Facts Found~The Early Church and Standards~

[*AQuietPlace*]

I love your posts, KeptBytheWord.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by mfblume

awesome thought!

The PAJC took the UPC away from its original blend by FORCE. Demanding lifestyles not required in the Acts church is doing it by FORCE.
Demanding sacrifice (in this case, how we dress) is not how we are to approach God. Our "not of this world" kingdom involves the inner man from whence come the issue of the heart. A "within" issue. That's why Jesus said,

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

. Mathew 9:13

My righteous brethren's attitude needs to be reconsidered...into one with the heart of Jesus Christ. By taking the kingdom by FORCE they totally miss the will of God.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Sabby

The PAJC took the UPC away from its original blend by FORCE. Demanding lifestyles not required in the Acts church is doing it by FORCE.
Demanding sacrifice (in this case, how we dress) is not how we are to approach God. Our "not of this world" kingdom involves the inner man from whence come the issue of the heart. A "within" issue. That's why Jesus said,
. Mathew 9:13

My righteous brethren's attitude needs to be reconsidered...into one with the heart of Jesus Christ. By taking the kingdom by FORCE they totally miss the will of God.

What lifestyles that were not required are you referring to?

[Sister Alvear]

I am sure I am going to heaven...don´t know about you folks....ha....You all will probably just inherit the earth with the Jehovah´s Witnesses....

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

What lifestyles that were not required are you referring to?

, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct,

I will partially answer your question with a couple of questions.

My questions are, Do you consider the apostolic holiness movement as being part of the "root" (the original Church as found in Acts) or one of the branches?
And, do you assume I accept "any lifestyle" as acceptable to the Lord?
If the answers to the above is "yes", then you are creating a straw man argument not worth pursuing. If you are interested in a discussion then I'll be glad to have one with you.

Non-sinful cultural lifestyles should be left that way. That goes for any culture, anywhere, period.
Of course one can hold the position that all sinners "lifestyles" are ungodly and unholy and need an "alternative", but this is as subjective as the culture in which we live.


...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart 1 Samuel 16:7

This scripture is commonly used by holiness preachers...especially the part about man looking on the outward appearance. Yes, man DOES look on the outward appearance, to his carnal chagrin, he does. Only God Himself knows the condition of any heart.
When "men of God" attempt to coerce, force, impose a set of regulations upon the people of God it is unspiritual, aka carnal. These regulations do not come from the Word of God, but rather the convictions of a few, who in turn impose these views upon the church. I am particularly referring to "holiness preachers" that insist upon teaching a clothesline gospel. They have left Jesus outside knocking on the door.
If they will teach issues of the heart and "go on unto perfection", then God will take care of the rest!
The standard in the Church is relational rather than regulational and unless holiness ops start to understand this completely they will continue to grow weaker in numerical strength and effect...

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mathew 15:5

A problem that holiness people have with allowing diverse cultural lifestyles is that it allows people in other cultures much more liberty than they personally experience.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I will partially answer your question with a couple of questions.

My questions are, Do you consider the apostolic holiness movement as being part of the "root" (the original Church as found in Acts) or one of the branches?
And, do you assume I accept "any lifestyle" as acceptable to the Lord?
If the answers to the above is "yes", then you are creating a straw man argument not worth pursuing. If you are interested in a discussion then I'll be glad to have one with you.

Non-sinful cultural lifestyles should be left that way. That goes for any culture, anywhere, period.
Of course one can hold the position that all sinners "lifestyles" are ungodly and unholy and need an "alternative", but this is as subjective as the culture in which we live.


...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart 1 Samuel 16:7

This scripture is commonly used by holiness preachers...especially the part about man looking on the outward appearance. Yes, man DOES look on the outward appearance, to his carnal chagrin, he does. Only God Himself knows the condition of any heart.
When "men of God" attempt to coerce, force, impose a set of regulations upon the people of God it is unspiritual, aka carnal. These regulations do not come from the Word of God, but rather the convictions of a few, who in turn impose these views upon the church. I am particularly referring to "holiness preachers" that insist upon teaching a clothesline gospel. They have left Jesus outside knocking on the door.
If they will teach issues of the heart and "go on unto perfection", then God will take care of the rest!
The standard in the Church is relational rather than regulational and unless holiness ops start to understand this completely they will continue to grow weaker in numerical strength and effect...

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mathew 15:5

A problem that holiness people have with allowing diverse cultural lifestyles is that it allows people in other cultures much more liberty than they personally experience.

Excellent!

The bolded part is almost exactly what the Lord told me concerning keeping all the rules and such of the UPC. I was, in effect, saying "good-bye and thanks for trying" to the Lord (don't laugh) one day over how my lifestyle didn't match up with the rules.
God spoke to me and said: "Love Me, love others and I"ll take care of the rest"
Your post helped me to undestand what the "rest" means.
Blessings!

[The Lemon]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I will partially answer your question with a couple of questions.

My questions are, Do you consider the apostolic holiness movement as being part of the "root" (the original Church as found in Acts) or one of the branches?
And, do you assume I accept "any lifestyle" as acceptable to the Lord?
If the answers to the above is "yes", then you are creating a straw man argument not worth pursuing. If you are interested in a discussion then I'll be glad to have one with you.

Non-sinful cultural lifestyles should be left that way. That goes for any culture, anywhere, period.
Of course one can hold the position that all sinners "lifestyles" are ungodly and unholy and need an "alternative", but this is as subjective as the culture in which we live.


...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart 1 Samuel 16:7

This scripture is commonly used by holiness preachers...especially the part about man looking on the outward appearance. Yes, man DOES look on the outward appearance, to his carnal chagrin, he does. Only God Himself knows the condition of any heart.
When "men of God" attempt to coerce, force, impose a set of regulations upon the people of God it is unspiritual, aka carnal. These regulations do not come from the Word of God, but rather the convictions of a few, who in turn impose these views upon the church. I am particularly referring to "holiness preachers" that insist upon teaching a clothesline gospel. They have left Jesus outside knocking on the door.
If they will teach issues of the heart and "go on unto perfection", then God will take care of the rest!
The standard in the Church is relational rather than regulational and unless holiness ops start to understand this completely they will continue to grow weaker in numerical strength and effect...

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mathew 15:5

A problem that holiness people have with allowing diverse cultural lifestyles is that it allows people in other cultures much more liberty than they personally experience.

WOW!! Now that should be post of the day!! There are multiple truth's in this post. For me personally, the preachers I have known that "walked it" and "talked it" were usually very balanced and NEVER preached clothesline on any subject especially concerning Holiness (i.e. standards) These folks were very consistent both in church and out of church.

The clothesline preachers were often the ones that were later found to be in some sort of scandal or eventually ended up backslidden and leaving the ministry altogether.

There is something to be said for being REAL. I am not incinuating that to be real means to go out and sin, I'm just saying that people that can be transparent, patient, and understanding, are the ones that seem to me to have the most effective ministy, even though they get little if any airtime.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Sabby

I will partially answer your question with a couple of questions.

My questions are, Do you consider the apostolic holiness movement as being part of the "root" (the original Church as found in Acts) or one of the branches?
And, do you assume I accept "any lifestyle" as acceptable to the Lord?
If the answers to the above is "yes", then you are creating a straw man argument not worth pursuing. If you are interested in a discussion then I'll be glad to have one with you.

Non-sinful cultural lifestyles should be left that way. That goes for any culture, anywhere, period.
Of course one can hold the position that all sinners "lifestyles" are ungodly and unholy and need an "alternative", but this is as subjective as the culture in which we live.


...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart 1 Samuel 16:7

This scripture is commonly used by holiness preachers...especially the part about man looking on the outward appearance. Yes, man DOES look on the outward appearance, to his carnal chagrin, he does. Only God Himself knows the condition of any heart.
When "men of God" attempt to coerce, force, impose a set of regulations upon the people of God it is unspiritual, aka carnal. These regulations do not come from the Word of God, but rather the convictions of a few, who in turn impose these views upon the church. I am particularly referring to "holiness preachers" that insist upon teaching a clothesline gospel. They have left Jesus outside knocking on the door.
If they will teach issues of the heart and "go on unto perfection", then God will take care of the rest!
The standard in the Church is relational rather than regulational and unless holiness ops start to understand this completely they will continue to grow weaker in numerical strength and effect...

...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Mathew 15:5

A problem that holiness people have with allowing diverse cultural lifestyles is that it allows people in other cultures much more liberty than they personally experience.

Sabby, your first question is nonsensical. I cannot answer it yes or no, but you insist on a yes or no answer. I am not sure what you are asking.
Your second question is also strange. I do not assume anything insofar as to what you believe.
I do agree with you regarding non-sinful cultural issues being left alone. I would agree that many "clothesline" preachers are majoring in the minors.
I do find it ironic that twice now, when I have tried to engage in a discussion regarding different standards/doctrines/teachings the individuals I have tried to engage do not to wish to have a discussion, before I answer questions.
One being this discussion and the second being a discussion with notofworks.
I have not been to any theological or bible schools, but is this a technique that is taught there?
To quickly boil it down to my overall point, every church has a "clothesline".
Whether it is codified over the pulpit or not.
However, for some who have come out of a very hard preached "clothesline" church, it becomes easy to slam the "clothesline" preaching.
My opinion is that in those churches, it is not the "clothesline" that is the problem. It is a lack of understanding about our relationship with God and the lack of addressing that problem.
Ok, this is a long post for me.
I would appreciate your thoughts.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

To quickly boil it down to my overall point, every church has a "clothesline".

I've begun to notice this occasionally. While they might not be as extensive or as crucial as the standards are to the UPC, I've been surprised recently by comments from my in-laws that go to non-UPC churches. My husband's grandmother said the other day that she was going to wear pants to prayer meeting whether the preacher liked it or not. I was astonished and asked why he wouldn't like it, because I've seen every woman that goes to that church in pants at some point, and she said that they've "requested" the female members to wear dresses when they come to church. They're Methodist! It really surprised me. I'd like to ask him sometime what the reasoning is behind this... pants are ok outside the building but put on a dress before coming in doesn't make any sense at all to me. lol

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by whoami

I've begun to notice this occasionally. While they might not be as extensive or as crucial as the standards are to the UPC, I've been surprised recently by comments from my in-laws that go to non-UPC churches. My husband's grandmother said the other day that she was going to wear pants to prayer meeting whether the preacher liked it or not. I was astonished and asked why he wouldn't like it, because I've seen every woman that goes to that church in pants at some point, and she said that they've "requested" the female members to wear dresses when they come to church. They're Methodist! It really surprised me. I'd like to ask him sometime what the reasoning is behind this... pants are ok outside the building but put on a dress before coming in doesn't make any sense at all to me. lol

Interesting - but not really surprising to me. Many churches (non pentecostal even) have a dress code requiring skirts on the platform and/or request they be worn to all formal church events.