AS Questions Answered!

[NLYP]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

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]

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]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

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............. yeah right!

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

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]

Who is the "WE" that wholeheartedly disapproved?

Does the "we" still exist?

Can the "we" change it's mind?

[ChicagoPastor]

Originally Posted by NLYP

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]

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.