My Name is on www.wedeclare.org

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by yisraelm

My Grandma would have taken a yard stick to me if it was no parted right! And that is a fact! And some of you know it too. But it is a blessing for younger Holiness men like me it keeps the worldly women away be cause we do not wear rings.

It isn't the lack of the ring that keeps the women away, this dude isn't wearing one either.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

It isn't the lack of the ring that keeps the women away, this dude isn't wearing one either.

And, he's not holy either - - the sleeves are too short for some.

[KWSS1976]

Axe could not even help him...LOL

[Tina]

This came to my mind while reading this thread.....

I remember an old time UPC preacher telling me when I was 12 years old that he'd rather have a church full of bar hopping, alcoholic, drug addicted, cigarette smoking, non christian folks than to have one person sitting on the pews who displayed a bad spirit-yet considered themselves to be saved; Because all those people had a greater chance of God reaching them through his sermons and letting them see the error of their ways.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

And, he's not holy either - - the sleeves are too short for some.

and he has a silver buckle on his belt, and colored buttons on his shirt and he is sporting that "worldly" center part in his hair. Naw, this guy ain't saved. He's an "ain't" not a "saint"

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not here to argue either. I would just like someone, for once, to make some sense out of that passage. As I've said before, I Tim 2:9 would make much more sense to use as a particular "cultural" clothing stance for women not wearing pants, if they wanted to, than Deut 22:5 would be.

When I was a kid, when I asked why our women didn't wear pants, I was told that it was because of modesty. That women were more modest in dresses. I didn't hear the Deut. thing until I was much older.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Tina

This came to my mind while reading this thread.....

I remember an old time UPC preacher telling me when I was 12 years old that he'd rather have a church full of bar hopping, alcoholic, drug addicted, cigarette smoking, non christian folks than to have one person sitting on the pews who displayed a bad spirit-yet considered themselves to be saved; Because all those people had a greater chance of God reaching them through his sermons and letting them see the error of their ways.

Tina, I've heard others say that exact same thing.

[Sam]

OK, let's make it simple:

1. Du 22:5 says men are not supposed to wear women's clothes and women aren't supposed to wear men's clothes.

2. During the nineteen forties in the United States, women often wore skirts and dresses and men wore pants.

3. Therefore Du 22:5 (written a couple thousand years before Christ and when men and women didn't wear pants) means men can't wear dresses and women can't wear bifurcated garments (pantyhose is considered an exception in some cases).

It's really pretty simple, isn't it?

[Bella1]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm sorry, but this was not well thought out. Whether the original intent was noble or not (and I'm not convinced that it was), it only serves to divide, exclude, and create yet another "list" for ministers to look at in deciding who gets to preach in their church.

We don't need "wedeclare", we don't need the WPF, and we don't need ANY more broken down, splintered off, exclusive factions of Pentecost trying to place walls around their particular interpretation of scripture.

My biggest reaction to www.wedeclare.org is "oh, the irony."

It is a crying shame when you post a doctrinal statement that puts forth the core doctrines of Pentecost, the things we ALL agree on, the things that lead to SALVATION of the lost, and then you cheapen them by placing issues of outward appearance on the same level.

It's like calling fornication and wearing makeup equivalent sins. Dragging young people to the altar for watching movies, just as quick as you'd haul them there for telling lies.

These issues are NOT on the same level, and don't belong in the same document.

Why not create a document that will serve to unify, and emphasize what we ALL can agree on?

Or wasn't that your goal? To unify?

Did you want to exclude people from the "wedeclare" list who believe it's alright for women to trim their hair or to wear "bifurcated" garments? Was THAT the goal?

And who decided those were the main points of "holiness" that needed to be hung on to? That those were the only important ones?

And this one:

"Biblical modesty precludes (prohibits) excessive jewelry, painting of the face, coloring of the hair, short skirts, mini skirts, shorts, sleeveless dresses or shirts, and low necklines."

BIBLICAL modesty "prohibits"????? It does? You have scripture for that?

The word "modest" is only listed in the Bible ONE TIME.

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

If you take this verse LITERALLY, the ONLY things you can exclude are "braids, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing." Well, your wives and girlfriends are already guilty then, on at least 2 of the 4, and often 3 of the 4. If they wear sweaters with pearl buttons, well, then....it's all 4 prohibitions. Do they pay a lot of money for their dresses and shoes? Uh-oh.

I'm afraid your "prohibitions" in #6 are ANYTHING but "biblical", and the first three declarations are cheapened by association. #'s 4, 5 & 6 are issues that should be shared, taught and applied by the LOCAL church leadership, IF at all.

It would have been SO much more impressive if you had listed THESE scriptures in reference to holiness, and it is SO revealing that you did not:

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Gal 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Once again, Miss B. has knocked it totally out of the park! GREAT post!

[rgcraig]

Hopefully, just a couple more post and we'll be on the next page so this won't be so BIG!!!