PDA

View Full Version : AS Questions Answered!


NLYP
10-04-2007, 08:19 AM
I got my answers to the questions posed in my thread about the AS and the signing of it and how and where it binds.

I was on the telephone with a dear man that I and many others respect highly. You could consider him a District Official of sorts from Texas.

So here you go....from a man that knows, reads, studies and defines the manual as written.

First the AS

The affirmation statement in itself says that "I (Ministers Name) do hereby declare that I believe and embrace fundamental doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth by the United Pentecostal Church Int. I ALSO BELIEVE AND EMBRACE THE HOLINESS STANDARDS of the United Pentecostal Church Int. in said Articles of Faith,
And I PLEDGE to practice, teach and preach the same"

The fundamental Doctrine part.....No question....

Its the second half that I am questioning...

I ALSO BELIEVE AND EMBRACE THE HOLINESS STANDARDS of the United Pentecostal Church Int. in said Articles of Faith,
And I PLEDGE to practice, teach and preach the same"

So here they are again.....Quoted from the manual...

"HOLINESS
Godly living should characterize the life of every child of the Lord, and we should live according to the pattern and example given in the Word of God. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:11,12). "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was 'guile found in His mouth: who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously" (1 Peter 2:21-23).

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

"But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:15-19).

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and Godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

His words to me were quite shocking to say the least...

Here is the kicker in the wording...
We wholeheartedly disapprove!

He said that is NOT a we forbid.......It was put there because of the need for tolerance for different interpretation. He stated that the office of the GS - Bro. Jerry Jones would indeed verify this.

ALSO.....notice please that womens pants are NOT addressed in the manual!!!

hmmmmm This, I admit was a huge red flag for me.

I was told "TECHNICALLY" If a minsters wife wore pants or a tv program is started and the praise team women are in pants....the District can do NOTHING about it...since it is NOT adressed in the manual.

They put this HUGE emphasis on TV!

YET in matters of what we call HOLINESS - We get a wholeheartedly Disapprove.

So now you have it...
Which WITH THE ACEPTION OF THE ACTS 2:38 Fundamental Doctrine....

EVERYTHING ELSE IS UP TO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!

Read it again...

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and Godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

These are NOT shall nots....

So...I guess the AS IS ok in my opinion now since I do agree we have to be united on acts 2.
So those of you that would leave for not signing the AS over standards....COME ON HOME!!!!!!!!

BoredOutOfMyMind
10-04-2007, 08:21 AM
Why is this a new thread?

Same thoughts you had in the other one and you failed to justify a man having a TV when he said he would not.

NLYP
10-04-2007, 08:24 AM
Why is this a new thread?

Same thoughts you had in the other one and you failed to justify a man having a TV when he said he would not.

Because the other thread had served its purpose and this one will answer the question.

I never set out to justify the tv as you say...BOOMMEISTER....

I agree...if you sing it you are lying if you have a tv...hence the reason I got rid of mine in may and have not had one.

BoredOutOfMyMind
10-04-2007, 08:25 AM
Because the other thread had served its purpose and this one will answer the question.

I never set out to justify the tv as you say...BOOMMEISTER....

I agree...if you sing it you are lying if you have a tv...hence the reason I got rid of mine in may and have not had one.

The other thread is still active.

:driving

CC1
10-04-2007, 08:27 AM
NYLP,

So the Christ Church female praise singers in slacks or pantsuits could be UPC!!!!

NLYP
10-04-2007, 08:29 AM
NYLP,

So the Christ Church female praise singers in slacks or pantsuits could be UPC!!!!

Think about it CC....
There is NOTHING forbidding pants in the Holiness position of the UPC.

SO....If they are acts 2...I guess so.

Im kinda floored over this....Ive never thought about it.

CC1
10-04-2007, 08:50 AM
The pants on women loophole has been discussed before on here. It is interesting that with so many other things specifically listed in a laundry list that pants on women is not there.

Especially given that at the time this was written culturally pants were considered primarily men's clothing, which has not been true the last 30 years.

Coonskinner
10-04-2007, 08:55 AM
At the time it was written, I doubt if anyone thought it was necessary to specify.

It was considered a given.

rgcraig
10-04-2007, 08:55 AM
Think about it CC....
There is NOTHING forbidding pants in the Holiness position of the UPC.

SO....If they are acts 2...I guess so.

Im kinda floored over this....Ive never thought about it.

Really? Well, study up boy!

NLYP
10-04-2007, 08:58 AM
Really? Well, study up boy!

YOU study up woman!!!!!!LOL

Read the manual...ITS NOT THERE!!!!!!!

NLYP
10-04-2007, 08:59 AM
At the time it was written, I doubt if anyone thought it was necessary to specify.

It was considered a given.

It was considered a given?....But not hair and makeup?

delta soundman
10-04-2007, 09:41 AM
Yee haw! Lets brawl. The statement "it was a given" doesn't fly. To many specifics listed to all of a sudden say "it's a given". Alot of things are a given like driving on the wrong side of the road is dangerous yet we still have a law against that.

determined
10-04-2007, 10:48 AM
Anybody here have to sign basically an AS statement to be in leadership or participate in your local church? Saying I will or I won't....?

Sarah
10-04-2007, 10:56 AM
At the time it was written, I doubt if anyone thought it was necessary to specify.

It was considered a given.

Right. They probably never dreamed it would be an issue.

Even good Baptist women back then wouldn't have dreamed of wearing them to church.......and some wouldn't have worn them anywhere!

Maybe it's time for a new resolution. LOL

deltaguitar
10-04-2007, 10:59 AM
WAIT A MINUTE!!!

We were told by a well known "Bishop" during our church split that the saints in the church had to follow the minimum requirements of the manual. Our Pastor argued that they were to be followed as suggestions and encouragement to the the membership. But this guy said that if they wanted to follow personal convictions above the letter of the law they could but that the Articles of Faith were the minimum requirements that the pastor "had" to preach.

delta soundman
10-04-2007, 11:04 AM
WAIT A MINUTE!!!

We were told by a well known "Bishop" during our church split that the saints in the church had to follow the minimum requirements of the manual. Our Pastor argued that they were to be followed as suggestions and encouragement to the the membership. But this guy said that if they wanted to follow personal convictions above the letter of the law they could but that the Articles of Faith were the minimum requirements that the pastor "had" to preach.

You aren't you speaking of the honorable "Peoria Bishop" are you!?!? You can't question him. He wears long sleeves. Surely he must be speaking the truth and not personal beliefs. I can't imagine he would allow he on thoughts to be apart of a church split.............:killinme yeah right!

Timmy
10-04-2007, 11:05 AM
WAIT A MINUTE!!!

We were told by a well known "Bishop" during our church split that the saints in the church had to follow the minimum requirements of the manual. Our Pastor argued that they were to be followed as suggestions and encouragement to the the membership. But this guy said that if they wanted to follow personal convictions above the letter of the law they could but that the Articles of Faith were the minimum requirements that the pastor "had" to preach.

Well, ". . . And I PLEDGE to practice, teach and preach the same". Isn't there some obligation on the part of the saints to obey what is preached to them? (Never mind whether the preached stuff is right or wrong. Mere saints have no way of knowing that, do they?)

COOPER
10-04-2007, 11:26 AM
Who is the "WE" that wholeheartedly disapproved?

Does the "we" still exist?

Can the "we" change it's mind?

ChicagoPastor
10-04-2007, 11:31 AM
I got my answers to the questions posed in my thread about the AS and the signing of it and how and where it binds.

I was on the telephone with a dear man that I and many others respect highly. You could consider him a District Official of sorts from Texas.

So here you go....from a man that knows, reads, studies and defines the manual as written.

First the AS

The affirmation statement in itself says that "I (Ministers Name) do hereby declare that I believe and embrace fundamental doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth by the United Pentecostal Church Int. I ALSO BELIEVE AND EMBRACE THE HOLINESS STANDARDS of the United Pentecostal Church Int. in said Articles of Faith,
And I PLEDGE to practice, teach and preach the same"

The fundamental Doctrine part.....No question....

Its the second half that I am questioning...

I ALSO BELIEVE AND EMBRACE THE HOLINESS STANDARDS of the United Pentecostal Church Int. in said Articles of Faith,
And I PLEDGE to practice, teach and preach the same"

So here they are again.....Quoted from the manual...

"HOLINESS
Godly living should characterize the life of every child of the Lord, and we should live according to the pattern and example given in the Word of God. "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:11,12). "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was 'guile found in His mouth: who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously" (1 Peter 2:21-23).

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).

"But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:15-19).

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and Godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

His words to me were quite shocking to say the least...

Here is the kicker in the wording...
We wholeheartedly disapprove!

He said that is NOT a we forbid.......It was put there because of the need for tolerance for different interpretation. He stated that the office of the GS - Bro. Jerry Jones would indeed verify this.

ALSO.....notice please that womens pants are NOT addressed in the manual!!!

hmmmmm This, I admit was a huge red flag for me.

I was told "TECHNICALLY" If a minsters wife wore pants or a tv program is started and the praise team women are in pants....the District can do NOTHING about it...since it is NOT adressed in the manual.

They put this HUGE emphasis on TV!

YET in matters of what we call HOLINESS - We get a wholeheartedly Disapprove.

So now you have it...
Which WITH THE ACEPTION OF THE ACTS 2:38 Fundamental Doctrine....

EVERYTHING ELSE IS UP TO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION!

Read it again...

We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and Godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church."

These are NOT shall nots....

So...I guess the AS IS ok in my opinion now since I do agree we have to be united on acts 2.
So those of you that would leave for not signing the AS over standards....COME ON HOME!!!!!!!!


I am very glad you posted this. This changes my view as well on the AS.
WOW. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of our Pastors got this new revelation that the AS only says they disapprove and not ban.

HeavenlyOne
10-04-2007, 02:12 PM
I don't believe there is any way they can put a clause in there about women wearing pants or not, because, to be consistent, they would have to put a clause in there about dresses on men.

This can be problematic worldwide, considering that in some countries, a dress-like garment is worn by men and considered men's apparel. OTOH, there are countries (India is one) where women were a pants-like garment and it's considered to be women's apparel.

Being specific in clothing isn't Biblical, nor can the manual put in such specifics in a worldwide organization.