lord. You have to catch a fish before you clean it. But we don't thrown holiness out the window either. Hair in 1 Cor 11 shows that God still wants there to be a distinction between the sexes. It is still an abomination for a man to wear that which pertaineth unto a woman and vice-versa. God revealed that he hated it. God changes not. He may change what he requires of man, but God himself is not unstable and doesn't flip-flop.

Glory to God.

[Eliseus]

I believe the Pastor is the one that should draw the line.

Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves...



Them is plural, not singular.... Thus I would submit for your consideration that Peter was speaking of the elders that ought to be present in every church, not a sole-pastor.

As for delineating specific standards, as 'church standards' (as opposed to clear biblical standards), it would seem to be more Biblical and apostolic to have the church come together in prayer and seek the Lord's will on whatever the specific issue may be. And if there be differing opinions, the elders should be able to discern and judge, as well as teach... so that in the end, the Lord's will is what is discovered and agreed upon.

When a single man takes upon himself the role of making all these decisions, much harm and error can be the result.

[JTULLOCK]

Them is plural, not singular.... Thus I would submit for your consideration that Peter was speaking of the elders that ought to be present in every church, not a sole-pastor.

As for delineating specific standards, as 'church standards' (as opposed to clear biblical standards), it would seem to be more Biblical and apostolic to have the church come together in prayer and seek the Lord's will on whatever the specific issue may be. And if there be differing opinions, the elders should be able to discern and judge, as well as teach... so that in the end, the Lord's will is what is discovered and agreed upon.

When a single man takes upon himself the role of making all these decisions, much harm and error can be the result.

This is true. Seems that alot of men behind pulpits preach things so tight that Jesus could not be saved. There is alot of personal type of convictions that are preached as biblical. I do think that alot of them are well meant however. Maybe someone reads a verse and decsides it is talking about something specific. Kinda the devil is the prince and power of the air or air waves so no Tv and very little radio. But internet is ok cause I choose to use it. I have a tough time with some of the 'catch and pitch' mentality of some people. It is like pick and choose.

[Taylormade]

I am a true lurker of this forum. This is my first post, but I was challenged by the solid thinking of some posters that I felt I must contribute… for better or for worse.

When Uzziah entered into the temple to offer sacrifice was he trying to be less “spiritual” or more “spiritual”? The Bible tells us that when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. The problem with “spiritual” pride is it tends to make people more religious… which was exactly the problem with Uzziah when he decided that he was “spiritual” enough to be able to offer incense where only priests were allowed.

How does all that tie into a discussion on standards? Many people as they become more “spiritual” with pride will allow themselves liberty in interpreting scripture to fit their religious standard. Somehow Uzziah thought he was correct in his deeds, the Bible actually says he became angry with the priests when they confronted him. Just like today, many people become angry if questioned why this belief, why this standard, and then if you confront someone to prove it scripturally….. that makes it even worse!
We should often remind ourselves of the example of Uzziah.

IF it is truth, then we should not be scared to discuss it or QUESTION it. Truth will stand on its own.

The majority of Pentecostal holiness standards are simply the choice of what conservative men and women of North America would have chosen to live by at the time our UPCI manual was written. These conservative men and women were Atheist, Mormon, Baptist, Trinitarian, etc. and the majority dressed a certain way.

I believe in principled standards. The principle being the concern, the standard we choose to express that principle will vary depending on the culture we are in and the situation.
Example: Dressing modestly for a man and a woman is a scriptural teaching. However if you say that a woman must always wear a dress in order to distinguish herself from a man, and then apply that rigidly across the world, you will face situations where it is impossible for a woman to wear a dress and be modest. So what to do? I choose the principle first, because that is Biblical, the standard becomes my interpretation for the culture and situation I live in.

We run into problems when we try to prove our conservative “holiness” standards as ancient writings of biblical truth. People so strongly want to prove their traditional holiness standards as “truth” that they take biblical verses and stretch and twist them in an effort to support their cause. (For the sake of respect, I choose not to give specific examples.) This is no different than Uzziah becoming lifted up and believing he could make his own rules….

It is not disrespectful to ask questions and look for Biblical support of holiness standards. Nor is it wrong to suggest that certain things may need to change… especially if we are aligning ourselves more clearly to the Word of God. Scripture actually encourages us to do so. (Search the scriptures… Work out your own salvation… etc)

Now the real issue that concerns me. How many people are lost and not finding salvation because our Apostolic churches have become so focused on traditional holiness standards that we inadvertently create a stumbling block for the lost in our cities?? Our focus becomes “enforcement” instead of “evangelism”, “labeling” instead of “love”, and “standards” instead of “salvation”. What have we become........?


I am a long time lurker, usually just peruse the forum as a guest, but I had to register to respond to this post when I read it today.

This is one of the most awesome thoughts I've read on this subject, and I applaud the poster.

I've often wondered why people get so angry when you ask them to examine their beliefs. My observation on this forum is that there are people here who are attacking the messenger, simply because the messenger is making them take a long, hard look at themselves.

It's unfortunate, because we only grow by continually examining ourselves and comparing our thought processes against the Word, not against our tradition, or our neighbors, or our families......if more people had the courage to turn the scriptural searchlight into their own hearts, and make the changes that the Word calls for - even if it went against their tradition - we could all be much more mature, and much more relevant to our world today.

[theoldpaths]

Them is plural, not singular.... Thus I would submit for your consideration that Peter was speaking of the elders that ought to be present in every church, not a sole-pastor.

As for delineating specific standards, as 'church standards' (as opposed to clear biblical standards), it would seem to be more Biblical and apostolic to have the church come together in prayer and seek the Lord's will on whatever the specific issue may be. And if there be differing opinions, the elders should be able to discern and judge, as well as teach... so that in the end, the Lord's will is what is discovered and agreed upon.

When a single man takes upon himself the role of making all these decisions, much harm and error can be the result.

I will agree that there are more than 1 person that can have the rule over the saints in a church. However, I will also contend that a single man is called to Pastor (shepherd) a church. In order to lead, there must be a leader. I don't go for leading by committee and I don't see it in the bible. However, I believe that a Pastor can solicit and bounce ideas off his elders. If a man is called of God to Pastor a church, then to his master he stands or falls.

I do agree that there should also be elders in the church. I also believe that the model of Moses and the elders is a good model, especially for a big church. Let the elders handle the smaller matters if they are able, and bring the larger issues or issues that the elders can't handle to the Pastor. Why should the Pastor handle things that the elders are quite capable of handling.

Decisions to be made should be made by the leadership of the church, not by the whole church. Matt 18 in the context of saints trespassing against others saints shows that if it gets to the point of bringing it before the whole church, then the offender is to be like a heathen and a publican; then Jesus goes on to say that whatsoever you bind/loose on earth shall be bound/loss in heaven and whatsoever 2 or 3 of you shall agree on, it shall be done. What Jesus was saying was, if the leadership in a church decides that something needs to come before the whole church, then whatever the leadership decides, Jesus would stand behind it.

We see an example of this in Acts concerning the issue of gentile circumcision. Paul and Barnabbas went to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with the Apostles and elders. Decisions were made, rules were written down, and 2 Jewish witnesses came with Paul and Barnabbas back to the Gentiles churches to be witnesses to what was discussed, what was written down, and what was to be communicated. Part of that letter was "it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us". Here we see that somehow, Jesus through His Spirit in man endorsed the decision made by the leadership. God has given his leadership on earth, imperfect men, the ability to make decisions concerning His church. Imagine that...Jesus saying in his word in Matt 18 that he would endorse in the future, decisions that were going to be made by men.

It kinda reminds me of when the leadership in the UPC decided to not allow TV and that decision was accompanied by tongues and interpretation endorsing that decision. Amazing isn`t it.

Incidentally, if you read about why the Asuza Street revival ended, it was because tongues and interpretation came 2 nights in a row concerning baptism in the name of Jesus Christ but the leader (can`t remember if it was Seymour or Parham), rejected it. Consequently, that leader had a bad history after that.

Finally, I believe a Pastor can solicit the elders for opinions on certain issues, but I believe ultimately, the Pastor has the responsibility. Pastor is one of the offices of the 5 fold ministry in Eph 4:11; one man is called into that office, not a group.

God bless.

[theoldpaths]

Them is plural, not singular.... Thus I would submit for your consideration that Peter was speaking of the elders that ought to be present in every church, not a sole-pastor.

As for delineating specific standards, as 'church standards' (as opposed to clear biblical standards), it would seem to be more Biblical and apostolic to have the church come together in prayer and seek the Lord's will on whatever the specific issue may be. And if there be differing opinions, the elders should be able to discern and judge, as well as teach... so that in the end, the Lord's will is what is discovered and agreed upon.

When a single man takes upon himself the role of making all these decisions, much harm and error can be the result.

In the context of gifts of the Spirit, of which 1 Cor 12 shows that administrations are gifts, the following is an example of a singular "He" ruling:

Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

God bless.

[Neck]

I think... I am going to lay hands on the next standards bearer who weighs 400 lbs and talks about how holy they are... and cast off the demon of suicide by fork.

[HeavenlyOne]

I want to gag when people judge others on the outward appearance. It's no different than those who use that same measuring stick to know how holy someone is.

[RandyWayne]

Everyone is guilty of judging by appearance to one degree or another. On another thread I can't help but wonder if some people would be defending the Texas polygamists as much if it was a cult where the "dress" was more like that of a punk rocker/goth style and less like an old time apostolic.
But since they look like many apostolics...... (And to the outside world they DO. Just like identical twins look identical to everyone but their mother -who can of course point out 54 minute differences and say "See. They don't look ANYTHING alike!".)

[Eliseus]

I will agree that there are more than 1 person that can have the rule over the saints in a church. However, I will also contend that a single man is called to Pastor (shepherd) a church. In order to lead, there must be a leader. I don't go for leading by committee and I don't see it in the bible. However, I believe that a Pastor can solicit and bounce ideas off his elders. If a man is called of God to Pastor a church, then to his master he stands or falls.

I do agree that there should also be elders in the church. I also believe that the model of Moses and the elders is a good model, especially for a big church. Let the elders handle the smaller matters if they are able, and bring the larger issues or issues that the elders can't handle to the Pastor. Why should the Pastor handle things that the elders are quite capable of handling.

Decisions to be made should be made by the leadership of the church, not by the whole church. Matt 18 in the context of saints trespassing against others saints shows that if it gets to the point of bringing it before the whole church, then the offender is to be like a heathen and a publican; then Jesus goes on to say that whatsoever you bind/loose on earth shall be bound/loss in heaven and whatsoever 2 or 3 of you shall agree on, it shall be done. What Jesus was saying was, if the leadership in a church decides that something needs to come before the whole church, then whatever the leadership decides, Jesus would stand behind it.

We see an example of this in Acts concerning the issue of gentile circumcision. Paul and Barnabbas went to Jerusalem to discuss the issue with the Apostles and elders. Decisions were made, rules were written down, and 2 Jewish witnesses came with Paul and Barnabbas back to the Gentiles churches to be witnesses to what was discussed, what was written down, and what was to be communicated. Part of that letter was "it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us". Here we see that somehow, Jesus through His Spirit in man endorsed the decision made by the leadership. God has given his leadership on earth, imperfect men, the ability to make decisions concerning His church. Imagine that...Jesus saying in his word in Matt 18 that he would endorse in the future, decisions that were going to be made by men.

It kinda reminds me of when the leadership in the UPC decided to not allow TV and that decision was accompanied by tongues and interpretation endorsing that decision. Amazing isn`t it.

Incidentally, if you read about why the Asuza Street revival ended, it was because tongues and interpretation came 2 nights in a row concerning baptism in the name of Jesus Christ but the leader (can`t remember if it was Seymour or Parham), rejected it. Consequently, that leader had a bad history after that.

Finally, I believe a Pastor can solicit the elders for opinions on certain issues, but I believe ultimately, the Pastor has the responsibility. Pastor is one of the offices of the 5 fold ministry in Eph 4:11; one man is called into that office, not a group.

God bless.

Thanks for your response, brother (you are a brother right? If not, forgive me, sister! lol) Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

Can I ask you two questions?

1. Is not Moses a type of Christ, rather than a type of the local pastor?

2. Is there any scripture which shows us that 'pastor' refers to a single man having final authority and say-so in a local congregation?

In fact, would not what we call 'pastor' actually be a 'bishop' (to use the language of the KJV)? That is, an 'overseer', an episkopos? Which, if I am not mistaken, is used synonymously in the Bible with the term 'elder'?

By the way, as for 'rule by committee', I do not believe that is biblical at all. The church is to be ruled by Jesus Christ, through the Spirit.

[CAD/JPY]

<In response to old paths post, but not directly to them as a person>
Thank you for the good post. I am always open for reasonable discussion. I wish more of this could happen in our district conferences.

I do recognize that there are other examples in the Bible where people were strong, but they did not become prideful. My reason for referring to the example of Uzziah is because the scripture clearly says "his heart was lifted up". (II Chr. 26:16) If you read the text, he was basically told he was wrong and asked to leave. However, Uzziah's answer to the confrontation of his "inaccurate" spiritual beliefs was to become angry at the priests. It was while he was angry that he was smitten with leprosy! Had he not become angry, which was a result of pride in his heart, perhaps he would have felt repentance and quietly left the temple... thus allowing his "inaccurate" beliefs to be easily dealt with. However, the pride that was in his heart started a quest to become more religious, and the pride that was in his heart would not listen to the reason of the anointed priests as they referred to historic scripture and the will of God. When people become prideful, they often become more religious.

I understand your comments on modesty and the illustration of women perhaps immodestly exposing a part of their bodies that would be a stumbling block to a man. I have heard it said all my life "a pastor must draw a line". So I must make some comments on this:
What is wrong with allowing godly women in the church to feel after the Holy Ghost regarding what sleeve length is acceptable?
Why does a godly woman need the pastor to define those lines?
What are those poor men with the stumbling block issue going to do when we bring sinners to church??
Maybe a pastor should consider preaching about allowing the Holy Ghost to convict you on where to draw your lines... AND understanding that what God requires of you, may not be what he requires of me.

Which brings me to the example of Timothy being circumcised. Just for the record, if you read that passage, you will see that Paul asked Timothy to be circumcised after the Jerusalem meeting, but before they went through the cities to deliver "the decrees for to keep." (Acts 16:3-4) We have one example here that clearly demonstrates Paul's reasoning for this "physical standard" was cultural. It is stated clearly, "circumcised him because of the Jews". I would be careful with using this illustration as proof that a pastor can ask for non-biblical, "physical" standards of saints in the church, even if they are only cultural standards. Timothy was clearly leadership, he was going to be involved with delivering the letters that established the decree of non-circumcision, and also be preaching the Word. To take this example, and then apply that to saints in a church… well, I just think that is reaching pretty far.

I agree with your pastor. We shouldn’t be discussing holiness with visitors that we are trying to win to the Lord. But what do you tell people when they ask an intelligent question? Does this scare us that we might be putting a stumbling block before them, and if so WHY?

You make an interesting comment, and I quote “Jesus didn't teach about hair, women dressing modest, not the wearing of gold/silver etc. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to bear it BEFORE they get the Holy Ghost. But, at some point AFTER one is born again and grows in grace and in knowledge, they are going to learn the other things that Jesus wants and should be willing to obey and submit and do it for him to be pleasing and acceptable to him.”
Ok, this raises a serious question for me. IF that above statement is truth, then what about all the Holy Ghost filled people who haven’t been convicted with certain standards that we preach as gospel?
What about the new saints that come to church for months, and then years… and they don’t change? The woman wear pants, makeup and jewelry, and the men still own a television.
What about the ones who just don’t see it the way that some of us do? Aren’t they filled with the same Holy Ghost as I am??

For the record, I am not suggesting we throw holiness out the window in order to try and reach the lost.
I am suggesting we redefine our definition of what holiness truly is….
I am suggesting that we honestly and accurately research scripture….
I am suggesting that we not be scared to say “I’m wrong” or “We made a mistake.”…
I am suggesting that we accept that some things in the New Testament were clearly cultural issues, and the application of those examples for today is that we follow the same pattern when seeking answers to cultural issues that we face today….

I am suggesting that perhaps in our strength of having the truth and being blessed of God that we have become prideful in our "holiness standards" of outlying appearance... so much so, that we compromise the intention of the Word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I am suggesting that maybe we have taken some things a little too far...

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

[Bowas]

<In response to old paths post, but not directly to them as a person>
Thank you for the good post. I am always open for reasonable discussion. I wish more of this could happen in our district conferences.

I do recognize that there are other examples in the Bible where people were strong, but they did not become prideful. My reason for referring to the example of Uzziah is because the scripture clearly says "his heart was lifted up". (II Chr. 26:16) If you read the text, he was basically told he was wrong and asked to leave. However, Uzziah's answer to the confrontation of his "inaccurate" spiritual beliefs was to become angry at the priests. It was while he was angry that he was smitten with leprosy! Had he not become angry, which was a result of pride in his heart, perhaps he would have felt repentance and quietly left the temple... thus allowing his "inaccurate" beliefs to be easily dealt with. However, the pride that was in his heart started a quest to become more religious, and the pride that was in his heart would not listen to the reason of the anointed priests as they referred to historic scripture and the will of God. When people become prideful, they often become more religious.

I understand your comments on modesty and the illustration of women perhaps immodestly exposing a part of their bodies that would be a stumbling block to a man. I have heard it said all my life "a pastor must draw a line". So I must make some comments on this:
What is wrong with allowing godly women in the church to feel after the Holy Ghost regarding what sleeve length is acceptable?
Why does a godly woman need the pastor to define those lines?
What are those poor men with the stumbling block issue going to do when we bring sinners to church??
Maybe a pastor should consider preaching about allowing the Holy Ghost to convict you on where to draw your lines... AND understanding that what God requires of you, may not be what he requires of me.

Which brings me to the example of Timothy being circumcised. Just for the record, if you read that passage, you will see that Paul asked Timothy to be circumcised after the Jerusalem meeting, but before they went through the cities to deliver "the decrees for to keep." (Acts 16:3-4) We have one example here that clearly demonstrates Paul's reasoning for this "physical standard" was cultural. It is stated clearly, "circumcised him because of the Jews". I would be careful with using this illustration as proof that a pastor can ask for non-biblical, "physical" standards of saints in the church, even if they are only cultural standards. Timothy was clearly leadership, he was going to be involved with delivering the letters that established the decree of non-circumcision, and also be preaching the Word. To take this example, and then apply that to saints in a church… well, I just think that is reaching pretty far.

I agree with your pastor. We shouldn’t be discussing holiness with visitors that we are trying to win to the Lord. But what do you tell people when they ask an intelligent question? Does this scare us that we might be putting a stumbling block before them, and if so WHY?

You make an interesting comment, and I quote “Jesus didn't teach about hair, women dressing modest, not the wearing of gold/silver etc. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to bear it BEFORE they get the Holy Ghost. But, at some point AFTER one is born again and grows in grace and in knowledge, they are going to learn the other things that Jesus wants and should be willing to obey and submit and do it for him to be pleasing and acceptable to him.”
Ok, this raises a serious question for me. IF that above statement is truth, then what about all the Holy Ghost filled people who haven’t been convicted with certain standards that we preach as gospel?
What about the new saints that come to church for months, and then years… and they don’t change? The woman wear pants, makeup and jewelry, and the men still own a television.
What about the ones who just don’t see it the way that some of us do? Aren’t they filled with the same Holy Ghost as I am??

For the record, I am not suggesting we throw holiness out the window in order to try and reach the lost.
I am suggesting we redefine our definition of what holiness truly is….
I am suggesting that we honestly and accurately research scripture….
I am suggesting that we not be scared to say “I’m wrong” or “We made a mistake.”…
I am suggesting that we accept that some things in the New Testament were clearly cultural issues, and the application of those examples for today is that we follow the same pattern when seeking answers to cultural issues that we face today….

I am suggesting that perhaps in our strength of having the truth and being blessed of God that we have become prideful in our "holiness standards" of outlying appearance... so much so, that we compromise the intention of the Word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

I am suggesting that maybe we have taken some things a little too far...

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
CAD/JPY,
This is just to let you know, I prefer EUR/JPY.

[Eliseus]

CAD/JPY,
This is just to let you know, I prefer EUR/JPY.

lol

[crakjak]

I think it's safe to assume we want the covering God gave Adam and Eve after the fall! :)

The older one gets the more we agree!:ursofunny

[crakjak]

What? Am I being banned or something, what did I say wrong? I've read some post here and confrontation seemed to be the norm. Do you supposed to be here a while before confronting people on there post. Is this a place to make friends or to comment and make remarks that then become a discussion. Hey, Simplyme, thanks for the POSITIVE reply, but be careful I may disagree with you too. :campfire

Hey, you are too new to talk like that, we have seniority, so watch yourself.:ursofunny

[theoldpaths]

Thanks for your response, brother (you are a brother right? If not, forgive me, sister! lol) Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

Can I ask you two questions?

1. Is not Moses a type of Christ, rather than a type of the local pastor?

2. Is there any scripture which shows us that 'pastor' refers to a single man having final authority and say-so in a local congregation?

In fact, would not what we call 'pastor' actually be a 'bishop' (to use the language of the KJV)? That is, an 'overseer', an episkopos? Which, if I am not mistaken, is used synonymously in the Bible with the term 'elder'?

By the way, as for 'rule by committee', I do not believe that is biblical at all. The church is to be ruled by Jesus Christ, through the Spirit.

I am a brother.

I believe Moses was a type of Christ, but also believe that Moses was a man called of God to lead his people. The scriptures also refer to Moses as the servant of God. One time God wanted to destroy Israel, but Moses interceded on behalf of the people so that God would not destroy them. This reminds me of when Jesus taught about the owner of some land who had a tree that he sought fruit from for years and wanted to cut it down; but the husbandman (singular) interceded on behalf of the tree and asked for 1 more year whereby he would dung it about and give it special attention, and then after that year, if it still did not bear fruit, then to cut it down. In this regard , I see Moses acting like the husbandman and interceding on behalf of God's people.

If you look up "Pastor" in the OT under Strong's, you'll see that it means "Shepherd". Incidentally, a shepherd has a staff and a rod, and the purpose of the rod is for correction.

Also Pastor is one of the offices of the 5 fold ministry listed in Eph 4:11 while elders are not. Those in the ministry are all elders, but not all elders are in the 5 fold ministry. We see this in that Peter while he was an apostle also referred to himself as an elder.

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

This last verse seems to imply that a person can be an elder but NOT labour in the word and doctrine; that is, they are not in the ministry.

Also "Pastors" in Eph 4:11 in Strong's translates to "Shepherd" as well.

Reference for a singular ruler:

Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

According to tradition, Timothy was a young Pastor at Ephesus; who was the mentor to Timothy who could give him advise about how to Pastor? Paul, his elder. What advise did Paul give Timothy?

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

1Ti 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

God bless.

[theoldpaths]

In response to CAD/JPY - Post 1 of 2:

I have no problem with godly women feeling, praying, studying about sleeve length. I wonder if God in his word has ever given an example on sleeve length or robe length? I wonder if God in his word has ever given his people an example concerning clothes and dress and the length of robes and being able to look up a robe and discover a person's nakedness? I wonder if the OT priests clothing could be a type and a shadown to NT saints who are now kings and priests unto God?

When it comes to what God requires of hair, we have 1 Cor 11. Now in 1 Cor 11 we read that men of God are to have short hair. But notice that short is not an exact measurement, there is no base line identified in 1 Cor 11. So this begs the question, what is short? I wonder if the OT God has an example of men having short hair and describing what it should be like? I wonder if God in His word ever described how the hair of the priest in the OT should be?

Now there is a difference b/n what God requires of saints and what God requires of sinners. It is more of an offense if a sister knows what is required of her to NOT be stumblingblock unto her brothers in the Lord, but willingly and knowingly disobeys; compared to a sinner who has no idea what God requires. The church can be somewhat longsuffering for a period of time to a sinner who dresses like a Jezebel harlot, but that does not give license to God's holy woman who have been born again, to dress the same way. Again, some things written in the epistles cannot be borne by those who have not yet rec'd the Holy Ghost and been born again. You don't clean the fish before you catch it.

I believe God is a just and fair God, therefore, in terms of God wanting all his people to be holy, why would God require some things of you but not of me, remember in terms of holiness. Would that be fair? 1 Cor 11 dealing with hair was for all saved men and for all saved women - 1 rule for all; and if any are contentious about that, the church has no such custom on being contentious with the ordinances that Paul laid out. How did he start off that chapter? Follow me as I follow Christ.

Now in terms of strengths and weaknesses, brothers and sisters are different in that respect. Your weakness may not be my weakness and your strength may not be my strength. Therefore in terms of things that are my weaknesses, I believe God requires that I be very careful; similarly, in what things are your weaknesses, I should be very careful. In that I will agree that there are differences b/n you and I and what God would require of you and I. However, I will also agree that there are some things written that are required of both you and I.

Incidentally, is there any scripture supporting that what God requires of you is different than what God requires of me?

Actually, if you start at Acts 14, you will find that the issue started at Antioch and the solution was communicated at Antioch before Acts 16. But I will agree that in Acts 16, after the solution was communicated to where the problem started, the ordinances did get communicated to other cities. So Timothy did get circumcized after the decision was made and started to be communicated; who had him circumcized? Paul. Did he do it after gaining knowledge of the decision? Yes he did.

The point is that although Paul could find no scripture to show Timothy that he should obey God's word to be circumcized, Timothy still submitted himself unto Paul and did something that was NOT written. Incidentally, he did it to not offend them so that he might WIN them.

1Co 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
1Co 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

One could take the above and say that if anything could offend anyone and could possibly keep them from receiving an invitation to come and hear truth and getting saved, it should be avoided.

But I guess some in their own desire to do whatever they want to and not considering others, might just want to do it their own way. But that was NOT the way of Paul and is contrary to what Paul wrote.

It kinda reminds me of the following:

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Kohath basically accussed Moses and Aaron of taking responsibility upon themselves which didn't belong to them. Perhaps Kohath and company felt that certain responsibility that was laid upon Moses and Aaron that should NOT be their responsibility but that some of that responsibility should be Kohath's and his company's; after all, all the congregation is holy. Not only that, they accussed Moses and Aaron of lifting themselves up, but it was not Moses and Aaron who lifted themselves up to lead God's people, but it was of God. They were not self-called, self-annointed, self-appointed men, neither were they called, annointed, nor appointed by other men; but they were called, annointed, and appointed of God.

But even tho Moses and Aaron knew they were called of God, what was their reaction to their calling/leadership being called into question? Did they fight and argue with them? Moses' first reaction was to fall on his face.

Num 16:9 Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?
Num 16:10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?
Num 16:11 For which cause both thou and all thy company are gathered together against the LORD: and what is Aaron, that ye murmur against him?

But God's word reveals in the above that Kohath and his company felt that certain responsibility that was Moses' and Aaron's, rightfully so, should have NOT been Moses' and Aaron's but should have also been Kohath's and his company. They wanted that responsibility to be theirs. Who were they to lead and tell us what to do when we are all the Lord's people and are holy; who do they think they are?

Even tho God may call some in a congregation to preach and may separate some of them to serve the Lord in a special way, they should still submit themselves under the leadership of their Pastor. Just because one may be called to preach of God, but is not yet ready to be sent out, doesn't mean that he should take away the responsibility that God has placed on those whom God calls to lead.

Now in Matt 18, in the context of church discipline, Jesus clearly stated that when the leadership in the church deems its time to bring something before the whole church and when a saint is to now be as a heathen and a publican, Jesus said that he would stand behind what the leadership would decide.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Imagine that, Jesus promising in the future to stand behind what MEN in leadership would decide in judgement. Whatever MEN would bind, Jesus would bind and whatever MEN would loose, Jesus said he would loose.

Do we see an example of this in scripture? Yes we do. We see it concerning the Jews coming to Antioch and saying the Jews must be circumcized and leadership needing to come together to discuss and make a decision concerning it. Incidentally, what men decided "seemed good unto the Holy Ghost"; God somehow through the Holy Ghost gave his mark of approval on it. We also see it by Paul turning over some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. There are 2 instances of that - 1 to learn not to blaspheme, and the other in 1 Cor 5. It was not FINAL judgement, but that they would learn from it that the spirit may be saved after the destruction of the flesh.

Consequently, another decision that was made in the circumcision conference was that the gentiles were to abstain from meat sacrificed unto idols, from blood, and from things strangled. Now in the absence of words from Jesus and/or his leadership against these things, I would presume that it may have been ok for the gentiles to do these things; however, once the leadership decided on these things, then guess what? They were to be in obedience. They were to submit themselves to them that had the rule over them and to obey.

God bless.

Post 2 to follow...

[theoldpaths]

In response to CAD/JPY - Post 2 of 2:

Now if a visitor asks questions, then holy apostolic people of God should not be afraid to answer them according to the word of God. I believe wisdom should be used though because a sinner cannot bear some of the things that are written in the epistles which is why the epistles were not addressed to sinners but to the saints. Which is why Jesus teach some things in the gospels that appear in the epistles. We don't clean a fish before we catch it; you have to catch it first with the proper bait.

Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now since the above is in scripture, then it is indeed true.

As was stated before, certain responsibilities are upon the shoulders of those whom God calls, annoints, and appoints into leadership positions alone. Even tho others in a local church may be separated into the service of God, they are still under a Pastor and do NOT share in the responsibilites that God has placed upon his leadership alone, regardless of what Kohath says.

Just because a person has graduated from bible colledge does not mean they are called of God to pastor a church. Incidentally, a UPC district superintendent in the Apostolic Man forums has admitted to giving licenses to people that afterwards he realized that he shouldn't have given them licenses. What does this show? This shows that some have been given licenses that should not have been given licenses and perhaps were put into leadership positions, such as Pastoring who should NOT have been. Do you think that there would be a difference b/n a man whom God calls to be a Pastor and gives him certain responsibilities and another man whom God has NOT called to be a Pastor, but somehow finds himself in a position of a Pastor because he was called of MEN and NOT of God? I think so. A true watchman of God has a different perspective than those who are NOT on the watchtower regardless of what they aspire to.

I would think it sad that a person would not change after years of living for God. A tree that is planted in God ground and is being fed with healthy food should grow. If it doesn't grow then something is wrong. Paul in hebrews came across some that should have been teachers by now, but were like those who still needed milk.

Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Something bad had affected their growth. God's people are to sincerely desire the milk of the word that they may grow thereby; and what is the promise to those born again babes who desire the sincere milk of the word and grow?

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

God will teach them knowledge and cause them to understand doctrine. Not just salvation doctrine, but doctrine such as:

- presenting your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy...which is your reasonable service
- loving not the world neither the things that are in the world
- coming out from among them and being separate
- not partaking of the table of idols AND the Lord's table

I wonder what some modern idols in this day and age are? I wonder what are some things the world idolizes these days? Are God's holy people partaking of the table of idols AND the Lord's table?

1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Now i'm glad that you are not suggesting that we throw holiness out. I am for letting the word of God define what holiness is and also realizing that Jesus knew that situations would come up where the church leadership would have to meet, discuss, pray, fast, and make some decisions; we see this in Acts. Jesus knowing this, said in the Gospel that whatever the leadership would bind/loose that he would stand behind it and even backed it up right after saying that by saying "again I say unto you that if 2 of you shall agree...".

For the record, my pastor has admitted to being wrong from the pulpit and has apologized in public and I agree that a man of God should not be afraid or be to full of pride to do so.

I`m okay with my pastor`s standards, but I can`t speak for other pastor`s standards.

I have very strong opinions concerning tv and movies because I backslid and left a strong upc church and later went to a very loose apostolic church pastored by someone who started it after they were publicly rebuked in a strong UPC church for committing adultery. In that loose church I experimented with watching almost anything on tv, to watching only news, sports, nature shows, documentaries, and to fasting from tv in that loose church. My experience was in that loose church that I felt stronger when I fasted from tv and I found myself going back to the strong UPC church where I was born again in and making everything right with why I backslid in the first place. Now I feel a lot stronger and very stable. To God be all the glory.

God bless.

[SavedLou]

the more years i spend in the UPC the more inconsistencies i see as far as some standards. we will use one verse and leave the other. examples: with the hair issue, we will take this at face value "it's a shame for a woman to be shorn" and then try to explain this one away "it's a shame for a woman to speak in church". we say one is a "cultural" issue. inconsistent. with jewelry, we will take the "women adorn yourselves with modesty...not with gold, pearls" and leave this off "...AND costly array". so we have nice holy women with no makeup or jewelry but wearing very expensive suits. inconsistent. we pick and choose. there are actually tons of scriptures where jewelry is spoken of positively but we ignore those verses. just food for thought. :)

[chosenbyone]

the more years i spend in the UPC the more inconsistencies i see as far as some standards. we will use one verse and leave the other. examples: with the hair issue, we will take this at face value "it's a shame for a woman to be shorn" and then try to explain this one away "it's a shame for a woman to speak in church". we say one is a "cultural" issue. inconsistent. with jewelry, we will take the "women adorn yourselves with modesty...not with gold, pearls" and leave this off "...AND costly array". so we have nice holy women with no makeup or jewelry but wearing very expensive suits. inconsistent. we pick and choose. there are actually tons of scriptures where jewelry is spoken of positively but we ignore those verses. just food for thought. :)

Thanks for sharing this morning. lol...

Really, many here know exactly where you were coming from in this post. My opinion, modesty is mandated by the Lord and he will convict you if you cross the line. Standards should be personal between you and the Lord and not Sister Sally on the fourth pew on the right.

Unfortunately, after witnessing so many folks who became disillusioned with the mandated standards which caused them to leave the UPC, I saw many let go of one thing after another until they let go of God. That truly scared me, because many of these folks were ones that really walked with God. What they thought was new found liberty became their stubbing block. After years of conditioning to dress and behave a certain way, many of them never learned the meaning of "moderation".

OK....I don't know who put all these soap boxes in my office. I keep on stepping on them.

[dizzyde]

the more years i spend in the UPC the more inconsistencies i see as far as some standards. we will use one verse and leave the other. examples: with the hair issue, we will take this at face value "it's a shame for a woman to be shorn" and then try to explain this one away "it's a shame for a woman to speak in church". we say one is a "cultural" issue. inconsistent. with jewelry, we will take the "women adorn yourselves with modesty...not with gold, pearls" and leave this off "...AND costly array". so we have nice holy women with no makeup or jewelry but wearing very expensive suits. inconsistent. we pick and choose. there are actually tons of scriptures where jewelry is spoken of positively but we ignore those verses. just food for thought. :)

:amen

:hanky :hanky :rooting :rooting :clap :clap

[dizzyde]

Thanks for sharing this morning. lol...

Really, many here know exactly where you were coming from in this post. My opinion, modesty is mandated by the Lord and he will convict you if you cross the line. Standards should be personal between you and the Lord and not Sister Sally on the fourth pew on the right.

Unfortunately, after witnessing so many folks who became disillusioned with the mandated standards which caused them to leave the UPC, I saw many let go of one thing after another until they let go of God. That truly scared me, because many of these folks were ones that really walked with God. What they thought was new found liberty became their stubbing block. After years of conditioning to dress and behave a certain way, many of them never learned the meaning of "moderation".

OK....I don't know who put all these soap boxes in my office. I keep on stepping on them.

:toofunny :toofunny That's OK, I may have forgot to put one back in the right place when I last borrowed it, you probably tripped over it!! :toofunny

[SavedLou]

Thanks for sharing this morning. lol...

Really, many here know exactly where you were coming from in this post. My opinion, modesty is mandated by the Lord and he will convict you if you cross the line. Standards should be personal between you and the Lord and not Sister Sally on the fourth pew on the right.

Unfortunately, after witnessing so many folks who became disillusioned with the mandated standards which caused them to leave the UPC, I saw many let go of one thing after another until they let go of God. That truly scared me, because many of these folks were ones that really walked with God. What they thought was new found liberty became their stubbing block. After years of conditioning to dress and behave a certain way, many of them never learned the meaning of "moderation".
OK....I don't know who put all these soap boxes in my office. I keep on stepping on them.


moderation is the key! p.s. what's a stubbing block? :winkgrin

[LaGirl]

moderation is the key! p.s. what's a stubbing block? :winkgrin


LOU......dont you have something to add on the romper thread????

[LaGirl]

never mind.....just saw it.....lol

[CAD/JPY]

<reply to old paths posts>

Good stuff. For the record, I have no problem with pastoral authority in a church. My father has been a pastor for most of my life. He has done a fine job.

Where my concern lies is with reaching the lost. I truly feel that we are not living the example of Paul that you mentioned, and referred to scriptures that more or less say, "I become all things to all men". I loved your comment "
One could take the above and say that if anything could offend anyone and could possibly keep them from receiving an invitation to come and hear truth and getting saved, it should be avoided."

Wow! Think about that for a moment. We are talking about designing our churches to reflect the minimal amount of barriers for someone to come and be saved. Your post is suggesting that we avoid things that could offend someone from not hearing the truth.

Now the barriers:
1) You bring up hair in I Cor. 11. The principle throughout that scripture is referring to authority and submission before God. We have taken one word, "shorn" and used it to teach that a women's hair can never be cut. That to be long is to be uncut. We disregard other scriptures that specifically refer to shorn as being short, even Acts 18:18 where Paul's head was shorn because he had a vow before God. If God wanted it to be uncut, why didn't he just have Paul use the Greek word for uncut? For me, I have a problem with our classic intepretation.... I am sure we are creating a barrier that stops visitors from even considering coming to our church. IF someone wants to hold this as a personal conviction, well that is their choice... but please don't extend that to the congregation and put a stumbling block before the lost. I see a sinner lady with long hair, and I know it is long... even if it is cut. I notice the long hair, and my first thought is she is a woman. To ask ladies to have uncut hair is a major challenge to most newly converted saints.... and to sinners who are aware of this! My wife wasn't raised in Pentecost, is extremely intelligent, well educated, and saved. Now I am to ask her to abide by a teaching that can't be supported in scripture?

2) No beards on men! Ok, the 70's are over with. Why do we still need to try and hold this as a holiness standard? Why are books written in an effort to try and support the "no beard" standard? We want separation of the sexes and doesn't a man wearing a beard certainly have immediate distinction from a woman! I doubt the "no beard" standard stops many people from visiting a church, but why have it in place if it isn't scriptural?

3) Holiness tends to get thought of as a dress and acceptable look on a woman. We have accomplished "Separation". So as a man, how does my dress separate me from the world? The majority of our pentecostal men look no different from their conservative counterparts. We need to teach holiness as a lifestyle that is pleasing to God. We need a healthy fear of our actions before a holy God. We need to continually demonstrate a LOVE of GOD and PEOPLE. When was the last time I visited the sick, the widows.. or feed the hungry... or supported the orphans? Is this not holiness... loving like Jesus did?

Yes, I agree with the poster... if leadership mandates a requirement then it is bound in heaven for that church. If leadership looses something, then it is loosed in heaven. "All authority" was given....

So to everyone reading this. To pastors who might read this. Please consider that what we hold as traditions and call "old paths" and "landmarks" may just simply be a conservative choice done in the 1940's to align with the last few decades of culture. Don't twist the scriptures and attempt to force them to support your personal conviction! Ask yourself, why do you really call this a conviction? Will it help or hinder people getting saved? I'm looking for the real old paths, the ones the apostles and disciples trod... and if a mistake has been made, then lets have the guts to change it!!

Again, if our traditional holiness standards are TRUTH, then TRUTH will stand the scrutiny. Truth will stand on its own. To re-affirm TRUTH is not rebellious, it is healthy.

In the post to which I respond I am asked a few questions. Let me try and answer them in a concise manner.
1) The question is asked... "Why would God require some things of you, and not of me?" Let me ask, why was Timothy required to be circumcised and Cornelius wasn't?
I believe God requires certain things of different believers in an effort to purify them and remove certain "idols" in their life. I believe he also will require certain things from different people in an effort to reach the lost. I think the intent of your question was to in reference to a set "holiness standard" that encompassed all believers. Is it wrong for a woman to wear a pair of pants as she rides a snowmobile 60 miles across the tundra to go to church? Some would say that if a holy woman of God wears pants she is wrong... really?! Please show me the scriptures that would say the woman in my example is wrong before God and going to hell because of it. I believe she is modest, sensible, and trying to get to the house of God for worship.

2) The question was asked, "Incidentally, is there any scripture supporting that what God requires of you is different than what God requires of me?"
Yes. The Timothy circumcision example being one of them. Now look at Rom. 14:14. If you believe something is unclean, then the Bible says to you it is unclean... and read that whole chapter, and it says that for me, it is fine. (verse 20 is powerful).

3) You ask what some of the "idols" of today are? I would say one is the love of food. We have many, many people... including pastors/preachers that are drastically overweight. I mean XXXtremely. Doesn't the scriptures say that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost? Doesn't the Bible teach against obesity??
A second one is Hollywood entertainment. I am afraid we watch far to many movies/DVD's/Shows that cross over God's line of holiness. I am not saying, it is all wrong... but I am saying that too many of us preachers and saints alike, cross this line on a regular basis. Especially the generation under 40.
A possible third is money/possessions. Costly attire, costly vehicles, costly houses, etc.

Now, I read this and realize I didn't mean to get as detailed as I did. But I am frustrated. Yes, I admit it.
Lord, lead us to the cross. Remind us of what all this is about. How many people walk past our churches and never, ever come in? Are we so caught up trying to substantiate traditions and personal convictions that we have forgotten why we have the light?

Please God, lead us to the truly old paths..... please.

[pelathais]

In the context of gifts of the Spirit, of which 1 Cor 12 shows that administrations are gifts, the following is an example of a singular "He" ruling:

Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

God bless.
So, in every church there is only a single person who "gives?" :blah And only one person who "shows mercy?" :blah

Instead of searching for proof texts that only seem to substantiate something you've already said, why not look to the Word of God with a fresh set of eyes and discover its truth for yourself?

[theoldpaths]

So, in every church there is only a single person who "gives?" :blah And only one person who "shows mercy?" :blah

Instead of searching for proof texts that only seem to substantiate something you've already said, why not look to the Word of God with a fresh set of eyes and discover its truth for yourself?

Gifts of the Spirit are for the body of Christ; are there many pastors in the body of Christ? Yes. Therefore, are there many rulers? Yes.

[GraceAmazing]

QUOTE:

Good stuff. For the record, I have no problem with pastoral authority in a church. My father has been a pastor for most of my life. He has done a fine job.

Where my concern lies is with reaching the lost. I truly feel that we are not living the example of Paul that you mentioned, and referred to scriptures that more or less say, "I become all things to all men". I loved your comment "
One could take the above and say that if anything could offend anyone and could possibly keep them from receiving an invitation to come and hear truth and getting saved, it should be avoided."

Wow! Think about that for a moment. We are talking about designing our churches to reflect the minimal amount of barriers for someone to come and be saved. Your post is suggesting that we avoid things that could offend someone from not hearing the truth.

Now the barriers:
1) You bring up hair in I Cor. 11. The principle throughout that scripture is referring to authority and submission before God. We have taken one word, "shorn" and used it to teach that a women's hair can never be cut. That to be long is to be uncut. We disregard other scriptures that specifically refer to shorn as being short, even Acts 18:18 where Paul's head was shorn because he had a vow before God. If God wanted it to be uncut, why didn't he just have Paul use the Greek word for uncut? For me, I have a problem with our classic intepretation.... I am sure we are creating a barrier that stops visitors from even considering coming to our church. IF someone wants to hold this as a personal conviction, well that is their choice... but please don't extend that to the congregation and put a stumbling block before the lost. I see a sinner lady with long hair, and I know it is long... even if it is cut. I notice the long hair, and my first thought is she is a woman. To ask ladies to have uncut hair is a major challenge to most newly converted saints.... and to sinners who are aware of this! My wife wasn't raised in Pentecost, is extremely intelligent, well educated, and saved. Now I am to ask her to abide by a teaching that can't be supported in scripture?

2) No beards on men! Ok, the 70's are over with. Why do we still need to try and hold this as a holiness standard? Why are books written in an effort to try and support the "no beard" standard? We want separation of the sexes and doesn't a man wearing a beard certainly have immediate distinction from a woman! I doubt the "no beard" standard stops many people from visiting a church, but why have it in place if it isn't scriptural?

3) Holiness tends to get thought of as a dress and acceptable look on a woman. We have accomplished "Separation". So as a man, how does my dress separate me from the world? The majority of our pentecostal men look no different from their conservative counterparts. We need to teach holiness as a lifestyle that is pleasing to God. We need a healthy fear of our actions before a holy God. We need to continually demonstrate a LOVE of GOD and PEOPLE. When was the last time I visited the sick, the widows.. or feed the hungry... or supported the orphans? Is this not holiness... loving like Jesus did?

Yes, I agree with the poster... if leadership mandates a requirement then it is bound in heaven for that church. If leadership looses something, then it is loosed in heaven. "All authority" was given....

So to everyone reading this. To pastors who might read this. Please consider that what we hold as traditions and call "old paths" and "landmarks" may just simply be a conservative choice done in the 1940's to align with the last few decades of culture. Don't twist the scriptures and attempt to force them to support your personal conviction! Ask yourself, why do you really call this a conviction? Will it help or hinder people getting saved? I'm looking for the real old paths, the ones the apostles and disciples trod... and if a mistake has been made, then lets have the guts to change it!!

Again, if our traditional holiness standards are TRUTH, then TRUTH will stand the scrutiny. Truth will stand on its own. To re-affirm TRUTH is not rebellious, it is healthy.

In the post to which I respond I am asked a few questions. Let me try and answer them in a concise manner.
1) The question is asked... "Why would God require some things of you, and not of me?" Let me ask, why was Timothy required to be circumcised and Cornelius wasn't?
I believe God requires certain things of different believers in an effort to purify them and remove certain "idols" in their life. I believe he also will require certain things from different people in an effort to reach the lost. I think the intent of your question was to in reference to a set "holiness standard" that encompassed all believers. Is it wrong for a woman to wear a pair of pants as she rides a snowmobile 60 miles across the tundra to go to church? Some would say that if a holy woman of God wears pants she is wrong... really?! Please show me the scriptures that would say the woman in my example is wrong before God and going to hell because of it. I believe she is modest, sensible, and trying to get to the house of God for worship.

2) The question was asked, "Incidentally, is there any scripture supporting that what God requires of you is different than what God requires of me?"
Yes. The Timothy circumcision example being one of them. Now look at Rom. 14:14. If you believe something is unclean, then the Bible says to you it is unclean... and read that whole chapter, and it says that for me, it is fine. (verse 20 is powerful).

3) You ask what some of the "idols" of today are? I would say one is the love of food. We have many, many people... including pastors/preachers that are drastically overweight. I mean XXXtremely. Doesn't the scriptures say that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost? Doesn't the Bible teach against obesity??
A second one is Hollywood entertainment. I am afraid we watch far to many movies/DVD's/Shows that cross over God's line of holiness. I am not saying, it is all wrong... but I am saying that too many of us preachers and saints alike, cross this line on a regular basis. Especially the generation under 40.
A possible third is money/possessions. Costly attire, costly vehicles, costly houses, etc.

Now, I read this and realize I didn't mean to get as detailed as I did. But I am frustrated. Yes, I admit it.
Lord, lead us to the cross. Remind us of what all this is about. How many people walk past our churches and never, ever come in? Are we so caught up trying to substantiate traditions and personal convictions that we have forgotten why we have the light?

Please God, lead us to the truly old paths..... please.
Remarkable post! I appreciate your honesty and I agree, I'm somewhat frustrated myself. I'm tired of hearing about how I'm losing my "holiness" just because I see things a little different. I haven't lost anything, of course, I haven't even changed anything! I'm tired of hearing how our generation doesn't love God and we're in the last days because look at this younger generation, they're so far from God. Somewhere something has to give. I'm just not sure what that thing will be...and when that will be...or where...

[HeavenlyOne]

It's better to use the quote box at the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote.

[theoldpaths]

< In response to CAD/JPY>

Obedience to 1 Cor 11 or any scripture for that matter is NOT a barrier.

Shorn or shaven. The hair is given for a covering. If a woman prays uncovered, then she has removed some (shorn) if not all (shaven) of her covering - what is her covering? Her hair.

I would encourage you to study more about this as there are other great resources that teach more in depth about this than just David Bernard's books.

Brother Larry Booker says in his book "What a difference a line makes" that he believes men's facial hair is not a heaven or hell issue; he goes on to give a very good explanation for what he believes and gives an illustration why. Regardless of facial hair, the above book is a very good read and would recommend it to every apostolic to read.

Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.

Paul wrote, 1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Incidentally, abmonination reveals something that God really hates - it reveals how he feels about something in his character. God changes not, the bible says; he may change what he requires of man, but He himself is not unstable and always changing.

Does God still require a distinction b/n the sexes in the NT? Absolutely, 1 Cor 11 teaching about hair shows just that.

Concerning holiness conservativism, I thank God that God's truth is pertinent to all centuries regardless of what the WORLD makes popular in culture for a certain period of time.

Should Pastors think very, very, very carefully before creating standards of holiness for their church? Yes, and they should probably pray and fast about it as well. IMHO, they should not be created on a whim.

Perhaps because one of Timothy's parents was a Jew and so in order to win the Jews and/or to avoid a debate on one things when really the Jews need to be born again? The context of Paul getting Timothy circumcized without any DIRECT scriptural commandment/admonishment was because one of Timothy's parents was a Jew and because of the Jews; can't say the same for Cornelius.

The snowmobile kinda reminds me of the argument of "what about those on their death bed?". Logical arguments for dismissing truth not based on a real-world example? An abomination to God for a man to wear that which pertaineth to a woman and vice-versa.

Incidentally, abmonination reveals something that God really hates - it reveals how he feels about something in his character. God changes not, the bible says; he may change what he requires of man, but He himself is not unstable and always changing.

Does God still require a distinction b/n the sexes in the NT? Absolutely, 1 Cor 11 teaching about hair shows just that.

Some other things that the unsaved idolize include - sports players, sport teams, American Idol (Why in the world any born again Christian would watch this show is beyond me), tv shows, tv stars, actors/actresses, jewelry, etc.

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

1Co 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
1Co 10:22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Some of "us" still do not watch any movies/DVD's/or tv shows.

When the UPC leaders/elders met, discussed, and decided against TV it was accompanied by tongues and interpretation with God himself uplifting the decision. Kinda reminds me of Matt 18 in the context of church leaders making decisions when Jesus said that whatsoever they would bind/loose on earth, he would bind/loose in heaven and said right after that in the same context, that if any 2 or 3 of them agreed as touching anything, it would be done. Some like to take that out of context, but if you read the whole context to that, you will see that in was in the context of church leaders/elders making decisions concerning church discipline. Imagine that, Jesus knowing that certain things would come up that he gave church leaders/elders the authority to make decisions that God himself would stand behind. Wow - man making decisions that Jesus would stand behind! But they had to be in agreement, in unity.

And of course we have a practial example of this in Acts concerning circumcision as stated before - leaders/elders coming together to discuss an issue and decisions being made and communicated to the rest of the churches whom it affected. Did God somehow indicate that he would back up the decision that MEN made? Yes he did...

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Somehow God by the Holy Ghost - God's Spirit working in man - showed that it seemed good unto Him. Was it by tongues and interpretation? The bible doesn't say, but what it does say is that some how it seemed good to the Holy Ghost.

Kinda reminds me of the 3 year nightly revival at Azuza Street. But after the leader (Seymour or Parham - I can't remember) rejected the tongues and interpretation of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for 2 nights in a row if I remember correctly, then the revival petered out and the leader ended up going astray and had a bad end.

We don't throw away obedience to God's word and the decisions that our leaders/elders have made with God by the HOly Ghost endorsing it.

[CC1]

theoldpaths,

One of the problems of using anecodtal instances of a move of the Holy Spirit or tongue and interpretation as proof of something is that many times those same things happen in groups promoting exactly the opposite thing.

I am sure there has been tongues and interpretation in ultra con meetings confirming bans against the color red, open toed shoes, panty hose, etc, etc so does that mean that pastors, churches, and saints who don't adhere to those bans are wrong?

[theoldpaths]

theoldpaths,

One of the problems of using anecodtal instances of a move of the Holy Spirit or tongue and interpretation as proof of something is that many times those same things happen in groups promoting exactly the opposite thing.

I am sure there has been tongues and interpretation in ultra con meetings confirming bans against the color red, open toed shoes, panty hose, etc, etc so does that mean that pastors, churches, and saints who don't adhere to those bans are wrong?

See the interesting thing about that is before I got REALLY saved in an apostolic church obeying Acts 2:38, I was "charismatic born again" attending charismatic churches for about 1.5 years. And you know what I experienced in trinitiarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to, churches that don't have the truth? I observed tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophesy, "thus saith the Lord...", etc.

So the question is - who do you think is the one speaking with tongues and interpretations in the false churches? It would seem to me that if it was GOD speaking in the churches preaching and teaching false doctrine, that he would tell them to leave and go to a church that has truth; or tell them truth in that church so they would obey. But guess what? That doesn't happen otherwise, they would all leave and join churches that have truth or would change their teaching to truth. So I ask again, who do you think is speaking with tongues and interpretations of tongues, and prophecies in these churches?

So in the whole gambit of "christian pentecostal churches", on the one side you have the trinitarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to; and on the other side you have apostolic churches with the truth; and then you have EVERY THING ELSE IN BETWEEN.

I am not aware of any tongues and interpretation regarding the other things that you have listed; but I am aware of the tongues and interpretation that did come with the leaders and the elders of the UPC regarding TV. That is a REAL thing that happened and it is recorded in writing.

Glory to God!

[JTULLOCK]

See the interesting thing about that is before I got REALLY saved in an apostolic church obeying Acts 2:38, I was "charismatic born again" attending charismatic churches for about 1.5 years. And you know what I experienced in trinitiarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to, churches that don't have the truth? I observed tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophesy, "thus saith the Lord...", etc.

So the question is - who do you think is the one speaking with tongues and interpretations in the false churches? It would seem to me that if it was GOD speaking in the churches preaching and teaching false doctrine, that he would tell them to leave and go to a church that has truth; or tell them truth in that church so they would obey. But guess what? That doesn't happen otherwise, they would all leave and join churches that have truth or would change their teaching to truth. So I ask again, who do you think is speaking with tongues and interpretations of tongues, and prophecies in these churches?

So in the whole gambit of "christian pentecostal churches", on the one side you have the trinitarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to; and on the other side you have apostolic churches with the truth; and then you have EVERY THING ELSE IN BETWEEN.

I am not aware of any tongues and interpretation regarding the other things that you have listed; but I am aware of the tongues and interpretation that did come with the leaders and the elders of the UPC regarding TV. That is a REAL thing that happened and it is recorded in writing.

Glory to God!

This does not suprise me. Whether is was tongues for or against it would not suprise me. I am not sure if the thing CC1 mentioned have happend before, but I do of an instance in a church in IL, that I attended, where a person was up front and acted like they recvd the HG ala Borat. He began to act and the people rejoiced. He stopped and turned to them laughing and cursing saying he faked it and made a big scene. He was dismissed from the service with force. After that the people began to pray and tongues with interpretation came forth and the message was something to the affect of,
I have dismissed the man that faked it he is now cursed'...yada yada. Was it of God? Could have been. Could it have been from the mouths of the giver and the interpreter? Sure.

[JTULLOCK]

See the interesting thing about that is before I got REALLY saved in an apostolic church obeying Acts 2:38, I was "charismatic born again" attending charismatic churches for about 1.5 years. And you know what I experienced in trinitiarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to, churches that don't have the truth? I observed tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophesy, "thus saith the Lord...", etc.
So the question is - who do you think is the one speaking with tongues and interpretations in the false churches? It would seem to me that if it was GOD speaking in the churches preaching and teaching false doctrine, that he would tell them to leave and go to a church that has truth; or tell them truth in that church so they would obey. But guess what? That doesn't happen otherwise, they would all leave and join churches that have truth or would change their teaching to truth. So I ask again, who do you think is speaking with tongues and interpretations of tongues, and prophecies in these churches?

So in the whole gambit of "christian pentecostal churches", on the one side you have the trinitarian, easy-believism, speak in tongues anytime YOU want to; and on the other side you have apostolic churches with the truth; and then you have EVERY THING ELSE IN BETWEEN.

I am not aware of any tongues and interpretation regarding the other things that you have listed; but I am aware of the tongues and interpretation that did come with the leaders and the elders of the UPC regarding TV. That is a REAL thing that happened and it is recorded in writing.

Glory to God!

One more thing...
The underlined portion seems funny to me. You mention the move of God in these churches and even the gifts moving. I well know that moving of the gifts does not always mean God current approval. But that is not always the case. We all know people that God has annointed that left the Mother-ship and gone crazy and some that have not gone crazy. Both side are often time equally used of God. Some could say that is because of OP roots that these have. I say whatever. But one the note about the underlined portion is now you assume, it seems, that these people are not right with God. God is NO respector of persons. Just my opinion but I do not think God is as caught up in doctrine about Him as we are. People make the statements that if you are not in the OP church you ain't saved. Who are we to say? We certainly are not God. If God is annointing and moving in an assembly I am not a doubter. God can and will do what He wants and not what we say He will. It amazes me that tons of OP's think the same way that they have a monopoly on the 'truth'. It is sick, IMO, to be so arogant to ........ people cause they do not fit the OP vision of what the church is. Old Paths, this is not directed at you personally, but the OP church in general, but I am using your word as a guide for my points. Please take no offense

[HeavenlyOne]

I am not aware of any tongues and interpretation regarding the other things that you have listed; but I am aware of the tongues and interpretation that did come with the leaders and the elders of the UPC regarding TV. That is a REAL thing that happened and it is recorded in writing.

Glory to God!

But not internet?

:happydance:happydance:happydance

[theoldpaths]

But not internet?

:happydance:happydance:happydance

I'm not aware of the UPC leaders/elders coming together and making a decision regarding the internet as a whole. The fact that the UPC home page (http://www.upci.org/) contains resources for their members also confirms this. Incidentally, the UPC also recommends a tool for safe internet surfing.

Now what a particular pastor in the UPC decides for his own church that he pastors and will have to give an account to God for, I cannot say.

God bless.

[tv1a]

You won't get a tongues an interpretation about the internet because they want the internet.

But not internet?

:happydance:happydance:happydance

[tv1a]

The UPCI Manual has an internet resolution. It's wording is very similar to the television resolution with one major inconsistency: Internet is permissable, television is not. Yeah their words speak volume.

I'm not aware of the UPC leaders/elders coming together and making a decision regarding the internet as a whole. The fact that the UPC home page (http://www.upci.org/) contains resources for their members also confirms this. Incidentally, the UPC also recommends a tool for safe internet surfing.

Now what a particular pastor in the UPC decides for his own church that he pastors and will have to give an account to God for, I cannot say.

God bless.

[theoldpaths]

You won't get a tongues an interpretation about the internet because they want the internet.

Well, we know that tongues is as the Spirit gives the utterance and who gives the interpretation of tongues? God as well. Is God swayed about what men may or may not want? Not at all.

Is every apparent tongue and interpretation of tongues in the whole gambit of "Christian Pentecost" from God? I would have to say no.

[HeavenlyOne]

I'm not aware of the UPC leaders/elders coming together and making a decision regarding the internet as a whole. The fact that the UPC home page (http://www.upci.org/) contains resources for their members also confirms this. Incidentally, the UPC also recommends a tool for safe internet surfing.

Now what a particular pastor in the UPC decides for his own church that he pastors and will have to give an account to God for, I cannot say.

God bless.

God only gives T&I in regard to decisions that the UPC leaders and elders make? LOL!

Now, why can't the UPC recommend ways to watch safe programming? And why do they just recommend instead of require? If they required, perhaps their own wouldn't be falling as they are, i.e. park rendezvous and internet affairs.

I have yet to hear of a minister, pastor, or even just a saint fall into sin over having a TV. Not one divorce or adulterous affair have I ever heard come from the watching of the tube.

Why hasn't God told the ALJC crowd in a T&I that TV is wrong? Don't they have the same spirit we do?

Perhaps the interpreters aren't willing. ;) Yeah, that must be it. :D

[HeavenlyOne]

Well, we know that tongues is as the Spirit gives the utterance and who gives the interpretation of tongues? God as well. Is God swayed about what men may or may not want? Not at all.

Is every apparent tongue and interpretation of tongues in the whole gambit of "Christian Pentecost" from God? I would have to say no.

Do you honestly believe God cares about TV as if it's the evil being and the cause for all sin?

Sin comes from the hearts of men, not from TV, internet, or anything else. If God is concerned about what's going on, He'll address the real issue...our hearts.

TV has nothing to do with the evils of this world.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Do you honestly believe God cares about TV as if it's the evil being and the cause for all sin?

Sin comes from the hearts of men, not from TV, internet, or anything else. If God is concerned about what's going on, He'll address the real issue...our hearts.

TV has nothing to do with the evils of this world.

No God doesn't care about TV but he does care about what you watch. He doesn't care about surfing the internet but he does care about where you surf, and he does care about who you choose as hero's in your life and the music you listen to.

I agree with what you have said except, TV and the evils of this world along with the Internet, movies, Video games, having low class professional sports people as heroes, music and many more things. We don't eliminate all these things from our lives but we monitor what we watch, play and listen to. Teaching in the church is the key, not restricting. And teaching is not threatening.

[tv1a]

I give the people who decided the television issue the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt they based their decision on principle. I beleive they seriously prayed about it before coming to their conclusion.

Evidence suggests the upci internet resolution was not prayerfully considered. One uses a lot of the same terminology that blasts one technology to hell while coddling another technology hasn't been in the prayer closet much. Not one person has publically stated they prayed and fasted about the internet with the same fervency. It is because they desired the medium. They don't have a single original conviction in their body. Living off the convictions of the past. Reminds me of the sect of religious people who crucified Jesus.

God's principles are not a smorgasboard. Pick and choose when to apply principle.

The anti-tv crowd is worse than Democrats in speading misinformation.
They say television leads to compromise in doctrine and standards. The ALJC is proof that is false. I suggest they grow up





God only gives T&I in regard to decisions that the UPC leaders and elders make? LOL!

Now, why can't the UPC recommend ways to watch safe programming? And why do they just recommend instead of require? If they required, perhaps their own wouldn't be falling as they are, i.e. park rendezvous and internet affairs.

I have yet to hear of a minister, pastor, or even just a saint fall into sin over having a TV. Not one divorce or adulterous affair have I ever heard come from the watching of the tube.

Why hasn't God told the ALJC crowd in a T&I that TV is wrong? Don't they have the same spirit we do?

Perhaps the interpreters aren't willing. ;) Yeah, that must be it. :D

[theoldpaths]

God only gives T&I in regard to decisions that the UPC leaders and elders make? LOL!

Now, why can't the UPC recommend ways to watch safe programming? And why do they just recommend instead of require? If they required, perhaps their own wouldn't be falling as they are, i.e. park rendezvous and internet affairs.

I have yet to hear of a minister, pastor, or even just a saint fall into sin over having a TV. Not one divorce or adulterous affair have I ever heard come from the watching of the tube.

Why hasn't God told the ALJC crowd in a T&I that TV is wrong? Don't they have the same spirit we do?

Perhaps the interpreters aren't willing. ;) Yeah, that must be it. :D

God only gives T&I in regard to decisions that the UPC leaders and elders make?

I never said that - what i did say is that regarding 1 decision that the UPC leaders/elders made decades ago, it was accompanied by tongues and interpretation basically supporting the decision.

While I and my Pastor both agree that there are some good things on tv, there is also much bad. And once you find something good and wholesome on tv, next thing you know there is a commercial with a half-naked lady advertising whatever.

The following link, from a UPC site endorsing an internet tool for safe browsing, contains some interesting information/confessions/statistics - http://bsafeupci.com/why_filtering.asp

Does the same context exist on cable tv? Yes it does.

But each person is going to have to come to a decision on their own. As for me, my mind is made up. I've gone from a strict UPC church, to a very, very loose apostolic church pastored by someone who started the church partly because they were publicly rebuked for committing adultery. Did I own/watch tv in the loose church? Yes I did. I experimented with watching a lot of stuff, then I experimented with only trying to watch sports, news, nature stuff, etc; and I also experimented fasting completely from tv in the loose church. After all of my experimenting, I concluded that I was much stronger doing without tv. Incidentally, God lead me back to the strict UPC church where I was originally born again, and things have been going great. Incidentally, I don't watch tv there either.

Lots of people claim to have the Spirit, even me when I was a trinitarian, easy-believism, talk-in-tongues-anytime-I-wanted-to, pentecostal. But I can tell you now since I was born again apostolic, that I did NOT have the real thing back then - beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not everyone who claims the Spirit has the Spirit.

God bless.

[theoldpaths]

Do you honestly believe God cares about TV as if it's the evil being and the cause for all sin?

Sin comes from the hearts of men, not from TV, internet, or anything else. If God is concerned about what's going on, He'll address the real issue...our hearts.

TV has nothing to do with the evils of this world.

I believe that God cares about what you think about, what you set before your eyes, and what you hear. Why do I believe that? Because that is what his word says.

Throughout the years its has not only been the UPC that has taken a stand against tv.

When I compare what is on tv according to what the bible teaches, I see a big difference, for the most part.

Studied have been done regarding the content on tv and its affect.

One thing I learned recently is that in order to keep people's attention, a tv program will change the camera view point every 9 seconds or so. Why do they do this even though it is taking place in the same scene? To make it more interesting. They found out that to make it more interesting to the eyes, they change the tv camere angle often. One result of this is that some children are used to having the lust of their eyes fulfilled by frequently changing the camera angle to maintain their interest. Then they go to school and just see the same old viewpoint, minute after minute. No wonder teachers have a problem keeping some kids attention.

1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 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.
1Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Is lust of the eyes just talking about sex? I don't think so as we see a practical example of Satan appealing to Eve regarding these exact same 3 things...

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Now how did mankind survive for thousands of years without tv? What need is it that man has that he feels he needs to fulfill by watching tv? Did that need still exist 100 years ago? And so how was it fulfilled 100 years ago?

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Can a person have pleasure in others that do bad things?

[theoldpaths]

Also, what point is it to come up with godly rules/regulations if you are not going to enforce discipline for those in direct disobedience? My understanding is that UPC licensed ministers have to renew their license each year which requires them to re-affirm their agreement to abide by bare-minimum standards in the UPC manual. Some for a long time ago have been re-affirming, but not obeying. Has there been any discipline? Not from what I've heard. This seems hypicrital to me and apparently to a lot of other licensed UPC ministers who have decided to organize the WPF. Either enforce discipline or change the manual.

Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Also, what point is it to come up with godly rules/regulations if you are not going to enforce discipline for those in direct disobedience? My understanding is that UPC licensed ministers have to renew their license each year which requires them to re-affirm their agreement to abide by bare-minimum standards in the UPC manual. Some for a long time ago have been re-affirming, but not obeying. Has there been any discipline? Not from what I've heard. This seems hypicrital to me and apparently to a lot of other licensed UPC ministers who have decided to organize the WPF. Either enforce discipline or change the manual.

Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

I know what you are saying but the UPCI is not a police organization. It would be impossible to keep track of what each and every minister is doing. If the minister signs and then doesn't obey it is between he and God. Personally, I'd like to see the TV thing eliminated from the UPC manual. Although I don't want to see UPC churches on TV. TV evangelists and TV churches have left a bad taste in the mouths of people. I think it is OK to advertise but not have live church programs.

I have a TV and am licensed but with another organization. As far as I know none of our churches are on TV either but we don't teach against TV but do teach about what we should watch on TV. When I was licensed with UPC I forgot about the TV thing and did renew. It was an oversight and I dropped my membership. Our UPC church did not harp on TV. Our pastor said he wished the people didn't have them but he didn't think it was a heaven or hell issue. I have always felt that if I couldn't watch a program because I would be uncomfortable with my daughters or grandchildren sitting next to me then I shouldn't watch it either. Or if I would feel uncomfortable having that person in my living room using the language he is using or doing the things he was doing then I need to hit the off or change channel button.

Probably the wildest program I watch is Monk or Matlock!!:happydance

[HeavenlyOne]

No God doesn't care about TV but he does care about what you watch. He doesn't care about surfing the internet but he does care about where you surf, and he does care about who you choose as hero's in your life and the music you listen to.

I agree with what you have said except, TV and the evils of this world along with the Internet, movies, Video games, having low class professional sports people as heroes, music and many more things. We don't eliminate all these things from our lives but we monitor what we watch, play and listen to. Teaching in the church is the key, not restricting. And teaching is not threatening.

I completely agree. It's also no different than being careful about what books we read, but we don't eliminate reading any and all books.

[HeavenlyOne]

God only gives T&I in regard to decisions that the UPC leaders and elders make?

I never said that - what i did say is that regarding 1 decision that the UPC leaders/elders made decades ago, it was accompanied by tongues and interpretation basically supporting the decision.

While I and my Pastor both agree that there are some good things on tv, there is also much bad. And once you find something good and wholesome on tv, next thing you know there is a commercial with a half-naked lady advertising whatever.

The following link, from a UPC site endorsing an internet tool for safe browsing, contains some interesting information/confessions/statistics - http://bsafeupci.com/why_filtering.asp

Does the same context exist on cable tv? Yes it does.

But each person is going to have to come to a decision on their own. As for me, my mind is made up. I've gone from a strict UPC church, to a very, very loose apostolic church pastored by someone who started the church partly because they were publicly rebuked for committing adultery. Did I own/watch tv in the loose church? Yes I did. I experimented with watching a lot of stuff, then I experimented with only trying to watch sports, news, nature stuff, etc; and I also experimented fasting completely from tv in the loose church. After all of my experimenting, I concluded that I was much stronger doing without tv. Incidentally, God lead me back to the strict UPC church where I was originally born again, and things have been going great. Incidentally, I don't watch tv there either.

Lots of people claim to have the Spirit, even me when I was a trinitarian, easy-believism, talk-in-tongues-anytime-I-wanted-to, pentecostal. But I can tell you now since I was born again apostolic, that I did NOT have the real thing back then - beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Not everyone who claims the Spirit has the Spirit.

God bless.

I agree with what you say here, but that's not what you alluded to. I don't believe God is going to give a T&I to a church who's eldership made a decision based on opinions and personal preferences and use the T&I to prove that all should abide by them.

If I came to you, telling you that God gave a T&I in my church about the evils of internet in the same manner you claim He did with TV, would you get rid of internet? I seriously doubt it, and I wouldn't blame you. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that you would even doubt my story.

The ALJC isn't a 'loose' church organization. They are filled with the same spirit that you are filled with whether you want to admit it or not. That being the case, one has to wonder why God will give the UPC a T&I against the evils of TV but not enlighten the ALJC about the same issue.

Personally, I believe God has more important messages to deliver, like how the hearts of men should be clean and washed daily.

[HeavenlyOne]

One thing I learned recently is that in order to keep people's attention, a tv program will change the camera view point every 9 seconds or so. Why do they do this even though it is taking place in the same scene? To make it more interesting. They found out that to make it more interesting to the eyes, they change the tv camere angle often. One result of this is that some children are used to having the lust of their eyes fulfilled by frequently changing the camera angle to maintain their interest. Then they go to school and just see the same old viewpoint, minute after minute. No wonder teachers have a problem keeping some kids attention.



Have you ever watched a BOTT video? They do the same thing!!!! LOL!

It breaks up the monotony, but has nothing to do with 'lust of the eyes'. It's just a different angle. We aren't there in person to see the entire picture like being in a service in person, so filming from different angles gives you a better idea of the setup.

Teachers have no more of a problem keeping kids' attention in schools today than they had 100 years ago. It has nothing to do with TV, but with parents. 100 years ago, your daddy would wear you out. Today, daddies don't touch their kids, if there is even a daddy around. TV isn't to blame. Parents are.

Blaming TV for the problems in society is akin to blaming guns for promoting violence. Guns don't kill people. People kill people and some use guns to do it.

It's the same with TV (as it is with internet or any other form of media or entertainment). It's not TV that is making our kids stupider and uncontrollable. It's the lack of control on the hands of the parents that is the problem today.

Now I done went off on a tangent....LOL!

[SOUNWORTHY]

HO you are correct. I started teaching about 40 years ago and the kids were the same then as they are now. I never had problems with kids, I had problems with parents. The kids who respected their parents, respected me. Oh, for the good old days when the parents could and would yield the paddle, and teachers dressed like teachers and acted like Profellionals.

[tv1a]

The same people who believe changing a camera angle every nine seconds encourages lustful tendancies are problabbly the same people who think one will do drugs while listening to the Beatles played backwards.

Have you ever watched a BOTT video? They do the same thing!!!! LOL!

It breaks up the monotony, but has nothing to do with 'lust of the eyes'. It's just a different angle. We aren't there in person to see the entire picture like being in a service in person, so filming from different angles gives you a better idea of the setup.

Teachers have no more of a problem keeping kids' attention in schools today than they had 100 years ago. It has nothing to do with TV, but with parents. 100 years ago, your daddy would wear you out. Today, daddies don't touch their kids, if there is even a daddy around. TV isn't to blame. Parents are.

Blaming TV for the problems in society is akin to blaming guns for promoting violence. Guns don't kill people. People kill people and some use guns to do it.

It's the same with TV (as it is with internet or any other form of media or entertainment). It's not TV that is making our kids stupider and uncontrollable. It's the lack of control on the hands of the parents that is the problem today.

Now I done went off on a tangent....LOL!

[theoldpaths]

I know what you are saying but the UPCI is not a police organization. It would be impossible to keep track of what each and every minister is doing. If the minister signs and then doesn't obey it is between he and God. Personally, I'd like to see the TV thing eliminated from the UPC manual. Although I don't want to see UPC churches on TV. TV evangelists and TV churches have left a bad taste in the mouths of people. I think it is OK to advertise but not have live church programs.

I have a TV and am licensed but with another organization. As far as I know none of our churches are on TV either but we don't teach against TV but do teach about what we should watch on TV. When I was licensed with UPC I forgot about the TV thing and did renew. It was an oversight and I dropped my membership. Our UPC church did not harp on TV. Our pastor said he wished the people didn't have them but he didn't think it was a heaven or hell issue. I have always felt that if I couldn't watch a program because I would be uncomfortable with my daughters or grandchildren sitting next to me then I shouldn't watch it either. Or if I would feel uncomfortable having that person in my living room using the language he is using or doing the things he was doing then I need to hit the off or change channel button.

Probably the wildest program I watch is Monk or Matlock!!:happydance

I know what you are saying but the UPCI is not a police organization. It would be impossible to keep track of what each and every minister is doing. If the minister signs and then doesn't obey it is between he and God.


This sounds like the same argument that a Pastor never needs to enforce church discipline and/or to never reprove nor rebuke church members. The simple fact of the matter is that church leadership has a responsibility from the word of God to reprove and rebuke. If they don't take action then they are not fulfilling their god-given responsibility. Will it only affect them? No because a little leaven, leavens the whole lump. Consider Achan in the valley of Achor. Because of of 1 man's disobedience, thousands of innocent, obedient men of God lost their lives on the front lines to their enemies. But because the leader was a man chosen of God who was fulfilling his responsibilities and not rebelling in disobedience to his elders, he sought God and God revealed the root cause of the problem and it was removed. Afterwards, God's people had victory over their enemies. Compromise causes a church to lose its power and the enemy to gain victory over them. A little leaven, leavens the whole lump.

Our pastor said he wished the people didn't have them but he didn't think it was a heaven or hell issue.

So instead of being obedient to his elders above him, he decided to make light of the issue. I wonder how a Pastor would feel if that is what his flock started doing to him?

Even though decision that the elders made was accompanied by tongues and interpretation from God basically backing the decision.

Kinda reminds me of Jesus telling his apostles/disciples in Matt 18 that whatsoever they bind on earth, He would bind in heaven, and whatsoever they loose on earth, He would loose in heaven.

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Seemed good to the HOly Ghost and to us; God somehow, it doesn't say how, but somehow indicated that He backed the decision made by men.

God bless.

[SOUNWORTHY]

I know what you are saying but the UPCI is not a police organization. It would be impossible to keep track of what each and every minister is doing. If the minister signs and then doesn't obey it is between he and God.


This sounds like the same argument that a Pastor never needs to enforce church discipline and/or to never reprove nor rebuke church members.

Our pastor said he wished the people didn't have them but he didn't think it was a heaven or hell issue.

So instead of being obedient to his elders above him, he decided to make light of the issue. I wonder how a Pastor would feel if that is what his flock started doing to him?

.

Old paths, it would be interesting to know where you are from. I dislike the words, enforce, and rebuke. If it is taught, the true saint will line up, if he doesn't rebuking and enforcement won't work either. Years ago I attended the _____ church in _______ and there was a lot of enforcing and rebuking there and in too many cases it only left fear and anger but did not make stronger saints. It is teaching in a loving manner that produces strong saints. It is not done through threats and intimidating people. By the way, I do attend two UPC churches in different states, both have strong fantastic pastors.

[theoldpaths]

Old paths, it would be interesting to know where you are from. I dislike the words, enforce, and rebuke. If it is taught, the true saint will line up, if he doesn't rebuking and enforcement won't work either. Years ago I attended the _____ church in _______ and there was a lot of enforcing and rebuking there and in too many cases it only left fear and anger but did not make stronger saints. It is teaching in a loving manner that produces strong saints. It is not done through threats and intimidating people. By the way, I do attend two UPC churches in different states, both have strong fantastic pastors.

I dislike the words, enforce, and rebuke.

Then I suppose you dislike a lot of scriptures in proverbs and in the NT that contain words like reprove, rebuke, etc.

if he doesn't rebuking and enforcement won't work either.

1 Cor 5 is an example of church discipline that escalated up pretty high. According to 2 Cor 2, it appears that the discipline worked.

1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Why did Paul exercise discipline on these 2 if he know it wouldn't work? He did it so that they would learn a lesson.

Correction has a purpose and its NOT to show how much power/authority a person has; if that's your motive, then I contend that you should NOT be in leadership.

It is teaching in a loving manner that produces strong saints.

I agree that correction should start off with love and the spirit of meekness.

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

However, if after correcting someone in a loving manner and giving them space to repent (Rev 2:21), if they still haven't repented, then I believe the scriptures show that correction can be escalated.

Jesus:

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Paul:

1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
1Co 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Rod = correction

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Paul wrote about about restoring in the spirit of meekness, but he also wrote about coming with a rod and bewailing those who had sinned and not repented.

I've used this analogy before on this site...

Its like a loving mother who sees her little boy with a fork going in the direction of an electrical outlet but is still far away. She tells him with loving concern to not go to the outlet. When she sees that the boy did not listen to her and continues, she raises her voice and gets a little firmer with the little boy. Finally, when she sees that he still hasn't heeded, she gets up smacks the boys hand.

Now why did she do this? Because she loved the little boy and saw that he was going to get hurt if he continued. Did the attempted correction escalate? Yes it did, for HIS sake.

The pastor is the watchman, looking for trouble and when he sees trouble, he sounds the alarm. He is also the shepherd with a rod and a staff. What is the purpose function of the rod? Correction.

I've heard it told that some shepherds when they have a sheep that has a tendency to wander away from the flock, will sometimes purposely break the leg of the sheep, then bind it up, and carry the sheep on its shoulders, until the leg heals and the sheep is able to walk on its own.

Now I can't speak to the church that you were going to where lots of rebuking was going on. Have some UPC men been given license's who should NOT have been given licenses? One district super in Apostolic Man has confessed to giving licenses to men that afterwards he confessed he shouldn`t have. Do I think that problems are caused when a man has been given a license who should NOT have been given a license and so he thinks he is called to Pastor? I certainly do. Do I think every person who graduates from an "Apostolic" Bible College is called to be a Pastor? Nope. Have some "Pastor's" abused their power/authority? Perhaps.

In any event, we have the word of God which shows us that the ministry does have a responsibility to reprove, rebuke, correct with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Why 2 different UPC churches? Are you still attending the UPC church where God planted you?

I attend a WPF church with a Pastor whose UPC license will expire sometime this year with no intention of renewing it. He was the district super of his district as well.

I am still attending the church where God planted me.

[theoldpaths]

I agree with what you say here, but that's not what you alluded to. I don't believe God is going to give a T&I to a church who's eldership made a decision based on opinions and personal preferences and use the T&I to prove that all should abide by them.

If I came to you, telling you that God gave a T&I in my church about the evils of internet in the same manner you claim He did with TV, would you get rid of internet? I seriously doubt it, and I wouldn't blame you. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that you would even doubt my story.

The ALJC isn't a 'loose' church organization. They are filled with the same spirit that you are filled with whether you want to admit it or not. That being the case, one has to wonder why God will give the UPC a T&I against the evils of TV but not enlighten the ALJC about the same issue.

Personally, I believe God has more important messages to deliver, like how the hearts of men should be clean and washed daily.

I don't believe God is going to give a T&I to a church who's eldership made a decision based on opinions and personal preferences and use the T&I to prove that all should abide by them

God did give tongues and interpretation. Did the leadership in Acts write about the decision that MEN came up with seeming good unto the HOly Ghost - yes they did. Why did they even bother writing that the decision seemed good unto God and didn't just say that the leadership made a decision and they were to abide by it? Obviously to add weight to the decision.

I'm not aware of any T&I regarding getting rid of the internet.

Incidentally, Brother Larry Booker preached a 3 hour message to the General Board of the UPC explaining the difference b/n TV and the internet. Wish I could have been there.

Now concerning someone claiming to be speaking by the Spirit of God - this reminded me of a story in the bible. It can be found in 1 King 22 and 2 Chronicles 8. The context of the story was the king of judah visiting the king of israel. Historical background - Israel was split into 2 kingdoms after one person rebelled the god-given authority over him and set up his own kingdom in his own way, changed God's true religion into his own way, and changed God's true priesthood into his own way. One way that he appealed to his subjects NOT going to where God had ordained that His people should worship at Jerusalem was...

1Ki 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

Its too much - its too hard! What the Lord had ordained, Jeroboam told them that it was too hard. Appealing to the lazy flesh of man.

What else did Jeroboam do? He cast out those who were God's chosen priests from being priests in the split kingdom of Israel.

But in spite of this rebellion from God's authority, religion, and priests, the bible records this...

2Ch 11:13 And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts.
2Ch 11:14 For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD:
2Ch 11:15 And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.
2Ch 11:16 And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.

In spite of the rebellion, the Levites and all those who set their hearts to seek the LORD God came to Jerusalem. They knew what God had set up and the right way that God had ordained to do things and followed it. Unfortunately, not everyone came to Jerusalem, but remained under the leadership of the man who rebelled against God's authority.

But one day, the ruler of Judah came to the ruler of Israel to visit and the ruler of Israel asked the ruler of Judah if he would join him in a battle. And of course the King of Judah asked to inquire of the LORD first. So the King of Israel, gathered 400 of his prophets who all prophesied that the LORD would give them victory. The King of Judah inquired if there were yet a prophet of the LORD. The King of Israel said there was but that he hated him because he always spoke evil of him. Well what do you expect from a kingdom that was started out of rebellion against the God-given authority over him?

To make a long story short, the 1 prophet of the LORD said that the King would die. So it was 400 prophets all prophesying 1 way and only 1 prophet of the LORD prophesying the other way. As the story goes, the 1 prophet of the LORD was right and the 400 prophets were wrong!

Now I'm not familiar with the ALJC or its history - is there a page somewhere that shows its history/origins? Some questions that come to my mind is - have the leadership ever sincerely fasted and sought God on the issue? In the UPC the T&I was given in response to the leadership seeking the will of God on this issue.

Like i've stated before, i was charismatic before in false doctrine and there was t&i and prophecies and I've been in a strong UPC/WPF church with t&i and prophecies; and then there is EVERY CHURCH IN BETWEEN.

And yes there are more important messages - especially for sinners who have never been born again before. What they need first is to get born again. Holiness imho falls into that category of Jesus saying that he had many more things to say but they couldn't BEAR IT until after they got the Holy Ghost. Some things cannot be borne until a person gets the Holy Ghost. You don't clean a fish until you catch it. Trying to obey all of the NT without the born again of the water and the Spirit is a frustrating experience.

Those who ARE born again and have been living for God for a long time - to whom much is given, much is required. If one gets dirt in their hearts from whatever, then for sure they are going to have to wash and clean their hearts.

[Cindy]

Really appreciate your posts here OP.

[theoldpaths]

Have you ever watched a BOTT video? They do the same thing!!!! LOL!

It breaks up the monotony, but has nothing to do with 'lust of the eyes'. It's just a different angle. We aren't there in person to see the entire picture like being in a service in person, so filming from different angles gives you a better idea of the setup.

Teachers have no more of a problem keeping kids' attention in schools today than they had 100 years ago. It has nothing to do with TV, but with parents. 100 years ago, your daddy would wear you out. Today, daddies don't touch their kids, if there is even a daddy around. TV isn't to blame. Parents are.

Blaming TV for the problems in society is akin to blaming guns for promoting violence. Guns don't kill people. People kill people and some use guns to do it.

It's the same with TV (as it is with internet or any other form of media or entertainment). It's not TV that is making our kids stupider and uncontrollable. It's the lack of control on the hands of the parents that is the problem today.

Now I done went off on a tangent....LOL!

Not really sure what a BOTT video is.

I wonder why the parents aren't able to fulfill their responsibilities to their children?

Here are some interesting stat's concerning tv and children just in the U.S. ...

TV and Children

81% of children ages 2-7 watch TV alone and unsupervised

70% of day care centers use TV during a typical day

54% of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV and spending time with their fathers, said they would prefer to watch television

It has been shown that children who watch TV more than 10 hours a week suffer negative academic effects

The average American child ages 2-11 watches television 20 hours a week

TV and Violence

By age 18, the average American child sees 200,000 violent acts on TV.

By age 18, children witnesses almost 20,000 murders on TV — most by handguns.

73% of the time the people in TV dramas who commit violent acts go unpunished.

47% percent of violent situations show no real harm to the victims, and 58 percent show no real pain.

Only 4 percent of violent programs show nonviolent alternatives to solve programs.

80% of Hollywood executives think there is a link between TV violence and real-life violence.

TV and Obesity

During Saturday morning cartoons there are typically more than 200 "junk-food" commercials.

At least 12 medical studies link excessive television watching to increasing rates of obesity.

In 1963, 4.5% of children ages 6 to 11 were seriously overweight; by 2001, this percentage had more than tripled.

Concerning TV and the impact on kids at school and reading...The Impact of Television: A Natural Experiment in Three Communities...http://world.std.com/~jlr/comment/tv_impact.htm

Another interesting link - ELECTRONIC HEROIN - http://dieoff.org/page21.htm

So why don't parents fulfill their responsibility to their kids? Are they under the same spell? Do they not want to be hypocrites forbidding their children to watch and do the same things they do? And even if they do, will they always be around to watch them?

Some things to think about.

[theoldpaths]

The same people who believe changing a camera angle every nine seconds encourages lustful tendancies are problabbly the same people who think one will do drugs while listening to the Beatles played backwards.

TV's are addictive and networks will do anything to keep you glued to their networks.

The world is no friend of the church. In fact...

Jas 4:4 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.

[theoldpaths]

Really appreciate your posts here OP.

Thank you for your encouragement and God bless you.

God gives strength to overcome the world.

Some lessons we learn the easy way, some the hard way; and sometimes our backsliding will teach us some things; i have learned.

To God be all the praise and the Glory!

[Tim Rutledge]

Incidentally, Brother Larry Booker preached a 3 hour message to the General Board of the UPC explaining the difference b/n TV and the internet. Wish I could have been there.


The oldpaths?? does this preaching tape or cd exist??

TR

[theoldpaths]

Incidentally, Brother Larry Booker preached a 3 hour message to the General Board of the UPC explaining the difference b/n TV and the internet. Wish I could have been there.


The oldpaths?? does this preaching tape or cd exist??

TR

I don't know. I went to Bro Larry Booker's Church's homepage (http://www.inlandlighthouse.com/new/page.php) yesterday looking to see because he does have online sermons. I did notice some sermons on holiness such as modern technology parts 1 & 2 but haven't listened to them. I have read his book "What a Difference a Line Can Make" which does touch on some holiness issues and would highly recommend this book.

Our church instituted the Council of Elders a long time ago and Bro Booker has been one of the Elders ever since. I heard the fact that he preached a 3 hour message on the difference b/n TV and the internet from an elder brother in our church.

[Tim Rutledge]

I don't know. I went to Bro Larry Booker's Church's homepage (http://www.inlandlighthouse.com/new/page.php) yesterday looking to see because he does have online sermons. I did notice some sermons on holiness such as modern technology parts 1 & 2 but haven't listened to them. I have read his book "What a Difference a Line Can Make" which does touch on some holiness issues and would highly recommend this book.

Our church instituted the Council of Elders a long time ago and Bro Booker has been one of the Elders ever since. I heard the fact that he preached a 3 hour message on the difference b/n TV and the internet from an elder brother in our church.

OK. I'll try to see if this sermon exists. I also have read all of Br. Bookers books. He came to our Church and area a few times. Balance is what comes to my mind concerning Br. Booker. I also heard him in N. Little Rock a couple yrs. ago. "What level do you want to play". Awesome!

[Baron1710]

Incidentally, Brother Larry Booker preached a 3 hour message to the General Board of the UPC explaining the difference b/n TV and the internet. Wish I could have been there.


The oldpaths?? does this preaching tape or cd exist??

TR

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." -
-- Abraham Lincoln

[tstew]

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." -
-- Abraham Lincoln

You have a brilliant quote for everything. I wondered the same thing when I read that line. I also would be curious to know how much of the three hour dissertation could be applied to the internet. Of course, you would have to do an additional 8 hours on the perils that are unique to the internet. The idea that TV is more addictive than the internet is crazy ... Exhibit 1a: AFF :bliss

[bkstokes]

You have a brilliant quote for everything. I wondered the same thing when I read that line. I also would be curious to know how much of the three hour dissertation could be applied to the internet. Of course, you would have to do an additional 8 hours on the perils that are unique to the internet. The idea that TV is more addictive than the internet is crazy ... Exhibit 1a: AFF :bliss

amen amen

My wife has already chewed me out several times for spending too much time of AFF.

[Baron1710]

You have a brilliant quote for everything. I wondered the same thing when I read that line. I also would be curious to know how much of the three hour dissertation could be applied to the internet. Of course, you would have to do an additional 8 hours on the perils that are unique to the internet. The idea that TV is more addictive than the internet is crazy ... Exhibit 1a: AFF :bliss

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit - Somerset Maugham

Had to do it.

[jediwill83]

As far as changing angles is concerned some things are wrong no matter what angle you view them at. I still believe that if you preach against one you have to preach against another.

[Kutless]

I read the book...What a Dif.......it was extremely shallow.....quite a joke actually

[tstew]

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit - Somerset Maugham

Had to do it.

I need to brush up on my literary greats in order to keep up.

[Tim Rutledge]

"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know." -
-- Abraham Lincoln

Maybe Br. Booker and you can compare I.Q. and emotional intelligence scores.

[mizpeh]

Maybe Br. Booker and you can compare I.Q. and emotional intelligence scores.

3 hours of preaching the vices of TV will wear anyone down! It sounds like torture....drip....drip....drip....drip

[Tim Rutledge]

3 hours of preaching the vices of TV will wear anyone down! It sounds like torture....drip....drip....drip....drip

Miz, have you ever heard Br. Booker in person?

[theoldpaths]

I still remember one of the first times I heard Brother Booker preach in our church - it was his own personal testimony - WOW!

[Tim Rutledge]

I still remember one of the first times I heard Brother Booker preach in our church - it was his own personal testimony - WOW!

Yes, he definately had the hand of God on him. He preached 2 yrs. in a row at our mens conference. He can keep your attention.

[Baron1710]

Maybe Br. Booker and you can compare I.Q. and emotional intelligence scores.

And this would prove what? Supposing his I.Q. was higher for the sake of argument, would that make him right and me wrong? If that's the case then Einstein's view of God would be correct and Booker would have to give up any argument about a loving Savior.

If as I suspect, this was just a misguided attempt at saying Booker is smarter than me, perhaps you have judged too quickly. The best in my profession are forced to make their argument convincing in thirty minutes, Booker used up three hours and couldn't convince the UPCI of his argument.

[Tim Rutledge]

And this would prove what? Supposing his I.Q. was higher for the sake of argument, would that make him right and me wrong? If that's the case then Einstein's view of God would be correct and Booker would have to give up any argument about a loving Savior.

If as I suspect, this was just a misguided attempt at saying Booker is smarter than me, perhaps you have judged too quickly. The best in my profession are forced to make their argument convincing in thirty minutes, Booker used up three hours and couldn't convince the UPCI of his argument.

Your quote of A. Lincoln concerning compressing the most words into the smallest idea, didn't set well with me when its directed towards on Elder of mine. Forgive me. The IQ, EI question was out of line.

Speaking of Einstein. Time is relative to the content, and presentation of a particular event, subject and or situation. 3 hrs. of Br. Booker preaching is less then 90 minutes.

And you are right, he failed in convincing the UPCI. The events that have led up to the development of the WPF are ordained of God. WPF will only get stronger. Honestly.. I hope the UPC gets stronger also. God bless.
TR

[tstew]

Your quote of A. Lincoln concerning compressing the most words into the smallest idea, didn't set well with me when its directed towards on Elder of mine. Forgive me. The IQ, EI question was out of line.

Speaking of Einstein. Time is relative to the content, and presentation of a particular event, subject and or situation. 3 hrs. of Br. Booker preaching is less then 90 minutes.

And you are right, he failed in convincing the UPCI. The events that have led up to the development of the WPF are ordained of God. WPF will only get stronger. Honestly.. I hope the UPC gets stronger also. God bless.
TR

To be honest this may be a self-fulfilling proposition where the latter happens because of the former. This proposition may be more interconnected than you realize.

[Tim Rutledge]

To be honest this may be a self-fulfilling proposition where the latter happens because of the former. This proposition may be more interconnected than you realize.


Gods in control.

[Baron1710]

Your quote of A. Lincoln concerning compressing the most words into the smallest idea, didn't set well with me when its directed towards on Elder of mine. Forgive me. The IQ, EI question was out of line.

Speaking of Einstein. Time is relative to the content, and presentation of a particular event, subject and or situation. 3 hrs. of Br. Booker preaching is less then 90 minutes.

And you are right, he failed in convincing the UPCI. The events that have led up to the development of the WPF are ordained of God. WPF will only get stronger. Honestly.. I hope the UPC gets stronger also. God bless.
TR

No problem. I am not easily offended.

The effectiveness of a person’s presentation often is determined by the amount of time they use. On a single topic such as advertising on television, an individual should be able to compress an effective argument into a fraction of the time he was supposed to have used. If it takes three hours to make that argument it isn't very well thought out on the part of the speaker.

[theoldpaths]

No problem. I am not easily offended.

The effectiveness of a person’s presentation often is determined by the amount of time they use. On a single topic such as advertising on television, an individual should be able to compress an effective argument into a fraction of the time he was supposed to have used. If it takes three hours to make that argument it isn't very well thought out on the part of the speaker.

From what I was told, the 3 hour teaching happened before the vote (how much before days/weeks/months I am not sure of) and the teaching was on the difference b/n the internet and tv, not on advertising on tv; and not on licensed UPC ministers living in disobedience to the rules/ordinances that they sign their name once a year to abide by without any discipline whatsoever. Kinda makes one wonder what the purpose of coming up with rules/ordinances is if they are not going to be enforced.

Judging a message one may not have heard by the duration it took may not be wise.

Was it planned from the beginning that he would have 3 hours? Do we want to hold men of God to a time frame when delivering messages? Do we want to box God in? When someone called of God into the ministry delivers a message do we only believe that it is just a man speaking and that God is not using that man to speak. When a God-called man preaches/teaches, do we only hear the words of a man? Does God give inspiration to a person that He has called to preach/teach?

I wonder why Paul requested prayer that he may be given utterance?

[tstew]

From what I was told, the 3 hour teaching happened before the vote (how much before days/weeks/months I am not sure of) and the teaching was on the difference b/n the internet and tv, not on advertising on tv; and not on licensed UPC ministers living in disobedience to the rules/ordinances that they sign their name once a year to abide by without any discipline whatsoever. Kinda makes one wonder what the purpose of coming up with rules/ordinances is if they are not going to be enforced.

Judging a message one may not have heard by the duration it took may not be wise.

Was it planned from the beginning that he would have 3 hours? Do we want to hold men of God to a time frame when delivering messages? Do we want to box God in? When someone called of God into the ministry delivers a message do we only believe that it is just a man speaking and that God is not using that man to speak. When a God-called man preaches/teaches, do we only hear the words of a man? Does God give inspiration to a person that He has called to preach/teach?

I wonder why Paul requested prayer that he may be given utterance?

Can any of you give an effective three minute logical dissertation as to why the television is somehow worse than the internet and should not even be used to advertise? After you're done I'll explain how TV advertising is much more effective than an internet presence and how the perils of reaching through television don't even come close to the perils of reaching via TV.....and it won't take anywhere near three hours.

[Baron1710]

From what I was told, the 3 hour teaching happened before the vote (how much before days/weeks/months I am not sure of) and the teaching was on the difference b/n the internet and tv, not on advertising on tv; and not on licensed UPC ministers living in disobedience to the rules/ordinances that they sign their name once a year to abide by without any discipline whatsoever. Kinda makes one wonder what the purpose of coming up with rules/ordinances is if they are not going to be enforced.

Judging a message one may not have heard by the duration it took may not be wise.

Was it planned from the beginning that he would have 3 hours? Do we want to hold men of God to a time frame when delivering messages? Do we want to box God in? When someone called of God into the ministry delivers a message do we only believe that it is just a man speaking and that God is not using that man to speak. When a God-called man preaches/teaches, do we only hear the words of a man? Does God give inspiration to a person that He has called to preach/teach?

I wonder why Paul requested prayer that he may be given utterance?

Ok the difference between TV and the internet...I type in the channel I want to go to rather than push a button on a remote. TV is less offensive in general than the internet. TV is censored internet isn't. That about covers it. Comes in at slightly less than one minute.

If he planned on going three hours he should have trimmed the fat, if he didn't he should try preparing a conclusion.

Should we hold a man of God to a time frame -- Yes. When God has a message it's on target and to the point. When he wanted to give Belshazzar a message it was...

Daniel 5:26-28
26 "This is what these words mean:
Mene [f] : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

27 Tekel [g] : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

28 Peres [h] : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians."

Bet it didn't take Daniel three hours.

In my opinion he was wrong so no I don't think God was using him to speak.

[iceniez]

first church standards?

abstain from things offered to idols,from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Acts 15:28


ARPH :doggyrun

Absolutly,amen,amen,amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[Tim Rutledge]

The Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

The WPF is keeping with the idea that we should keep our Holiness Standards we have kept over the years. Which I agree, Yes things change but do we?
Dan'D

No Dan'D.. we should not change.

Proverbs 24:21: My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

[RandyWayne]

It's not that I don't mind change.... I just want everything to always stay the same.

Change I HATE:

When Dick Sergeant replaced Dick York as "Daron" on Bewitched. Never got over that one!

Or when Barney Fife left the town of Mayberry at the end of the 5th season?

How about the confusion when Al replaced Arnold as the owner of Arnold's Diner?

Then there was the "Day the Music Died".

You see, change IS the enemy. We need to work hard to keep things the way they have always been !

[pujols12B]

If you are going to keep the old "holiness standards", then get rid of your radios in your cars and quit reading anything but the Bible, because that it what was taught. Or are you just keeping the one you like?

[Tyk]

If you are going to keep the old "holiness standards", then get rid of your radios in your cars and quit reading anything but the Bible, because that it what was taught. Or are you just keeping the one you like?

There will be excuses given and some "reasoning" used to explain why those don't apply. That same "reasoning" is void if you're addressing other areas that they consider "old ways".

[Dan'D]

If you are going to keep the old "holiness standards", then get rid of your radios in your cars and quit reading anything but the Bible, because that it what was taught. Or are you just keeping the one you like?

Get real

Dan'D