Are there any conservative PCI believers out there?

[Charlie Brown]

Just wondering if there are preachers and saints that believe the PCI doctrine over the PAJC doctrine that hold strong standards?

[SDG]

I know there are at least a handful on this forum .... but if they are UPCI they will not own up to it CB ...for obvious reasons ...

[Felicity]

Define "strong".

[Barb]

Just wondering if there are preachers and saints that believe the PCI doctrine over the PAJC doctrine that hold strong standards?

Charlie, I don't know of any preacher who doesn't have standards of some sort...do you?!

[tamor]

:popcorn2 :popcorn2

[Charlie Brown]

You folks know what I am saying. Are there PCI believers that hold to the dress code?

I do understand what you are saying, Daniel, but I thought it would be interesting to see if PCI believers still keep to the dress code standards.

[Ferd]

Oh good grief everyone knows what is being asked. quit picking a fight.

CB, honestly I dont know any NOW that hold traditional old time standards.

I dont know any that hold much in the way of Standards at all. but I could be completely wrong.

[Steve Epley]

Oh good grief everyone knows what is being asked. quit picking a fight.

CB, honestly I dont know any NOW that hold traditional old time standards.

I dont know any that hold much in the way of Standards at all. but I could be completely wrong.

Ferd I do not know any either?

[SDG]

You folks know what I am saying. Are there PCI believers that hold to the dress code?

I do understand what you are saying, Daniel, but I thought it would be interesting to see if PCI believers still keep to the dress code standards.

Some keep them because of personal conviction ... difference being they are not caustic and would never say that standards is salvational.

Others keep standards because they want to be accepted by their circle of fellowship and would rather do so than be viewed as "Charismatic".

[Steve Epley]

Some keep them because of personal conviction ... difference being they are not caustic and would never say that standards is salvational.

Others keep standards because they want to be accepted by their circle of fellowship and would rather do so than be viewed as "Charismatic".

WHO?????????????????????

[SDG]

Perhaps CB does and wants to "root" them out?

[SDG]

WHO?????????????????????

They exist SE ... but would hate to return to the label of being "weak on the message".

[Charlie Brown]

Oh good grief everyone knows what is being asked. quit picking a fight.

CB, honestly I dont know any NOW that hold traditional old time standards.

I dont know any that hold much in the way of Standards at all. but I could be completely wrong.

I honestly am not trying to pick a fight. This thread is for statistical purposes only. :D

[King's Child]

Just wondering if there are preachers and saints that believe the PCI doctrine over the PAJC doctrine that hold strong standards?

May I ask a question without someone making fun of me. LOL

What is PCI and PAJC. I haven't ever heard of this before.

[Felicity]

You folks know what I am saying. Are there PCI believers that hold to the dress code?

I do understand what you are saying, Daniel, but I thought it would be interesting to see if PCI believers still keep to the dress code standards.Define them. Which ones?

[Barb]

I honestly am not trying to pick a fight. This thread is for statistical purposes only. :D

He wasn't saying YOU were picking a fight, Charles...

I only posted that way, Ferd, because there are folks who think that those who hold a different view on issues don't have ANY standards...not so.

Sorry...

[Ferd]

I honestly am not trying to pick a fight. This thread is for statistical purposes only. :D

Bro, I know you werent. someone else was.

[Charlie Brown]

Define them. Which ones?

R U Serious??

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women




I am sure the list could go on, and there may be slight variations on some of the above.

[SDG]

Notice CB and other cons have lumped TV w/ dress standards ... hilarious

[Charlie Brown]

Notice CB and other cons have lumped TV w/ dress standards ... hilarious

Actually, I was just listing the known standards of conservatives, and not necessarily just the dress standards.

[SDG]

Did you get data you were seeking ...???

[Felicity]

R U Serious??

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women




I am sure the list could go on, and there may be slight variations on some of the above. Are you serious CB? Do you know how few (relatively speaking) PAJCers keep all those? :killinme

[Charlie Brown]

Are you serious CB? Do you know how few (relatively speaking) PAJCers keep all those? :killinme

All the conservative ones keep them. So are you saying there is no such thing as a conservative PCI believer?

[Felicity]

All the conservative ones keep them. So are you saying there is no such thing as a conservative PCI believer?No, I said the opposite in fact.

[Ferd]

Notice CB and other cons have lumped TV w/ dress standards ... hilarious

I would have listed the same and i am not a conservitive.

[Charlie Brown]

Define "strong".

Define them. Which ones?

Are you serious CB? Do you know how few (relatively speaking) PAJCers keep all those? :killinme

No, I said the opposite in fact.

You may have stated this in another thread, but you have only asked questions to clarify (or were you just stringing me along :)).

[Charlie Brown]

May I ask a question without someone making fun of me. LOL

What is PCI and PAJC. I haven't ever heard of this before.

The 2 groups that merged into the UPCI in the mid 40's

PCI = Pentecostal Churches Inc - They held that one was saved at repentance, went on and was baptized in Jesus name, and received the holy ghost.


PAJC = Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ - They held that one was not saved until repentance, baptism in Jesus name, and receiving of the holyghost happened in a persons life.

[Felicity]

You may have stated this in another thread, but you have only asked questions to clarify (or were you just stringing me along :)).I was making the point by asking the questions Charlie. Sheesh. Don't you understand the word "subtle"? ;) :D

[Felicity]

The merger created strength, unity in purpose and success. The tearing at that has created the opposite.

[chaotic_resolve]

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women
:aaa That's scury right thur!

[Felicity]

I consider myself conservative.

[Truly Blessed]

I don't consider myself PAJC or PCI. I am simply a Bible believing Pentecostal. The liberal or conservative tags are relative terms that others tend to tag others with. I tend to emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, so I suppose that makes me a liberal in the eyes of some. :)

[Barb]

I don't consider myself PAJC or PCI. I am simply a Bible believing Pentecostal. The liberal or conservative tags are relative terms that others tend to tag others with. I tend to emphasize the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, so I suppose that makes me a liberal in the eyes of some. :)

Liberal as in bountiful, generous, openhearted, openhanded, giving, charitable, magnamious, bighearted, ungrudging, unselfish, fair, unprejudiced, tolerant?!

Would that we could all be such labeled, Elder...:)

[Brother Strange]

I know some.

I also know some trinity pentecostal that do.

[Ferd]

The merger created strength, unity in purpose and success. The tearing at that has created the opposite.

Amen

[Barb]

I consider myself conservative.

I agree that in many ways you are...

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I consider myself conservative.

Is this your stand?

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I agree that in many ways you are...

Is this YOUR stand?

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women

[pelathais]

I know some.

I also know some trinity pentecostal that do.

I agree. My own father-in-the-gospel was from the PCI tradition and they all were considered "very strong" on standards.

His wife's family was PCI/PAW and some of the women wore slacks when doing out of doors things like hiking, etc. She changed (at least outwardly) sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's and hasn't looked back.

Today they have a reputation for being in the "ultra" crowd when it comes to standards, - but still from the PCI tradition on theological matters.

[Barb]

Is this YOUR stand?

I am wondering why you are asking, but will be polite and answer.

BOOMM, you must first recognize that this is not written in tablets of stone and is JUST my opinion.

The items listed as being the conservative stand are just one man's opinion of the conservative view.

For example, when I first signed onto FCF, after understanding folks were being labeled, I considered myself an utra con, not realizing what many under that banner believed.

So I said that I must be conservative, until the day that CC1 informed me I was NOT conservative because we had television (it is something that has not been taught against in our church from day one). When CC said that, I cried like a new born baby..."How could he say such a thing?!"

But he was right...I am not a con...I am a mod, IMO...

Anyway, I have gone the long way around to answer your question...

1. No TV

As I said, we have always had TV

2. No Make up

I do not wear makeup, but I do not ........ those to yon lower regions who do

3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)

I wear a watch and do not wear jewelry, but do not condemn those who do

4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men

I do not wear pants, but do not condemn others

5. No splits in skirts

There are splits that are convenient/necessary as in a kick split. A split that is immodestly up the thigh...no I do not

6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)

No I do not wear long sleeves 24/7

7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.

I do not cut my hair, but will not condemn those who do

8. No Facial hair on men or women

This one is funny...no I do not have a beard!! I do not see Scripture for it being wrong for a man to have facial hair

So no...I am not conservative by this list here, though the dictionary lists moderate as a meaning for conservative...interesting.

[SDG]

You are a compromiser Barbara.

[Felicity]

The merger created strength, unity in purpose and success. The tearing at that has created the opposite.

Amen:highfive

[Barb]

You are a compromiser Barbara.

LOL!!

[Felicity]

Is this your stand?The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women
I wouldn't consider that an official conservative stand to be honest ..... (speaking of the apostolic movement as a whole) .... but more like an Ultra-Conservative stand. I made the point earlier that most of the women in the apostolic movement wouldn't be living up to most of that list.

Why?

[crakjak]

R U Serious??

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women

I am sure the list could go on, and there may be slight variations on some of the above.


Why would anybody want to dictate what others wear, in your own words, "Good Grief".

Just read that list, and image the Creator of the Universe going down that list. "Uh..Oh, look at that split it is 1/4 inch too long "....to the pit with her!!" "O, no look at that goatee, fry him!!!":slaphappy:slaphappy

[Barb]

Why would anybody want to dictate what others wear, in your own words, "Good Grief".

Just read that list, and image the Creator of the Universe going down that list. "Uh..Oh, look at that split it is 1/4 inch too long "....to the pit with her!!" "O, no look at that goatee, fry him!!!":slaphappy:slaphappy

When this thing is all over and we are in the presence of the Almighty for eternity...time without end, we just might be surprised to find how much or how little importance He placed on the things we have debated over.

I am through trying to dictate what others should or should not do...I'm doing well to make a list for me.

Keeping Barb on the straight and narrow is a full time job...

[StillStanding]

Just wondering if there are preachers and saints that believe the PCI doctrine over the PAJC doctrine that hold strong standards?

Since those of PCI belief have been kicked out of the UPCI, they are no longer under the old guard standards police. Since they no longer are required to hold certain "standards" to retain fellowship or for political reasons, they are now free to preach and teach their godly conscience! :)

[ILG]

Well if you are asking if believing PAJC is what makes people believe standards...all you have to do is look at the Amish.

[freeatlast]

Just wondering if there are preachers and saints that believe the PCI doctrine over the PAJC doctrine that hold strong standards?

CB: most folks who have been blessed to see and understand the "PCI" veiw on salvation also have been blessed to see the falacy that is in so much of our "standards" doctrines.

So, yes, I am PCI and NO, I will not impose false holiness doctrines on Gods children.

[Truly Blessed]

I don't believe that God looks upon His family in terms of liberal, moderate, conservative, or ultracon. So often on AFF someone will challenge terminology being used demanding Scriptural proof. Yet we all so freely use these unbiblical terms. We are all members of the family of God. The biblical terminology for our relationship with one another is "brother" and "sister". Man loves to compare themselves among themselves, even though Paul said it's not wise to do so. God simply sees us as His adopted children and relates to us as a loving Father, who shows us much more grace than what we tend to show one another.

[crakjak]

I don't believe that God looks upon His family in terms of liberal, moderate, conservative, or ultracon. So often on AFF someone will challenge terminology being used demanding Scriptural proof. Yet we all so freely use these unbiblical terms. We are all members of the family of God. The biblical terminology for our relationship with one another is "brother" and "sister". Man loves to compare themselves among themselves, even though Paul said it's not wise to do so. God simply sees us as His adopted children and relates to us as a loving Father, who shows us much more grace than what we tend to show one another.

You say it so extremely well.

[bdlooney]

Just for clarification. A PCIer is one who believes in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but believes that only repentance is REQUIRED for salvation.

Am I right?

Also, according to most of the posts on this thread, a majority of PCIer's do not hold fast to traditional holiness standards.

So wouldn't that basically make them (Oh no! The dreaded word!)..."CHARISMATIC?"

I know that there will be those that say otherwise and I'm sure that Daniel will accuse me of "breeding ignorance"...but who cares?

:muwahaha

[Barb]

Just for clarification. A PCIer is one who believes in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but believes that only repentance is REQUIRED for salvation.

Am I right?

Also, according to most of the posts on this thread, a majority of PCIer's do not hold fast to traditional holiness standards.

So wouldn't that basically make them (Oh no! The dreaded word!)..."CHARISMATIC?"

I know that there will be those that say otherwise and I'm sure that Daniel will accuse me of "breeding ignorance"...but who cares?

:muwahaha

No!! Why would you think that?!

[Truly Blessed]

Just for clarification. A PCIer is one who believes in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but believes that only repentance is REQUIRED for salvation.

Am I right?

Also, according to most of the posts on this thread, a majority of PCIer's do not hold fast to traditional holiness standards.

So wouldn't that basically make them (Oh no! The dreaded word!)..."CHARISMATIC?"

I know that there will be those that say otherwise and I'm sure that Daniel will accuse me of "breeding ignorance"...but who cares?

:muwahaha If this is what PCIers believe then I am definitely not a PCIer. I believe we have a responsibility to preach the good news of Christ's death, burial, resurrection and exaltation as "the head over everything for the church". When a sinner is convicted by the preaching of the gospel and truly believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Savior, they need to repent and be baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ and God has promised to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Where I take exception to the PAJC doctrine of salvation is their rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues. I don't believe the Bible supports the concept of a sinner uniting themselves with Christ in baptism, or receiving the earnest of an inheritance that belongs to a child of God. You must first become a child of God before you have a right to the benefits of family. Jesus was born of the Spirit, and because He was the Son of God publicly identified Himself with the kingdom of God [and the Father confirmed that Jesus was indeed His beloved Son], and the Spirit came upon Him [in Jesus' own words] to anoint Him for the ministry He was about to enter into.

Jesus made it very clear that one is born again as a result of believing in Him. It is only because we have been born again that we can see [understand] spiritual truths of the kingdom of God that guide us into baptism and makes it possible for us to receive the empowerment that the baptism of the Holy Spirit provides us.

It is by walking in the power of the Spirit that the fruit of the Spirit is able to flourish in our lives, and we're able to operate the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of fellow believers in the Body of Christ.

I do not believe that one need only say they believe in Jesus Christ and they are saved! However, if one truly believes they will be saved! Their walk with God in the Spirit will bear witness to the authenticity of their faith.

[OP_Carl]

The Conservative Stand

1. No TV
2. No Make up
3. No Jewelry (including wedding rings)
4. No Pants on ladies, or skirts on men
5. No splits in skirts
6. Long Sleeved shirts (at least 3/4 length)
7. Uncut hair for women, short cut hair on men.
8. No Facial hair on men or women

It's amazing how differently people will react to this list. Some will see it as a sensible and beneficial tool to help keep the sheep pointed in the right direction. People are easily distracted and drawn away of their own desires. Anything that helps keep people focused on Jesus is a good thing.

Others see it as a return to Moses, or, even worse, Egypt. It's all in how you look at it. Some of it is in how it was presented to you, i.e. I make no apologies for dictators.

I have been blessed to see most of these explained in love, not with a hammer and gavel. Maybe this is unusual, but I have visited an unusual number of Apostolic churches, and my experience is that the clothesline despots are vastly in the minority.

As far as the labeling spectrum goes, here are some other, biblical, 'terms of endearment:'

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? - 1 Corinthians 8:11

Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; - 1 Timothy 3:3

Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. - 1 Samuel 25:17

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. - 1 Timothy 5:8

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. - Matthew 18:17

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? - 2 Corinthians 13:5

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:16

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. - Matthew 23:14 (three for one!)

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. - Hebrews 10:38

Let it henceforth be said of me that I am a "brawling son of Belial." That's my favorite!

[Felicity]

Others see it as a return to Moses, or, even worse, Egypt. It's all in how you look at it. Some of it is in how it was presented to you, i.e. I make no apologies for dictators.I certainly never said any such thing -- just want to make that clear. When I was UPCI standards were never an issue for me. Thankfully, I had pastors who loved me and pastored me with great kindness and patience. They were not hard taskmasters in any sense of the word.

I've said over and over so many times that submitting myself to rules and rulership and those in authority over me never ever did me any harm whatsoever. No way. I understand the value of fences and boundary lines.

[OP_Carl]

I understand the value of fences and boundary lines.

Then why are you holding those wire cutters behind your back?





J/K :killinme

[Felicity]

Then why are you holding those wire cutters behind your back?





J/K :killinmeHa! There are invisible boundary lines that can't be removed. The result of Holy Ghost conviction and good teaching/training.

;) :)

[Felicity]

Bro. Carl......

Speaking of fences and wire cutters and all ..... check out this that I wrote (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=96914&postcount=34) a while back.

[Sherri]

Just for clarification. A PCIer is one who believes in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but believes that only repentance is REQUIRED for salvation.

Am I right?

Also, according to most of the posts on this thread, a majority of PCIer's do not hold fast to traditional holiness standards.

So wouldn't that basically make them (Oh no! The dreaded word!)..."CHARISMATIC?"

I know that there will be those that say otherwise and I'm sure that Daniel will accuse me of "breeding ignorance"...but who cares?

:muwahaha
I would dare say you've probably never attended real Charismatic services. They are nothing like what we are! Nothing at all. I don't fit in there anymore than I would fit in an AMF camp meeting. The worship style is totally different; the structure is usually non-existent; etc.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I would dare say you've probably never attended real Charismatic services. They are nothing like what we are! Nothing at all. I don't fit in there anymore than I would fit in an AMF camp meeting. The worship style is totally different; the structure is usually non-existent; etc.

So Carlton Pearson can't preach for yall ?

[Sherri]

So Carlton Pearson can't preach for yall ?
I don't think we'll be bringing him in anytime soon!:killinme

[Scott Hutchinson]

I don't think we'll be bringing him in anytime soon!:killinme

Well are yall bringing in Benny Hinn ?

[Sherri]

Well are yall bringing in Benny Hinn ?
He's too fancy for our church; we're a pretty laid back casual bunch!

[Barb]

I would dare say you've probably never attended real Charismatic services. They are nothing like what we are! Nothing at all. I don't fit in there anymore than I would fit in an AMF camp meeting. The worship style is totally different; the structure is usually non-existent; etc.

THANK YOU!! I grow a little weary in saying that not everyone who leaves the Mother Ship has "gone Charismatic!!"

[Sarah]

If this is what PCIers believe then I am definitely not a PCIer. I believe we have a responsibility to preach the good news of Christ's death, burial, resurrection and exaltation as "the head over everything for the church". When a sinner is convicted by the preaching of the gospel and truly believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Savior, they need to repent and be baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ and God has promised to give them the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Where I take exception to the PAJC doctrine of salvation is their rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration apart from the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues. I don't believe the Bible supports the concept of a sinner uniting themselves with Christ in baptism, or receiving the earnest of an inheritance that belongs to a child of God. You must first become a child of God before you have a right to the benefits of family. Jesus was born of the Spirit, and because He was the Son of God publicly identified Himself with the kingdom of God [and the Father confirmed that Jesus was indeed His beloved Son], and the Spirit came upon Him [in Jesus' own words] to anoint Him for the ministry He was about to enter into.

Jesus made it very clear that one is born again as a result of believing in Him. It is only because we have been born again that we can see [understand] spiritual truths of the kingdom of God that guide us into baptism and makes it possible for us to receive the empowerment that the baptism of the Holy Spirit provides us.

It is by walking in the power of the Spirit that the fruit of the Spirit is able to flourish in our lives, and we're able to operate the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of fellow believers in the Body of Christ.

I do not believe that one need only say they believe in Jesus Christ and they are saved! However, if one truly believes they will be saved! Their walk with God in the Spirit will bear witness to the authenticity of their faith.


Bro TB, just clarify something for me if you would. You said if a sinner is convicted by the preaching of the gospel and believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, they will be saved, and then they NEED to be baptized in Jesus' Name, and receive the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues.

My question to you is this: what if they refuse to be baptized in Jesus' name, and think the Holy Ghost is not for us today? I know people like that. Good people, who would put some Apostolics to shame when it comes to being 'Christlike'. Yet when coming face to face with 'men and brethren, what must we do', they balk.

I'm rather confused about this, and would love an answer........

[Truly Blessed]

Bro TB, just clarify something for me if you would. You said if a sinner is convicted by the preaching of the gospel and believes in Jesus Christ as their savior, they will be saved, and then they NEED to be baptized in Jesus' Name, and receive the Holy Ghost with speaking in tongues.

My question to you is this: what if they refuse to be baptized in Jesus' name, and think the Holy Ghost is not for us today? I know people like that. Good people, who would put some Apostolics to shame when it comes to being 'Christlike'. Yet when coming face to face with 'men and brethren, what must we do', they balk.

I'm rather confused about this, and would love an answer........If you read the entire post that I made, I think I answered your question in the last paragraph when I said, "I do not believe that one need only say they believe in Jesus Christ and they are saved! However, if one truly believes they will be saved! Their walk with God in the Spirit will bear witness to the authenticity of their faith."

I realize that for some Pentecostals it probably jumps out at you to read or hear someone express themselves as I have. In the Full Gospel Church I grew up in and in the Atlantic District where I spent most of my ministry it was common to hear someone testify that they were glad that God had saved them and filled them with the Holy Ghost.

I grew up believing I was saved through faith in Jesus Christ, but needed to be baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus Christ and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have seen no arguments put forth yet that has changed my mind on the correctness of this teaching.

My experience was that I grew up in a Oneness Pentecostal Church where I believed the gospel and asked God to forgive me my sins when I was very young. I didn't receive the Holy Ghost until I was 15 years old and it was after I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost that I was baptized in water.

I can witness to the truth that in the years between when I repented and received the baptism of the Holy Ghost I had a wonderful relationship with the Lord. I loved Him with all my heart and walked with God faithfully in what I came to realize was a very legalistic church environment. I often questioned my salvation, not because I didn't have a real relationship with God, but because I had a wrong concept of holiness and never felt I could live up to all that was required all of the time.

When I received the revelation of grace at age 19, it was the most awesome thing I had ever experienced apart from the baptism of the Holy Ghost. In some ways it was even more powerful in that I recall praying the night I received the Holy Ghost baptism for Christ to come because I felt I was as holy as I probably would ever be at that moment. So, there was still that uncertainty about my salvation. With the revelation of God's grace came the assurance of my salvation. That was truly life changing for me!

[The Dean]

I don't have a dog in this fight. It's not my thread and I've not so much as read the first post until moments ago. However, I've gone through all 67 posts and have to say that this is one of the best beat around the bush examples I've ever seen.

I think the question was a good question. I had never even wondered about such before and thought it might be a good thread to get an answer from. It was't. 67 posts and not one person said "I know Bro. *** is PCI and has a strong standard."

I'm actually very surprised because I thought there might be a list of several who held strong standards. Though I never looked at it from that particular perspective maybe CB's question is more revealing than we think.

Reading this thread I can almost hear a recent former Prez clearing his throat and saying, "Define 'did' ". :tricycle

[Felicity]

I don't have a dog in this fight. It's not my thread and I've not so much as read the first post until moments ago. However, I've gone through all 67 posts and have to say that this is one of the best beat around the bush examples I've ever seen.

I think the question was a good question. I had never even wondered about such before and thought it might be a good thread to get an answer from. It was't. 67 posts and not one person said "I know Bro. *** is PCI and has a strong standard."

I'm actually very surprised because I thought there might be a list of several who held strong standards. Though I never looked at it from that particular perspective maybe CB's question is more revealing than we think.

Reading this thread I can almost hear a recent former Prez clearing his throat and saying, "Define 'did' ". :tricycleSorry to burst your bubble sir but I know lots of PCI people who have VERY strong standards. Do you want names? I can provide them!

[Felicity]

What I would like to know is how your strong standards make you any better any more holy, any more effective or any more spiritual than those (me) you would castigate and define as not having strong standards.

How are you sir, or the people you pastor any better or more accepted with God than myself or others who don't hold to your strong standards?

So of what effect and use are your so called strong standards? How do you want to measure strong? How do you want to measure anointing? How do you want to measure effective?

[The Dean]

Sorry to burst your bubble sir but I know lots of PCI people who have VERY strong standards. Do you want names? I can provide them!

Again, I have no dog in this fight and no bubble to burst. Just thought it would be an interesting thread.

Unless I misunderstood him I think Charlie Brown was looking for specific names, yes.

[Felicity]

I get so almighty SICK of hearing all this foolishness and measuring one against another.

[Felicity]

Again, I have no dog in this fight and no bubble to burst. Just thought it would be an interesting thread.

Unless I misunderstood him I think Charlie Brown was looking for specific names, yes.What difference would names make? They would mean NOTHING absolute nada nothing zilch to you, sir! Or to Charlie Brown either.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Did not the PCI organization hold to tradtional classical pentecostal standards,where not the PAJC,and PCI compatible standard wise?

[The Dean]

I get so SICK of hearing all this foolishness and measuring one against another.

Seriously? I thought it was a legitimate question once I read the thread. Does PCI = low standards? I think it's a given that PAJC does NOT always = good standards.

My opinion is that there are no 'measurements' here at all. At least if what I'm reading is correct. I think he's asking if the PCI = low standards is a fact or not. I can see someone wanting some solid examples that its not really that way.

But, then again, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[The Dean]

What difference would names make? They would mean NOTHING absolute nada nothing zilch to you, sir! Or to Charlie Brown either.

Wow! Do I sense some animosity? I read a thread. I comment on the thread. I try to inquire as to why nobody was giving a real answer.

Sorry. I'm not the enemy. Of all people on this forum I'm shocked that you think I am.

[The Dean]

Did not the PCI organization hold to tradtional classical pentecostal standards,where not the PAJC,and PCI compatible standard wise?

I was under that impression.

[Felicity]

Seriously? I thought it was a legitimate question once I read the thread. Does PCI = low standards? I think it's a given that PAJC does NOT always = good standards.

My opinion is that there are no 'measurements' here at all. At least if what I'm reading is correct. I think he's asking if the PCI = low standards is a fact or not. I can see someone wanting some solid examples that its not really that way.

But, then again, maybe I'm reading it wrong.But I've already told you sir - the answer is no!

But what if the answer was yes i.e. PCI = low standards. So what?

In other words that PCI women cut/trim their hair, watch TV, wear skirts that have slits, wear makeup, etc., how does that make them different than their dear PAJC counterparts?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Looking at merger and pre-merger pictures both groups looked the same as most Pentecostal groups even Trinity Pentecostal groups did.

[Felicity]

Wow! Do I sense some animosity? I read a thread. I comment on the thread. I try to inquire as to why nobody was giving a real answer.

Sorry. I'm not the enemy. Of all people on this forum I'm shocked that you think I am.No, sir. You are not the enemy. The enemy is hypocrisy, division and prejudice which is the fruit that this kind of thinking and questioning produces.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Hold the phone as there are three steppers who are considered liberal.

[Felicity]

I just get tired of it. :angelsad

[The Dean]

No, sir. You are not the enemy. The enemy is hypocrisy, division and prejudice which is the fruit that this kind of thinking and questioning produces.

I guess I don't find it hypoctrical or prejudiced at all to ask the question CB asked. In fact, as I stated already, I had never even thought of the question until I read the thread. Having read it, though, it does seem like a valid question.

If I were PCI I think I would be very quick to give examples of why PCI does NOT = low standards. I know among the early contemporaries (as Scott mentioned) there seemed to be very little difference in dress standards. It does appear to have changed somewhat.

[The Dean]

I think it's a given that PAJC does NOT always = good standards.

Hold the phone as there are three steppers who are considered liberal.

I beat you to the punch, Scott, so I obviously agree with you. And, in the same manner, if you flip that around I would find it hard to believe that there aren't some PCI brethren out there with a strong outward standard as well.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Liberal three steppers.
http://placeofpraise.org

[StillStanding]

I guess I don't find it hypoctrical or prejudiced at all to ask the question CB asked. In fact, as I stated already, I had never even thought of the question until I read the thread. Having read it, though, it does seem like a valid question.

If I were PCI I think I would be very quick to give examples of why PCI does NOT = low standards. I know among the early contemporaries (as Scott mentioned) there seemed to be very little difference in dress standards. It does appear to have changed somewhat.

Since those of PCI belief have been kicked out of the UPCI, they are no longer under the old guard standards police. Since they no longer are required to hold certain "standards" to retain fellowship or for political reasons, they are now free to preach and teach their godly conscience! :)

To answer your questions as to why, I included my previous post. Also keep in mind that most "standards" were handed down from the previous generation, so PCI type churches that were not previously associated with the UPCI will naturally not dictate these "standards".

[Felicity]

I guess I don't find it hypoctrical or prejudiced at all to ask the question CB asked. In fact, as I stated already, I had never even thought of the question until I read the thread. Having read it, though, it does seem like a valid question.

If I were PCI I think I would be very quick to give examples of why PCI does NOT = low standards. I know among the early contemporaries (as Scott mentioned) there seemed to be very little difference in dress standards. It does appear to have changed somewhat.I can give you names of many people who are PCI who hold stronger standards and are more consistent than many PAJCers.

But what would those names mean to you? Would it be appropriate to do so? To name names of people publicly who might not appreciate it?

What was the purpose of the question Bro. Dean, sir?

I am telling you that there are absolutely many PCIers who believe exactly the same way I do who would be lumped into the PAJC category because of fellowship or organizational affiliation.

So we give the answer to the question - YES! - and all we get is more question i.e. why is nobody answering the question?

What is the purpose of this thread? Oh yes! I know! To prove that conservative minded PCIers exist. :rolleyes:

[Felicity]

I beat you to the punch, Scott, so I obviously agree with you. And, in the same manner, if you flip that around I would find it hard to believe that there aren't some PCI brethren out there with a strong outward standard as well.So you accept that? Even without names? Amazing! :)

[Elizabeth]

I can give you names of many people who are PCI who hold stronger standards and are more consistent than many PAJCers.

But what would those names mean to you? Would it be appropriate to do so? To name names of people publicly who might not appreciate it?

What was the purpose of the question Bro. Dean, sir?

I am telling you that there are absolutely many PCIers who believe exactly the same way I do who would be lumped into the PAJC category because of fellowship or organizational affiliation.

So we give the answer to the question - YES! - and all we get is more question i.e. why is nobody answering the question?

What is the purpose of this thread? Oh yes! I know! To prove that conservative minded PCIers exist. :rolleyes:
I have known some conservative (standard wise)PCI-ers myself, but I agree what is the point in naming names.

I think CB was trying to stir up a "heated" discussion?(not sure)

[The Dean]

So you accept that? Even without names? Amazing! :)

Technically, yes. I never said that I didn't. That was evidently your assumption working overtime. I just don't know of any personally who are of the PCI persuasion that preach a strong outward standard. It would seem common to me that I wouldn't know them as I'm not of that persuasion myself and, because of that, not around much fellowship with them.

Your questions;

The purpose of the question? I suspect to get an answer about the subject.
The purpose of the thread? You'll have to ask the author and I'm not the author.
Would it be appropriate to name names of those who are PCI with good standards? If I was PCI I would hope someone could say, "They preach a good standard" so, in my opinion, I would suspect yes. Why wouldn't it be?

[Felicity]

Technically, yes. I never said that I didn't. That was evidently your assumption working overtime. I just don't know of any personally who are of the PCI persuasion that preach a strong outward standard. It would seem common to me that I wouldn't know them as I'm not of that persuasion myself and, because of that, not around much fellowship with them.

Your questions;

The purpose of the question? I suspect to get an answer about the subject.
The purpose of the thread? You'll have to ask the author and I'm not the author.
Would it be appropriate to name names of those who are PCI with good standards? If I was PCI I would hope someone could say, "They preach a good standard" so, in my opinion, I would suspect yes. Why wouldn't it be?
Thank you sir.

[Felicity]

I have known some conservative (standard wise)PCI-ers myself, but I agree what is the point in naming names.

I think CB was trying to stir up a "heated" discussion?(not sure)

Of course there are conservative PCIers. We all agree apparently.

I don't know..... probably shouldn't even be "online" today as far as forums go because I'm not in the best frame of mind to put it mildly. Stressed, pressure, discouraged, overwhelmed, confused, disappointed ...... these are words I don't usually admit to or give in to but today is one of those days.

:angelsad

[Felicity]

Excuse me if I've been less than kind. Carry on. Continue. Have at it. Go for it! I'm out. :angelsad

[Sam]

You folks know what I am saying. Are there PCI believers that hold to the dress code?

I do understand what you are saying, Daniel, but I thought it would be interesting to see if PCI believers still keep to the dress code standards.

You speak of "the dress code" like it was something standardized.
Sleeve length varies from church to church and from year to year.
Hem line distance can be measured from the thigh, knee, ankle, or floor.
Whether stockings must be worn or not, whether they must have seams or not, whether panty hose have separate legs and are therefore "men's apparel" or not, whether stockings must be cotton or can be nylon, whether a woman's toes can be exposed or not, what fabrics are permissible or not, what colors are permissible or not, whether a head covering is required or not, whether a veil or a hat or a scarf is a valid head covering, are buttons permissible or not, if buttons are permissible can they be gold or silver colored, what finger rings are allowed if any, are hair ribbons or bows vanity, what about neck ties, what about a tie clip, what about cuff links, what about a wrist watch etc. etc.
These "standards" are different depending on who the preacher is, where he is, or who might be listening in on the sermon.

[Sam]

Just for clarification. A PCIer is one who believes in repentance, baptism in Jesus name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues but believes that only repentance is REQUIRED for salvation.

Am I right?

Also, according to most of the posts on this thread, a majority of PCIer's do not hold fast to traditional holiness standards.

So wouldn't that basically make them (Oh no! The dreaded word!)..."CHARISMATIC?"

I know that there will be those that say otherwise and I'm sure that Daniel will accuse me of "breeding ignorance"...but who cares?

:muwahaha

It makes them Jesus' Name, Oneness Apostolic Pentecostal Charismatics
and for a while some of them were also UPC.

[Sam]

When you say no facial hair on women, do you mean that our UPC ladies who pluck out their eyebrows and then paint on new ones that are better shaped and better colored are practicing a conservative dress code?

Also, does that mean that any other facial hair that may grow on a woman's face needs to be plucked, burnt, tweezed, or removed by electralysis?

[Sherri]

According to the majority of the church world, we hold very strict personal standards. According to some people on here, we would be greasy grace loosey-goosey liberals. So I think I just have to answer to God, who knows our hearts and guides and directs us without mandates made by man or organizations. In some areas, we are much stricter than we were when we were in UPC. These are convictions that God has given to us.

I don't agree with those on either side of us, but I respect them all for the things that they hold dear.

I do understand the question, and I guess it's legitimate in the mind of Charlie Brown. But what we call "standards" are not standard at all; they vary all over the spectrum from church to church, or from district to district.

[Truly Blessed]

I don't have a dog in this fight. It's not my thread and I've not so much as read the first post until moments ago. However, I've gone through all 67 posts and have to say that this is one of the best beat around the bush examples I've ever seen.

I think the question was a good question. I had never even wondered about such before and thought it might be a good thread to get an answer from. It was't. 67 posts and not one person said "I know Bro. *** is PCI and has a strong standard."

I'm actually very surprised because I thought there might be a list of several who held strong standards. Though I never looked at it from that particular perspective maybe CB's question is more revealing than we think.

Reading this thread I can almost hear a recent former Prez clearing his throat and saying, "Define 'did' ". :tricycleThis very terminology is telling in light of what has been listed in this thread as to what these strong standards are you refer to. If these are what you define as strong standards then all I have to say is that you have a very shallow concept of what matters to God in the area of holiness.

[Truly Blessed]

I have known some conservative (standard wise)PCI-ers myself, but I agree what is the point in naming names.

I think CB was trying to stir up a "heated" discussion?(not sure)One thing is certain. CB doesn't hold to these "strong" standards or he wouldn't be working for and promoting those who don't. :)

[The Dean]

This very terminology is telling in light of what has been listed in this thread as to what these strong standards are you refer to. If these are what you define as strong standards then all I have to say is that you have a very shallow concept of what matters to God in the area of holiness.

Okay. I clarified myself and evidently it wasn't enough. My concept of holiness is totally unknown by you but, hey, I'll let you think you're the authority on my walk with God if it makes you feel better. :slaphappy

There. You have my permission. Think as you wish.

Now. Don't you feel envigorated!

(No, I'm not without words at this point. So much could be said but I really see so little need to say it.)

[The Dean]

One thing is certain. CB doesn't hold to these "strong" standards or he wouldn't be working for and promoting those who don't. :)

This should be good.

[Felicity]

Bro. Dean.......

I truly hope I didn't offend you today. I certainly never meant to. I wasn't in a great frame of mind this morning as I said earlier. Some of us are dealing with real life here on the front lines where the going is tough and the battle is tougher. Then you read some of "this" and it's like it just seems so trivial.

But.......... but.......... but........ :) ... God knows where we're at and He sent a ministering spirit today. An "angel" who spoke the Word of God and confirmed His will, plan and purpose. And other "encouragers/ministering spirits" as well. And that has given me renewed confidence that in spite of the battles we're fighting here in real life He's very much in control and as long as I know that -- as long as I know that I'm in the center of His will then I know I'm safe in the midst of the storm and that He will make that way of escape promised in Scripture.

Our God is amazing! Totally amazing! And I never cease nor do I ever want to cease being totally amazed at the favour and blessing He has heaped on me! :bliss

[pelathais]

67 posts and not one person said "I know Bro. *** is PCI and has a strong standard."


Maybe I beat around the bush myself in Post 39 (http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=202383#post202383) - but I was refraining from naming names.

I know several former PCI "One Steppers" who are also very strong on the "conservative" standards. One man that I know very well, I suspect to be so strong just because of his PCI roots. It's as if he thinks he has something to prove; which is sad.

I remember sitting in a young ministers training session where the speaker was the first UPCI G.S. from the old PAJC. To this day he is probably the most conservative GS the UPC has ever had. He gave a hypothetical situation on standards to get the discussion started. After the meeting several "conservatives" literally reviled the former GS for being a "compromiser."

From my observation, there is a strong sentiment within the Apostolic movement that declares that no man is conservative enough. People try to puff up their own credentials by tearing down others, and the theme most often used is that the target is a "compromiser."

From that list that was posted- I can personally tell you that no Assistant GS or GS of the UPCI of the last 30 years has ever held dogmatically to those standards as a heaven or hell issue for their saints. And I say, God bless them for it.

If anyone would like to name names - I'd be happy to rehearse conversations, sermons and teaching sessions where I've heard these men state just the opposite to what people seem to think we're supposed to believe.

The fact of the matter is, even the leaders among the "3 Steppers" don't preach what the "everybody else is going to hell..." crowd claims to believe. And they pay the price for their "compromising" every day with the backbiting and self important gossip from fringe and radical strangers.

Personally, I've never worn a ring of any kind in my life. But that has nothing to do with standards. I just don't like the taste of metal in my mouth. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to it, but I can't stand a bunch of do-bobs and bandangles on my person. It has nothing to do with anyone else's salvation. It's just that kind of stuff makes me itch and feel self conscience.

Since the inception of the cell phone I don't even wear a watch any more. But I remember buying a watch at Kmart many years ago for $1 - Blue Light Special. A "brother" saw my shiny new watch and criticized me for it. He said "the preachers in Kansas won't let you wear a gold watch..." (he was from Kansas).

A $1 watch that was advertised as "disposable" - and that's too extravagant for some people! And to be fair- the preachers in Kansas to whom he referred couldn't have cared less about my $1 watch. He was just following that old pattern of tearing someone down in order to puff himself up.

[crakjak]

Seriously? I thought it was a legitimate question once I read the thread. Does PCI = low standards? I think it's a given that PAJC does NOT always = good standards.

My opinion is that there are no 'measurements' here at all. At least if what I'm reading is correct. I think he's asking if the PCI = low standards is a fact or not. I can see someone wanting some solid examples that its not really that way.

But, then again, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Low standards???? I have found many folks that don't hold the outward apparel standards, have "higher standards" of heart than some of the ''high standard" PAJC's that I have and do know. So in my opinion the whole question is ridiculous and totally irrelevant.

[Truly Blessed]

Okay. I clarified myself and evidently it wasn't enough. My concept of holiness is totally unknown by you but, hey, I'll let you think you're the authority on my walk with God if it makes you feel better. :slaphappy

There. You have my permission. Think as you wish.

Now. Don't you feel envigorated!

(No, I'm not without words at this point. So much could be said but I really see so little need to say it.)

I am sorry to have offended you, but it really stirs up a righteous indignation within me when I see folks define the standards of the Christian life by man made outward criteria that even they can't agree upon, and use this to judge everyone else's relationship with God.

You could have two people standing side by side. They both may have all the fruits of a Spirit filled life, but if one of them doesn't meet some outward standard that someone decided is necessary in order to be "holy", then that person is immediately judged as not being in a right relationship with God, or at least not as holy as the other person. And this is based solely on appearance!

I believe this attitude represents spiritual immaturity and a lack of understanding of the nature of God and our relationship with Him. The reason Peter teaches that a woman's beauty should not come from outward adornment, but the inner self is because he intended that we focus on that inward beauty and value it as God does. Instead I find many Pentecostals place very little value on the inward beauty of a person. Most women, in particular, are made to feel their value is directly related to their outward conformity to man made standards. That is sad!

[SDG]

Technically, yes. I never said that I didn't. That was evidently your assumption working overtime. I just don't know of any personally who are of the PCI persuasion that preach a strong outward standard. It would seem common to me that I wouldn't know them as I'm not of that persuasion myself and, because of that, not around much fellowship with them.

Your questions;
The purpose of the question? I suspect to get an answer about the subject.
The purpose of the thread? You'll have to ask the author and I'm not the author.
Would it be appropriate to name names of those who are PCI with good standards? If I was PCI I would hope someone could say, "They preach a good standard" so, in my opinion, I would suspect yes. Why wouldn't it be?

Does anyone not believe that if these PCIers are UPCI they might not want to be named? People have been excommunicated for much less.

Again ... most PCIers that hold to conservative values would not hold these things as salvational ... or even a "badge of honor". They would simply see their standard as a conviction and evidence of God living through them.

[CC1]

I am sorry to have offended you, but it really stirs up a righteous indignation within me when I see folks define the standards of the Christian life by man made outward criteria that even they can't agree upon, and use this to judge everyone else's relationship with God.

You could have two people standing side by side. They both may have all the fruits of a Spirit filled life, but if one of them doesn't meet some outward standard that someone decided is necessary in order to be "holy", then that person is immediately judged as not being in a right relationship with God, or at least not as holy as the other person. And this is based solely on appearance!

I believe this attitude represents spiritual immaturity and a lack of understanding of the nature of God and our relationship with Him. The reason Peter teaches that a woman's beauty should not come from outward adornment, but the inner self is because he intended that we focus on that inward beauty and value it as God does. Instead I find many Pentecostals place very little value on the inward beauty of a person. Most women, in particular, are made to feel their value is directly related to their outward conformity to man made standards. That is sad!

Shhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep talking like this and you can kiss the mother and child reunion goodbye!!!! (Paul Simon 1972).

Very good words TB.

I recently listened to a sermon by a UPC pastor online. I tried to figure out a way to post an anonymous link to it here so a thread could listen to it and discuss it. I don't think anyone would recognize his voice or figure out who it is as he is not a big name preacher.

The sermon was bout the "beauty of holiness" with of course holiness meaning standards. What was amazing to me was the lack of consistent logic. On the one hand the major anecodote the preacher used in his sermon was a funny one about him and his wife eating out at a restaurant and when the waiter came to take their order she told him she wanted the "hard lemonade" to drink. He said the waiter looked surprised and asked the wife if she was sure that was what she wanted. She assured him she did indeed want it. The waiter was still very doubtful and at some point came back and just asked her right out "you do realize that drink has alcohol in it?" to which of course she was horrified and replied that she did not.

The preacher used this story as a reason why "holiness" (standards) was important because it was how his wife looked that caused that waiter to think she really did not want an alcoholic drink.

The funny thing was that in the next breath the preacher totally undid his reasoning by laughing and stating that if he had ordered the hard lemonade the waiter would have brought it without a second thought.

That was true and spoke volumes about his logic regarding the role of standards. Apparently they are there to help women and keep them in line but men for the most part are on their own!

[RandyWayne]

That was true and spoke volumes about his logic regarding the role of standards. Apparently they are there to help women and keep them in line but men for the most part are on their own!
Reply With Quote

This has been my contention for years. That more often than not it is about nothing more then control. Just look at how 'most' standards deal with women combined with an ongoing fascination in the UPC (and other orgs) with the role of women and how much authority they 'really have'.

[Truly Blessed]

IMHO, until they can come up with some way that the men can be identified as "different" from the world, the men in the Pentecostal movement who believe their holiness standards are necessary for the women in their church to be identified as Apostolics, should be silent. They should at least be embarrassed that they do such a lousy job of representing the Apostolic movement. One solution would be to put together a group of women in their churches and give them the assignment of coming up with ways in which the men could present themselves in public and immediately be identified as "holy". :)

[seguidordejesus]

IMHO, until they can come up with some way that the men can be identified as "different" from the world, the men in the Pentecostal movement who believe their holiness standards are necessary for the women in their church to be identified as Apostolics, should be silent. They should at least be embarrassed that they do such a lousy job of representing the Apostolic movement. One solution would be to put together a group of women in their churches and give them the assignment of coming up with ways in which the men could present themselves in public and immediately be identified as "holy". :)

LOL no, I wouldn't want to have to deal with that....no telling what they'd come up with!