Basic Standards

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by consapente89

Men- Short hair...off the ears and collars. Avoiding current trending hair cuts that are short on the side and long and flowy on top.

No skinny pants or happy socks.

Wear a belt and some real shoes...no flip flops

Long pants.

No skirts

Ladies- Uncut hair, un-permed hair, un-dyed hair

No adorning of the hair with flowers, bows or jeweled hair pieces

No cosmetics such as make up, artificial tan, lip gloss or “foundation”

Skirts to mid calf, no splits

No bare legs, should wear panty hoes

No leggings that the foot goes through sticking out of the bottom of the skirt. Tights with the footing are best, but if leggings are worn they need to be completely covered by the skirt at all times. No pajama pants.

General-

No television or Hollywood video entertainment

Keep the video cameras out of the church.

Sleeves below the elbow

No jewelry..such as broaches, wedding bands, decorative hair pieces or flashy watches. Watches should be modest without silver, gold or jewels.

Tithe a minimum of 10% of all increase.

Submit to a local pastor.

Faithful church attendance

Daily Bible reading

Daily private prayer

Family devotion at least on non-service nights

No organized sports

No tobacco, alcohol or recreational drug use

No lottery or gambling

No movie theaters

No mixed bathing

On social media, probably best to avoid it. I’ve seen more detriment than good. Same goes with forums, although I’ve not yet completely gotten away from this forum.

One spouse for life, after the new birth, unless one passes by way of grave.

No lady preachers.

Just the basic standards of most genuinely Apostolic churches.

What are happy socks?

[Nicodemus1968]

It's mind-boggling to me that we even have to mention “no mixed bathing/swimming” to a list of standards.

True story,
A well knows Apostolic Evangelist received the Holy Ghost at a UPC church in Canada. After that Sunday morning service, the entire church, Pastor, Pastor's Wife, youth leaders, etc.. I repeat everyone in the church, went to the pond nearby to go swimming. The next service he was asked to testify, and instead of giving God the glory for giving him the greastest gift known to man. He had the audasity to question the church, Why does HIS Holy Ghost not allow him to go down to the simming pond in his underwear, yet YOUR Holy Ghost allows you to go to the swimming pond in your underwear. Needless to say, he wasnt allowed to tesify in that church again.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

What are happy socks?

The ones that survive a complete wash and dry cycle while remaining a matching pair.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The ones that survive a complete wash and dry cycle while remaining a matching pair.

Brother, aint that the truth.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm having trouble understanding how someone can be decked with finery while not being adorned with said finery?

I think the trouble you are having is because of you are reading the text with a black and white, no room for a middle ground or different way to understand Simon's words.

For example, from the Pulpit Commentary:

Verse 3. - Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair. A common Hebraism, like our Lord's injunction in John 6:27, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." St. Peter does not forbid the moderate use of ornaments, but asserts their utter worthlessness compared with Christian graces.

https://www.biblehub.com/1_peter/3-3.htm

Just as we do indeed labor for wages so as to provide food for ourselves, even though seemingly Jesus tells us not to, and we are not in violation of a command of Christ, so, too, may a woman adorn herself in finery, and not be in violation, providing she has the understanding that such finery is not going to win her unbelieving, disobedient husband to the truth of the Christian Scriptures.

So, it is not a prohibition, it is a comparison. Hence why the NASB reads as follows:

3 Your adornment must not be merely the external—braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or putting on apparel; 4 but it should be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...4&version=NASB

The words above in italics are supplied by the translators and are original to the NASB text, much in the same way the KJV translators and editors supplied words in italics for their version. I suppose we could quibble and debate how responsibly such words were added to the text for the sake of clarity or understanding, but as for me, I think the NASB committee did right by the text in adding the italicized words in order to bring the meaning forward, in English.

I'm also having trouble finding any record of any serious revival movement in history that didn't take a highly conservative view of apparel. Montanists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Shakers, New Light Presbyterians, the Stone-Campbell restorationists, Baptists, Puritans, Separatists, Nonconformists, Covenanters, Methodists, Holiness movement, Pentecostals, even many early charismatics, the Adventists, Irvingites, and so on and so forth, all tended to eschew jewelry, makeup, elaborate hairstyles, costly apparel, etc. In contrast, it was always the established church and those not in revival or opposed to revival who enjoyed the fine adornments of the day.

Which raises the question: why is that?

Who can rightly say? Many of these revivalist movements, if not in some ways, all of them, missed other, more important key, even foundational truths. I suppose it depends on the factors at play in what they were each seeking and desiring to know and understand from the Scriptures coupled with however much or little the Spirit of Truth was operating in each to bring about a proper understanding of those very Scriptures.

Outside of Christianity, a similar phenomenon has been recorded, as for example among the Stoics and even in the sumptuary laws passed at various times in ancient pagan Rome attempting to reign in the female adornment and roll things back to the more "austere" days of the pre-imperial Republic.

Has mankind been mistaken all this time? Or is there something to it?

To some degree, yes, depending on what part of mankind we are addressing. The culture and historical context of the Bible is not Western, and is certainly more ancient, in its own ways, stemming as it does from Mesopotamia and the Cradle of Civilization.

So, thousands of miles removed, coupled with centuries of removal, to boot, indicates a strong possibility that mistakes were made in the understanding.

Rebecca is the key personage in the proof. The text is unmistakable and inescapable. A holy woman of old, a wife to a Patriarch no less, wore a gold nose ring and golden bracelets as signs of her betrothal. Anything Paul or Simon wrote has to be understood, in my opinion, in light of that fact.

[votivesoul]

Something else of great import is here, as well. In fact, unless a correct understanding is achieved, it looks very much like Paul and Simon contradict each other, in their respective passages of Scripture, something I think all of us agree, must not be the case.

See, as follows:

1 Timothy 2:9,

Ὡσαύτως καὶ γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ... Hōsautōs kai gynaikas en katastolē kosmiō...

That is the Greek (truncated to the relevant portion) text, coupled with the transliterated text in the Roman alphabet.

A literal reading is as follows:

Likewise also women in apparel respectable...

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/2-9.htm

Here is the same, but for 1 Peter 3:3, similarily truncated to the revelant portion

ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν...ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος...hōn estō ouch ho exōthen endyseōs himatiōn κόσμος...

A literal reading:

Who let it be not the external...putting on of garments adorning...

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/3-3.htm

Note the following:

In 1 Timothy 2:9 Paul instructs that women ought to wear: καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ (katastolē kosmiō), that is to say, "respectable apparel".

But note what Simon Peter writes, that women ought not to wear ἱματίων κόσμος (himatiōn kosmos), that is to say, "of garments adorning", in order to win their unbelieving, disobedient husbands.

In the first, women are to wear respectable apparel, but in the second, they are not to wear adorning garments. While the Greek terms for apparel and garments are different, note the adjective and noun, in Greek, from each text, respectively.

From 1 Timothy 2:9, the adjective is κοσμίῳ (kosmiō). From 1 Peter 3:3, the noun is κόσμος (kosmos).

In 1 Timothy 2:9, the word is from Strong's number 2887.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/2887.htm

It means ordered, well-prepared, and comes from Strong's number 2889, which can be seen here:

https://biblehub.com/greek/2889.htm

It means: an ordered system, i.e. the world.

Strong's number 2889 is the very word Simon Peter uses in 1 Peter 3:3.

What does this tell us? It's the same exact word, only the first is the adjectival form, the second is the noun form.

So, in Paul, we have a command for woman to wear where apparel that is kosmiō, or apparel that is orderly and well-prepared, from the idea of an ordered system, even the world.

But in Peter, we seemingly have an injunction against wearing garments that derive their style and form from an ordered system, even the world.

Do these men contradict each other, if 1 Peter 3:3 is a proscription against "worldly garments" as it were?

If what some are suggesting, that is is a prohibition, then a contradiction has been introduced.

But if 1 Peter 3:3 is understood as a Hebraism a la John 6:27, per the Pulpit Commentary, it is realized that those things are not prohibited, per se, but only in the sense that wearing and adorning one's self in that way, if a married woman, is not going to convert the unsaved husband.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I, the author of the text, said that it is not what I meant. You pretend to know everything I thought. What I clarified is what I meant. I don't believe they will or approve divorcing their wife for random reasons. You haven't seen me saying that anywhere else. I am not accusing them either of nothing. I was confronting them with the inevitable consequences of their reasoning regarding the general statement that if it isn't the Law of Moses, it is not a sin.

It is very silly that you are arguing with me about the meaning of what I said; and after me clarifying it, you insist that what I meant to say it is not what I meant to say.

Brother, if, as the author of the text, you insist you meant something other than what I took away from that it, then I apologize. I still have a hard time reading it any other way than the way I understood it, but I will defer to the meaning you intended.

Peace and God bless,

Aaron

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The problem though is when people say "they were teaching a principle" and then use that as the reason why they can violate both the spirit and the letter of the principle.

Again, how does a person exemplify "don't let your adorning be XYZ but rather ABC" while being decked out with XYZ?

Hopefully, I have given a introductory answer that shows it is possible, grammatically and Scripturally speaking, in the same way a man can labor for meat that perishes while at the same time, labor not for the meat that perishes.

Surely if we as men can do the latter, without either starving or breaking Christ's command, a married woman is able to do the former, that is, be adorned with XYZ while at the same time fulfill ABC?

Here is how:

If a married woman adorns herself in finery, and her husband is unbelieving, and she realizes her appearance will not win him to the Lord, but rather, her attitude, demeanor, and the grace of her Christian spirit are what will win him, she will make certain these latter things are the things she will focus on in order to win him.

As a husband, for example, he may very well want her to dress in a certain style, to appear a certain way, and as the wife, is she not bound to honor him and obey?

I have know several saintly women who are married to unsaved men, and they have been in conflict over, among other things, their appearance. The women have attempted to dress according to the standards set by their churches, while then disrespecting and disobeying their husbands in the process, or worse, they will dress and appear the way their husbands want them to at home, but then, in public or at a church meeting, then will appear the way their church leadership tells them to, creating an internal conflict and cognitive dissonance.

And yet, the Scriptures are clear: wives are to obey their own husbands. And since, as I have shown, the Scriptures do not forbid the adorning of finery, the wife has every right to please her husband with her obedience and appear the way he likes, in this regard.

(I am not advocating obeying the husband if he wants her to dress like a strumpet and whore her flesh out there for every eye to see. Rather, if he likes for her to wear fancy clothes and jewelry, or even cosmetics, or to style her hair a certain way and at a certain length, that is between her and him to work out).

So, in these cases which is worse?

If she disobeys and dishonors her husband, can she really exhibit the ABC characteristics of 1 Peter 3:3 in any way that will win him to the Lord? I think not!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What I believe about Holiness Standards
and no, I'm not going to debate it.

Love for God and love for others:
keep the commandments (all 10) thereby showing love for God and others
Serve God by staying in the word and in prayer, and assembly with the body of Christ.
Its about a right heart attitude (submission) towards God and others.

Separation from the world:
Guard you eyes and heart from worldly entertainment that glorifies sin, including almost everything put out by Hollywood and on TV.
Don't send children to public schools to be educated by the government, provide them a Christian education

Modesty in dress:
Men and women covered, no revealing or tight clothes.
No ostentation or expensive clothes.
No pants on women as a modesty issue, because it reveals a women's shape.
Deut 22:5 IMO, is not about pants, its about women not wearing a warriors garb, or a soldiers garb, or a uniform representing male authority. No dresses on men because that is cross dressing in our society.
If I'm at home, just me and my husband, and I want to wear yoga pants to work out, or sleep in Pj's, I do, cause like I said, I think its a modesty issue.

Hair:
In Cor 11, I see long hair on women and head covering both in the passage. I think if you fell asleep chewing gum and it got stuck in your hair and you had to cut it out, pffft. The issue is to let your hair grow long. I personally don't cut or trim my hair, but don't believe a trim now and again would be a sin.

One other thing, if you are going to wear sandals, french pedicure for the win!

I, for one, see nothing here to debate!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by LOVE JESUS

That was my point. How can they preach on something so trivial when they don't have scripture to back it up? Things like this become a standard and then our preachers get on the bandwagon and enforce it as if it were Biblical. There is enough in the Bible to preach on without adding to it. JMOP

This is what I call Apostolic Talmudism.

The Jewish Talmud, among other things, attempted to close what are seen as holes in the Scriptural texts of the Bible. So, in many cases, a question is asked and different rabbis attempt to answer the question.

Often the question is of some real world concern (for example there is a whole section devoted to seeds called Seder Zeraim) and the asker of the question appears ignorant or uncertain as to how he should apply the Scriptures to the real world concern.

But what often happens in the process is, the rabbis add to the Word of God in order to draw their conclusions.

This is what happens with standards in the church. A question comes up, like "what about bifurcated garments and the wearing of underwear if you are woman?", and so, some Biblical texts are grasped at (e.g. Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 3:3, and perhaps Hebrews 13:7 and 17, etc.), and the rabbi tries to give an answer and in the process, ends up adding to the Word of God.