No it does not...but that wasn't my point. my pointis that Epley has a point...oh lightening is about to strike I'm agreeing with SE!!!!!! Help, i'm suffocating!!!
The point that the AS does say that if you sign you are pledging to Practice and preach (teach) the Articles of Fath...which include hair and TV and mixed bathing and worldly sports and amusments and so on...but they do not include women's pants, which is kindof strange...
NYLP makes as though Urshan and becton made a blanket pass on interpretation meaning that hair and tv and stuff were off limits for licence revoking...but that is not the case.
I was in the building voting on the AS...the argument that Urshan's letter tried to quiet was the interpretation of "worldly amusments" NOT HAIR AND TV! The lib group was saying that UC's would take a man's license for playing golf...and Urshan said, no..participation in personal sporting pleasures were not targeted.
I don't believe for one minute Urshan or Becton would say that hair, mixed bathing, and TV were left to private interpretation...those are pretty clear in the manual.
and my point is that, while NLYP does not see these as heaven/hell issues, he still lives by them and because he is not a pastor, he is not required to teach them. thus he is within the bounds of his agreement.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I was a teenager when the book first came out, and I too was upset.
Key things here though . . . I was young and was relying entirely on just what I was hearing from the pulpit and not searching things out for myself; and I hadn't read the book.
Years have passed and I've changed in my opinion in regards to the books.
If NLYP denounced it years ago and now supports it, that really doesn't matter.
Sarah, CS, CC1, Thumper . . . it doesn't matter. I'm sure you all have had an opinion on something that has changed over the years. Or have ya'll been perfect all your lives? *grin* I doubt it. I would guarantee there's at least one or more times you have each changed your mind on something you were all once either for or against.
JMO
Uh, Bubba, we are not talking a change over "years". We are talking about months or possibly one year at most!
My only gripe with DW was that Pendelum Extremes read like it was written by a man who was trying to get back in the good graces of the UPC and retain his license. That may not be the case but that is how I read it and at the time I had heard that he was upset at the negative reaction he was getting from the Ark. I can understand that as I am sure it was not his intent to alienate his fellowship.
My only gripe with DW was that Pendelum Extremes read like it was written by a man who was trying to get back in the good graces of the UPC and retain his license. That may not be the case but that is how I read it and at the time I had heard that he was upset at the negative reaction he was getting from the Ark. I can understand that as I am sure it was not his intent to alienate his fellowship.
That is enouigh to make me want to buy the book.
Sounds honorable to me.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
and my point is that, while NLYP does not see these as heaven/hell issues, he still lives by them and because he is not a pastor, he is not required to teach them. thus he is within the bounds of his agreement.
I was not referring to his own life. I was responding to the post about bro urshan's letter which seems to indicate that he gave the ministers a pass on the holiness issues...when he did not!
The manual does not give ANY room for ministerial interpretation as to TV in the licensed ministers home.
neither does it give any room in te other standard items specifically listed...the issue of interpretation was soley on worldy sports and amusements...which has traditionally been given room for instance...some preach against golf and some dont...in the texas district there was a preby that preached against it...the rumer wasd that us who played golf would find his wrath....Urshan's letter assured us that we would not be charged about golf...
Also, ball tourney's same thing....churches can still hold them....even though there is the "organized sports prohibition" in some camps...
All I am saying is that urshan's letter did not allow for cut hair on women, mixed bathing, tv's, and the other things SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the AofF...
And the AS stipulates that if you sign you will practice and preach (teach) what is in the manual...
I don't think you have read the AS in its entirity...
It definately says that the signer will "Practice and PREACH (TEACH) the Articles of Faith AND the holiness standards as written in the manual of the UPC". The manual includes the hair...and the TV...but it is silent totally on women in pants!
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOLINESS STANDARDS!!!!!!!!
I have a copy of the last one I signed......
SORRY...Not There.
Linear Mode
