CHAPTER XXIII
FEARFUL EMPLOYEES


 
 
THOSE WHO ARE TRUSTING IN THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL OF "LIVE AS YOU PLEASE" WILL BE UNPLEASANTLY SURPRISED AT THE JUDGMENT DAY.

DOES "FEAR" PLAY ANY ROLE IN A CHRISTIAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD? ARE ONENESS PENTECOSTALS TREMBLING "EMPLOYEES" OF A "PERFECTIONISTIC GOD"?
DOES BEHAVIOUR MATTER TO GOD?

PERMISSIVENESS, HOLINESS AND FEAR // RESULTS OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL //  GOD'S CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS // A CLEAN CHURCH // CULTURAL ISSUES // GOLDEN CALF OF THE PERMISSIVES // OPENING A CAN OF WORMS // HOLINESS AND HAIR // OTHER POINTS OF HOLINESS // SMOKING // ALCOHOL AND WINE // MOVIES AND TELEVISION // CLOTHES AND APPEARANCE // WHERE WILL IT STOP? // IS GOD CONCERNED? // LIBERTY VS. OBEDIENCE // EARLY FATHERS AND HOLINESS // CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA // TERTUILLIAN // CYPRIAN // ARNOBIUS // HOLINESS AND THE CROSS

PERMISSIVENESS, HOLINESS AND FEAR

Because Oneness Pentecostals have a healthy respect for Christs' commandments, believe in holy living, and strive to conform to what God expects Dr. Boyd ridicules them in the following words:
   Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who has ever been to one of our camp meetings, General Conferences, or revivals knows what joy and blessing we enjoy in our relationship with God. Do "fearful employees" shout, leap, and dance in the presence of a "meticulous, perfectionistic employer?" If you want to see fearful, depressed, and somber facial expressions, just visit the churches where Luther, Calvin, and St. Augustine's spiritual descendents hold sway, namely the "mainline" Protestant and Catholic Churches of today. Those men, who according to Dr. Boyd, preached such a "beautiful and freeing" gospel, have produced a brood of the most "unjoyous" worshipers imaginable. They don't even start to "lighten up" until they're back on the front steps of the church after service and heading for lunch! Many of them can't wait to get Outside and have a cigarette to relieve their tension (or boredom.) Why do the "fearful employees" of Oneness have more to shout, sing, and dance about than the descendents of those "great reformers," who preached such a "freeing gospel?"

 A healthy "fear of God" however is what the nation, the church, and the family need in this day and hour. The Bible teaches that a certain Mount of "fear" is necessary to a healthy relationship with God!
 

 And just in case someone wants to claim that "Grace" is incompatible with "Godly fear" the writer to the Hebrews states: "
   

RESULTS OF THE PERMISSIVE GOSPEL

 The sad results of "permissiveness" can be seen in our schools and homes today. We are a nation which can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, the clean and the unclean. We have a "pro-choice" philosophy which sanctions every kind of wickedness, as long as it is a personal decision exercised by a "free moral agent." Freedom to do what you want, without restriction, is the underlying premise. In this type of thinking, the real enemies are any who would dare attempt to tell someone what they should or shouldn't t do. Authority is out; unrestrained freedom is in! Things are not wrong; they are only wrong for some!

 This evil leaven, I'm afraid, is also permeating the thinking of many so-called evangelicals and other assorted varieties of Christendom The crop is starting to come in and it is fearful to behold. The doctrine that "behavior" or "performance" is not the issuer and not "even related" to salvation, has fueled every sinful lifestyle that now dares to parade under the banner of Christianity.

 I taught a young girl in high school who was well entrenched in that philosophy. She claimed to be a Christian and did much to try to "lead others" to accept Christ. One day I observed her "witnessing" to some classmates. When they didn't agree with her 'witness' she proceeded to "cuss them out!" I was shocked and asked her about such 'behavior. I was quickly informed that the Lord was not uptight about such things She had "prayed about it" and the Lord had shown her they were only ''words" (four lettered, at that) and if they relieved her anger it was all right to use them. We are saved by grace you see! And besides, in this philosophy God is only dealing with "her" and not "her behavior," which is not "even related" to salvation. Shall we go on?

 I had a man in my office once, who was not a member of my congregation (Thank God!), who claimed to have a ministry of "adultery." Yes, you heard me correctly. He was a member of an "Evangelical Free" church, whatever that signifies, and had been caught "fooling around" with a married woman. He calmly explained how he was a sincere Christian, had "accepted Christ as his very own personal savior" and studied (?) the Bible regularly. I asked him to explain his "present difficulty." Without the sign of a blush, he explained he did not feel 'condemned" at all.

He viewed his work as some sort of ministry. These women were "neglected" by their husbands, and had very low "self-esteem." They felt "undesired" and "unloved." He just filled that void in their lives and "helped" them to realize their true worth before God!! He helped himself also, of course! In my naiveté, I tried to explain to him about sin and judgment. All to no avail. For I was informed that such reasoning was "legalism" and he was naturally free from such "bondage." God is not "evaluating us" on "performance," we are told, for he is a God "who loves and saves on the basis of how he performs, not on the basis of how we perform" (Boyd, p. 219).
 

GOD'S CALL TO SEPARATION AND HOLINESS

 God is very clear in the Word that his people are to be different from the sinners which surround them in this world. We are called to separation and Holiness. Indeed, we cannot be God's people unless we "come out from among them." This was his policy for Israel in the Old Testament and is repeated for the Church in the New Testament:
  Being "received" as a "son" or "daughter" is conditioned upon separation and "coming out from among them." This is not to be misconstrued to mean that we should become hermits or recluses, hiding in our homes, lest we meet a sinner! We are "in the world," but not "of the world." In fact, our responsibility is to witness and be moral examples to the unsaved.
 

A CLEAN CHURCH

 But we cannot tolerate sinful life styles in our churches, regardless of how much Dr. Boyd thinks behavior is not the issue and we should not "reject" anyone. All are welcome, but all must change and conform to scriptural life style or be dis-fellowshipped. We do not advocate the "big tent" philosophy that teaches there is room for every opinion and life style. That may be all right for the Democratic Party, but it will not do for the church of the Living God. We would rather "affirm" the Word of God, than sinful life styles. We are not going to become the country club for fornicators, perverts, radical feminists and abortionists! Many churches today "shelter" everything in their membership. They have fulfilled Revelation 18:2 and become "the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." And because Oneness churches wish to maintain a clean membership, and because we deal with "disorderly walks" according to the Bible, we come in for some severe censure from Dr. Boyd. He writes:
   So we must not reject, but rather tolerate in our church membership every person who claims to be "unconditionally" saved. What other conclusion can we draw from what he has said? If we don't reject, then we must accept; and this acceptance cannot be contingent upon behavior, for that would be performance oriented. Therefore, welcome aboard ye drunks, harlots, blasphemers and addicts. There's room for all. Leave your behavior at the door and pick it up on the way out! If God affirms you, dope, booze and all, so do we!

 Paul certainly did not agree with this; here's what he had to say:
 

Dr. Boyd says we "tend to mirror the God we worship." We don't mind that, for we worship a God of Holiness. Jesus himself told us that if a brother would not accept church discipline, let him be as a "heathen man and a publican " (Matthew 18:16-17). In Zion's navy, you "shape up" or you "ship out."
 

CULTURAL ISSUES

 The Gospel of Permissiveness needed a mechanism whereby all Holiness requirements mentioned in the New Testament could be set aside. It would never do just to simply say the Bible was "uninspired" and therefore fallible on these points. That's what the modernists do and has a distinctly unchristian ring to it. No, something else must be found, something more palatable to conservative sensitivities. They Couldn't wait too long, for Holiness was closing in on them; their new converts were asking why certain scriptures weren't practiced. Finally, a discovery was made that would work just fine. Although it came from an unlikely source, and had never been used before in "evangelical circles," it seemed to fit the bill. It was called "cultural issues!"

 This device for setting aside scripture was first popularized on a wide scale by the Metropolitan Community Church, the religious organization of homosexuals. When confronted with Paul's strong denunciations of homosexual life style in Romans, they insisted it was all a "Greco-Roman" cultural issue that no longer applied to present day homosexuals.

 Their historically inaccurate explanation ran something like this:  Homosexuality in Paul's day was practiced in the pagan temples between devotees and specially trained male prostitutes, as part of heathen worship. That was the "cultural setting." Seeing this no longer is the setting for homosexual activities today, Paul's condemnation doesn't really apply. He was only concerned with homosexuality in a Greco-Roman temple-prostitute milieu. Therefore, ipsit dixit, homosexuality is o.k.! In this manner the modern Gay Church sets aside a portion of scripture they don't agree with, while still claiming to believe in the Bible. Of course, any historian will tell you the whole argument is fallacious, for homosexuality was also practiced in the same settings it is today, and Paul made no distinctions in his proscription.
 

GOLDEN CALF OF THE PERMISSIVES

 But modern day evangelicals saw something they could use in this cultural argument, regardless of the trash can out of which it was fetched. Now they could set aside those nettle-some holiness texts by relegating them to the category of cultural issues that no longer apply. What a sigh of relief was breathed in the camp of the permissives when this golden calf popped out of the fire! It was worth the wait! All that was needed was a little "cleaning up" and some trim work around the edges.

 Dr. Boyd uses the "cultural issue" in appendix c. He wants to employ it to get Pentecostal women to cut their hair. For he feels,
 

Yes, she might go on to the freedom of abortion, divorce, feminism, and promiscuity. For they too are being classed as "cultural issues." I read no where in the Bible that Jesus bled and died that women might wear short hair. Just where was this "freedom" won by Christ before God?

 This is the "crack" in the truth he hopes to use to start a chain reaction, which ...
 

The goal is always the same, eliminate authority. And the battering ram that he hopes will be successful to open up this crack is the "cultural issue" argument, hot out of the homosexual furnaces of the M.C.C. He writes on page 226:
  He concludes with:
  In his footnotes on page 233 he refers to Dr. Fee's reference to it as a
   

OPENING A CAN OF WORMS

 It's all "cultural," they say, and can therefore be ignored as binding. But they've opened quite a "can of worms" with this cultural argument and many are already "wiggling" their way into the pews. Marriage is after all another cultural issue. David and Solomon had many wives; Moses permitted divorce; no marriage ceremonies are recorded, etc. So maybe the marriage passages in the Bible, as well as the divorce ones, were only applicable to that "Greco-Roman cultural setting." Hence, we find many so-called Christians "living together" without benefit of clergy. They go to church and feel fine about it; and of course, they are "affirmed" and "accepted' at such ecclesiastical watering holes. After all, this may be another one of those "freedoms" Dr. Boyd tells us Christ has won for us before God!

 Abortion can be defined, and is being defined, as another "cultural issue." They argue God prohibited it in the "Israelitish culture," because they needed an increase in population to survive. But today, in our overpopulated world, this "cultural necessity" does not apply. Now we can add the brutal dismembering and scalding of infants in their mothers womb to the list of freedoms that have been won for us over such "legalistic cultural baggage"!

 The list can go on and on -- right into hell. Then I wonder how the cultural setting will feel! Strange that God would take up so much space in the New Testament to write about things that had no eternal standing. And why would Paul direct his doctrine on women's' hair, not to just the Corinthians, but to "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." (I Corinthians 1:2) Sounds transcultural to me!
 

HOLINESS AND HAIR

 The fact is none of Paul's arguments for long hair on women are "culturally related." He spoke about the woman's long hair as "power on her head, because of the angels" (I Corinthians 11:10). Were they "Greco-Roman" angels, who attended church at Corinth between flights? He said a woman's long hair was her "glory." Is he referring to the "glory that was Rome and the grandeur that was Greece?' Isn't it more logical that he had in mind what he wrote in the 20th verse of the 6th Chapter: "Glorify God in your body." He also appeals to the original creation of man and woman as part of his carefully reasoned argument (v. 9). That's precultural, unless of course, one wishes to argue that Eden was located in Corinth and Eve was a "Grecian maid." It is often overlooked, but Paul prefaces the whole hair discussion, by classifying it with the "ordinances" that should be kept (v. 2) and shortly after informed them that his writings were the "commandments of the Lord " (14:37).

 For Centuries, nearly 2,000 years, long hair was considered the Christian standard for women. When "bobbing" of hair came into vogue in the 1920's my grandmother cut her hair, but feared her own mother's disapproval and tried to conceal it. This was never just a Pentecostal thing. I well remember a Baptist lady I knew who worked in the shoe store where I shopped. She knew nothing of my religious beliefs on this question, so her remark was not tailored for me. She mentioned she was going to get her hair cut that afternoon, and then some what apologetically added, "the Bible really doesn't want me cutting my glory, you know." Where did she get such an idea? From reading the Bible of course, like all of Christendom did for centuries!

 Some of the strongest arguments for long hair on women have come from the Sword of the Lord Publications, founded by the famous Baptist preachers Dr. John R. Rice. His daughters were famous for their long hair, and displayed it publicly when he taught on this subject. Yet Dr. Rice was far from being a Pentecostal, Oneness or otherwise.
 

OTHER POINTS OF HOLINESS

 The Oneness movement comes in for more Boydian criticism because of our stand against smoking, drinking, dancing, movies, and television. He says:
  To which I say "Amen" and "Amen."
 

SMOKING

 He says we are opposed to "any form of smoking. Just what "forms" does he approve of? Is it the form that causes lung cancer, or the one that causes emphysema? Perhaps the form that gets you "high? My curiosity is really peaked! All the forms I know are deadly. The United States government requires all cigarettes to carry warning labels explaining their deadly poisoning effects. Their advertisement on television and radio is prohibited. If anyone has ever seen a person die of lung cancer, as I have, they would never think twice about this standard. It is a horrible and agonizing death, perhaps only exceeded by the emphysema death in its horror. Suffocating for air is no pleasant experience. The direct causal link between smoking and these dreaded plagues is too well established to be debated at this late hour. The Bible says:
  Is the true church to permit members to defile the temple of God, which is his body, and not say a word, even though it means his destruction? Are we to do less than the United States government which even forbids smoking in post offices? The Greyhound Bus Company will immediately put you off the bus if you smoke. I have seen it. Are we to have a lower standard than Greyhounds just so believers can enjoy the "freedom they have in Christ" to poison themselves (and those near them!)?

 Only eternity will reveal how many people were saved from a cruel and early death through the strong stand the Apostolic movement has taken against this killer. And conversely, only the great Assize of the Ages will reveal how much pain and suffering was caused through this "freedom in Christ" heresy being advocated.
 

ALCOHOL AND WINE

 As for alcoholic beverages, the same can be said. It does not matter what form we are talking about, from Mad Dog Wine to Martini and Rossi. It's all responsible for misery and suffering. Every alcoholic started out with "just one social drink." Every child crushed under the wheels of a drunk driver can trace the cause back to "just one social drink." How many homes wrecked, marriages ruined, bodies maimed, and reputations soiled because of the "sparkling cup." Thank God Oneness Churches stand strong and firm against this liquid devil.

 I know many will argue in favor of wine, citing the wedding of Cana, and Paul's advise to Timothy. For some people the only scripture they know is, "Take a little wine for thy stomach's sake." Wine is a neutral term in the Bible. It can mean either alcoholic or non-alcoholic. Pharaoh's butler squeezed the grapes directly into Pharaohs cup and gave it to him. That was certainly not alcoholic wine (Genesis 40:11). The Bible talks about the wine that is "in the cluster" ( Isaiah 65:8). That is certainly not alcoholic! Take that "for your stomach" if you must!

 The Bible warns against fermented wine and beverages (those that give "their color" and "move").
 

All these '"freedoms" the Oneness movement will spare you if you adhere to its standards  I remember reading the testimony of a young lady whose marriage and life were nearly ruined by drink. She was converted in an evangelical church and gave up alcohol as part of her repentance, as did her husband. She went to work at a Christian bookstore, where her fellow employees were very "advanced spiritually" and were not under "legalistic bondage." They enjoyed their "freedom before God" to drink and invited her to join them. At first she was shocked, but soon it was explained to her that "behavior" like this was not related to salvation, really has nothing to do with it. To make a long but sad story short, her marriage was nearly destroyed and two of her fellow employees developed serious drinking problems. Fortunately she saw the light on this in time and returned to her happy "bondage" of total abstinence. "Can a man take fire to his bosom and not be burned?"
 

MOVIES AND TELEVISION

 We used to begin our discussion of these twin evils by answering inquiries about "What's wrong with television and movies?" Now we can begin by asking our inquirers, "what's right with television and movies?"

And the answers are becoming more difficult for them to provide.

 America has the most depraved popular culture of any nation in the world. By every measurement we have the most violent society. Our prison population is the largest on earth. Our speech, especially among the young, is the filthiest of any nation. And the hours spent before television are the highest of any population on the planet. Any connection? For those who still have any moral sensibilities left, the most effective argument against television is to turn it on for 5 minutes! Psychologists and educators across the land are beginning to reach a consensus that television is the single most destructive influence in our society. Its comedians are gutter-mouth filth vendors. Its soap operas are sexual merry-go-rounds. Its sit-coms consistently and subtly indoctrinate against Christian values and mock all morality. Its action-adventures glorify murder and violence in the most graphic way possible. And now with the absolutely abominable "real life" police and rescue squad series, the audience gets to actually see "real people" die and be killed in an endless variety of appalling ways. We've gone beyond acting to "real live death." They are nothing but snuff films, and televised Roman circuses. Nero would be delighted.

 Even the news is biased, being controlled by pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-new age media magnates. Each year they push the limits a little further in the area of "frontal nudity," "graphic violence" "explicit sex," and "profane and obscene speech." And now thanks to fiber optics, not only will people be watching television, but television will be watching them! Television is clearly shown in the Bible to be the most effective tool of the coming Anti-Christ (Rev. 11:9-12; Rev. 13:15). David said in Psalm 101:3, "I will set no wicked thing before my eyes." hall we as Christians do less? "Whatsoever things are pure, think on these" (Philip. 4:8), and the networks are not interested in pure things, they're too busy with the impure.

I remember an Assemblies of God minister remarking how shocked he was when he went into the ministers prayer room during a convention to seek the Lord in prayer, and found his fellow ministers gathered around a T.V. set watching a football game. They explained that it was the "big one of the season." They probably did more shouting in front of that screen than they did in church all year.

 Movies are just as bad, even worse . Almost every movie is R rated. (X really). They set world records for cramming the most obscene language into the shortest amount of time. Some curses are repeated five times in one sentence. The audience thinks it's hilarious. Hollywood handed out five academy awards to a movie dealing with a cannibal who skinned women and dismembered them. A few months before they arrested a man in Milwaukee who had a collection of human body parts in his apartment. No connection? Hollywood says "Art imitates life." I say, mass-media shapes "culture," or rather "depravity." And what Christian can ever consider supporting Hollywood's movie industry after that blasphemous, Christ dishonoring, hell-spawned, "Last Temptation of Christ" film?

 We are certainly not ashamed of our stand against such "entertainment." The true church is a moral lighthouse, called to preserve the standard of decency and cleanliness in a world that can no longer discern right from wrong, or cares to. Godly leaders, like the Apostles of old, have a responsibility to raise a standard.
 

 

CLOTHES AND APPEARANCE

 Our stand for decent and modest apparel also comes under fire from Dr. Boyd:
  Then he goes on to say something that makes utterly no sense at all:
  I don't know where he is getting his information, unless it's from the grapevine. I have pastored in the deep South for over 23 years and never heard of such rules. Perhaps he is confusing us with the Hassidim Jews of Brooklyn, New York. I suggest he review his research.

The common notion in circulation, which is reflected in Dr. Boyd's remarks, is that God is not interested in a person's appearance, or a "dress standard." That's all legalism and "culturally related" they quickly tell us. But God is positively interested in our dress! The first thing God established for man after the Fall was a dress code. He personally changed Adam and Eve's "aprons" for "coats" of his own choosing (Genesis 3:7, 21). The last thing God will do for his people will be to clothe them in the proper attire:
 

He told the Old Testament saints how to dress (Deut. 22:5, 11-12). He has stated in his infallible Word how Christians are to dress in this New Testament dispensation (I Timothy 2:9-10; I Peter 3:34). There you have it, instructions on dress from Genesis to Revelation and in the middle! Old Testament, New Testament, pre-Flood, and post-Rapture. Who dares say God's not interested in the question?

 Our day and age is characterized by nakedness and lewd attire. And that same "spirit" wants to come into the church house and "de-sanctify" the place of worship. In many of the "Permissive gospel" churches people come in outfits they wouldn't dare wear to a job interview. They have no respect. They flaunt their so-called "freedom," by seeing how "casual" they can appear. Some of the women look like they're ready to tend bar while the men look like rodeo stars, all set to rope and brand. If the church attempts to set a code of decency and respect, they are characterized as "legalistic." Grad night at Disney World in Florida has a dress code that the high school seniors must adhere to or they will not be admitted. Are Goofy and Pluto worthy of more respect than the Father and the Son?
 

WHERE WILL IT STOP?

 I was in two large churches recently in which I saw every outlandish and indecent outfit imaginable. I saw Christians (?) worshipping God in "skin-on-baloney-tight" pantsuits, short shorts, ballerina leotards, karate outfits, muscle shirts, etc. I know of one pastor who permitted his drummer to sit on the platform with a tee shirt advertising beer! He didn't say anything, because he didn't want to "lose him." Where will these churches draw the line? Will they timidly suggest that the young people please not attend church in bikinis? But then of course they might retort that this "freedom before God" was won for them by Jesus work on the cross! Do not think this scenario is ludicrous or impossible. All it needs is time. The Permissive Gospel preachers have launched their boats out on a Sea of Sodom, and there's no telling how far they will go. It only takes one straw on the surface to see which way the tide is drifting.
 

IS GOD CONCERNED?

 God is very much concerned about what goes on inside places of worship dedicated to him, "Holiness becometh thy house O' Lord, for ever." (Psalm 93:5) He doesn't overlook improper and impious behavior, either. Annanias and Sapphira found their behavior 'affirmed" in a very unexpected way (Acts 5:1-11). The money changers in the temple had their behavior "affirmed" in a way they were not looking for also (John 2:13-16). Paul also "affirmed'' one young man's incestuous "behavior" by delivering "such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved " (I Corinthians 5:5), The modern church needs to look at God's "track record" for dealing with ungodly "behavior" and "performance" before they begin their carping about all their freedoms and glorious '"liberty" they now have.
 
 
 
PAUL INSTRUCTED THAT YOU SHOULD "WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING."  PHILIPPIANS 2:12
 

LIBERTY VS. OBEDIENCE

 It is difficult to catch up with these Christian libertarians; they hop too fast. When we quote something about Holiness from the Old Testament, they say "that's the Law of Moses and doesn't apply." So they hop to the New Testament. When we quote something in the Gospels or Acts they say "that's not confirmed in a 'didactic portion' of Scripture," by which they mean the epistles. So they hop to the epistles. When we quote them something from the epistles on Holiness requirements, they reverberate with: "that's a cultural issue and doesn't apply for today," and thereby hop completely out of the Bible! Why don't they simply confess the truth: they are the children of disobedience and have had their minds made up from the start that they were going to have it "their way," regardless of what the Word says, didactic or otherwise!

 Why should any Oneness church be castigated for lifting a standard of dress and appearance when the apostles did the same thing, three times, and in didactic portions of scripture at that! (I Timothy 2:9-10, I Corinthians 11:14-15, I Peter 3:34). We did not "invent" these standards. They are New Testament, apostolic, and universally applicable. It is the rule of the apostles, writing under inspiration, which says women are to have long hair and men to have short, that jewelry and ostentatious appearances are unbecoming for Christians, and that modest apparel is not only pleasing to God, but required by him. If what we are charged with is obeying the Word of God, then we gladly plead guilty. "I delight to do thy will, O My God: thy law is within my heart" (Psalm 40:8).
 

EARLY FATHERS AND HOLINESS

 The Early Church Fathers, that Dr. Boyd loves to refer us to, were extremely Holiness-minded and didn't mind stating it in no uncertain terms
 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

 Between AD 190 and 202 he wrote numerous books, including, "The Instructor," and "Miscellanies. He taught in these books that: clothing must extend below the knee, men should not appear as women: no earrings, finger rings, or hair below the eyebrows. This treatise condemns all luxury in dress, body or manner, including expensive clothes and beauty ointments
 

TERTULLIAN

 About AD 200 Tertullian wrote two books also. One is entitled, "0n The Apparel of Women," and the other is, "On The Pallium." He recommended Christian women be adorned by "humility and charity." He condemned fancy clothing and elaborate dressing of the hair, and urged Christian women to forgo "The pageantry of fictitious and elaborate beauty." They were to be "modest" with their natural attractiveness. And like Clement, specifically condemned the wearing of gold, jewelry, rouge, mascara, and dyeing of hair. And that was for both men and women!
 

CYPRIAN

 He was bishop of Carthage. In AD 252 he wrote, "On Works and Alms," in which he stated that wealthy Christian ladies are to anoint their eyes with good works and character instead of eye shadow!
 

ARNOBIUS

 He was another North African Christian, who wrote "Against The Heathen" sometime between AD 304-311. Although there is no known connection between he and Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Cyprian, there is a remarkable unity of belief with them. Arnobius states that cosmetics, piercing the ears, jewelry, and other personal adornment abuse both body and soul. He particularly railed against men who were trying to alter their appearances to resemble women (unisex, in today's vocabulary).

 From where did all these early writers, (and these examples are only a few among many) get these Holiness and "dress standard" ideas. Is it not an unbroken chain right back to the Apostles' teaching in the New Testament? They are not only in unity with each other, but with the Apostles Peter and Paul also. They all speak the same thing. It all springs from the original apostolic teaching. And I might add that all these things which were so soundly condemned were also very much approved as normal and proper in that cultural setting of long ago. If these men had swallowed "The cultural issue" argument used by today's Permissives, they never would have written what they did. They were swimming against the cultural tide! The Bible says that in the last day there will be a "Highway," for the redeemed to walk on. It shall be called the way of Holiness; not the way of Permissiveness (Isaiah 35:8-10). It shall lead the "ransomed of the Lord" to Zion, "with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." This is precisely why our enemies can never understand why with all our "rigid" and legalistic" holiness standards we have the most joyous worship in all Christendom! The Bible says about Holiness that a fool "shall not err therein." If a fool cannot err in it, then pray tell what must be the intelligence quotients of those who cannot even "see" it?
 

HOLINESS AND THE CROSS

 Dr. Boyd says:
  This is certainly a perfidious calumny to level against us. However, he did qualify it by saying "as far as I've ever been able to see." We have encountered his myopia problem before, so we are prepared for it. The cross factors into our Christian experience much more than it does into that of the "Freedom Boasters." For while they are content to stare at the cross and imagine all sorts of ungodly "liberties" it supposedly "won" for them, Oneness Pentecostals are busy doing what Jesus said to do as concerns the cross:
  Self denial is one thing the Freedom Boasters hate to hear about. If only the verse had read "indulge himself" they would have no problem.