Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

[Dan'D]

The Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

The WPF is keeping with the idea that we should keep our Holiness Standards we have kept over the years. Which I agree, Yes things change but do we?
Dan'D

[RandyWayne]

Which "Old Ways" do we keep? The "Old Ways" which started in the 1940's and 50's? Or the "Old Ways" that started 2000 years ago?

For most people the "Old Ways" officially start at the time of their oldest known relative such as grandparents or great grand parents and in addition are heavily influenced by the town and neighborhood they grew up in.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Which "Old Ways" do we keep? The "Old Ways" which started in the 1940's and 50's? Or the "Old Ways" that started 2000 years ago?

For most people the "Old Ways" officially start at the time of their oldest known relative such as grandparents or great grand parents and in addition are heavily influenced by the town and neighborhood they grew up in.

Good post. Those "Old ways" can even be different between two churches two miles apart.

When I was a teenager my UPC pastor was considered backslid and "wrong" by the other UPC church in our town (they were right outside town) because my pastor used hairspray in his hair and wore flared jeans / slacks (this was the mid 70's). Somehow the other pastor's 8 ounces of oil in his hair to hold it in place was holy but hairspray was not! LOL!!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by CC1

Good post. Those "Old ways" can even be different between two churches two miles apart.

When I was a teenager my UPC pastor was considered backslid and "wrong" by the other UPC church in our town (they were right outside town) because my pastor used hairspray in his hair and wore flared jeans / slacks (this was the mid 70's). Somehow the other pastor's 8 ounces of oil in his hair to hold it in place was holy but hairspray was not! LOL!!

Everyone, to one degree or another, is willing to explain away an action while either condemning or "not approving" of someone doing something similar. Case in point, condemning television but allowing the net. Condemning "costly apparel"/jewelry on someone, then driving away in their Lincoln or wearing an $$$ suit. (What IS the difference between an expensive piece of jewelry and a high end car anyways?? -I don't think EITHER are wrong, but can't see how one can be condemned and the other not.)
Complaining about loud "rock music" then turning the church music to 11 on the volume scale. The list is endless.... And as Spock would say "Very very 'human'."

[SavedLou]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Everyone, to one degree or another, is willing to explain away an action while either condemning or "not approving" of someone doing something similar. Case in point, condemning television but allowing the net. Condemning "costly apparel"/jewelry on someone, then driving away in their Lincoln or wearing an $$$ suit. (What IS the difference between an expensive piece of jewelry and a high end car anyways?? -I don't think EITHER are wrong, but can't see how one can be condemned and the other not.)
Complaining about loud "rock music" then turning the church music to 11 on the volume scale. The list is endless.... And as Spock would say "Very very 'human'."

LOL! so true...i thought of a friend on this one that told me once that she probably wouldn't be wearing a wedding ring when she got engaged but instead she said her fiance' could just get her a gucci purse and a fancy watch with little diamonds around the face. lololol! like 400 lb preachers wearing rolex watches and $1000 suits preaching against rings and tv. ah the irony.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by SavedLou

LOL! so true...i thought of a friend on this one that told me once that she probably wouldn't be wearing a wedding ring when she got engaged but instead she said her fiance' could just get her a gucci purse and a fancy watch with little diamonds around the face. lololol! like 400 lb preachers wearing rolex watches and $1000 suits preaching against rings and tv. ah the irony.

Yup. Just like those "plain faced" women at GC with no makeup on but a $500 dress and a watch that cost more than all of my wifes jewelry combined!

[robert]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Which "Old Ways" do we keep? The "Old Ways" which started in the 1940's and 50's? Or the "Old Ways" that started 2000 years ago?

For most people the "Old Ways" officially start at the time of their oldest known relative such as grandparents or great grand parents and in addition are heavily influenced by the town and neighborhood they grew up in.

Apparently you want to change things to suit your preference of standards. Or do you have any standards. How far would one go and still be holy. You must have an opinion since you are challenging what has been accepted for the last 50 years. You could write an instruction book. "Holiness standards according to Randy Wayne", or "Why, Holiness standards should be different in this day and age". Excuse my sarcasm...but did I detect some sarcasm in YOUR quote. 50 years ago every religion had a standard of holiness they lived by, it's not the fad to have rules or standards any more, but thank God some still have moral convictions and standards or where would this world be.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by robert

Apparently you want to change things to suit your preference of standards. Or do you have any standards. How far would one go and still be holy. You must have an opinion since you are challenging what has been accepted for the last 50 years. You could write an instruction book. "Holiness standards according to Randy Wayne", or "Why, Holiness standards should be different in this day and age". Excuse my sarcasm...but did I detect some sarcasm in YOUR quote. 50 years ago every religion had a standard of holiness they lived by, it's not the fad to have rules or standards any more, but thank God some still have moral convictions and standards or where would this world be.

Mmmmm... The "Standards According to Randy Wayne". How would such a book go? For starters it would be very short. It would start out with a verse about, ohhh, working out your own salvation followed by a verse saying to "obey those who have rule over you" MODIFIED by another verse condemning any who would add or take away from the Word.

So 3 or 4 versus... maybe.

[robert]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Mmmmm... The "Standards According to Randy Wayne". How would such a book go? For starters it would be very short. It would start out with a verse about, ohhh, working out your own salvation followed by a verse saying to "obey those who have rule over you" MODIFIED by another verse condemning any who would add or take away from the Word.

So 3 or 4 versus... maybe.

Since you are so knowledgeable...could you, or would you be able to explain or define...working out your own salvation? I think leaving this up to the individual without further explanation could result in more diverse definitions than all the existing religions of the world. Are you serious about obeying those who have the rule over you and who are they? It appears you would be for adding to the word since you use quotes that do not come from the scriptures even as you presume to take away from the word by your own philosophies that are not even based on true study of same scriptures. Who knows the mind of God. Do you?

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by Dan'D

The Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

The WPF is keeping with the idea that we should keep our Holiness Standards we have kept over the years. Which I agree, Yes things change but do we?
Dan'D

Yes pls explain, is it mainly to do with dress standards? If so I agree, also with abstaining from questionable practices but then again that is a private or personal conviction(s)., today I don't believe its a good thing to force people to 100percent comply with everything unless its bible based, and/or GOD conviction I consider both to be present in my decision., meaning I don't have to have direct 100% blk/white written Bible IF I have GOD conviction ., the HG is there for a reason.