Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by 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........?

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.

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

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.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

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]

Originally Posted by 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........?

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]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

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]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

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!".)

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

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.