As a former UPC member, it is easy to be accused of being bitter and divisive. At times there might be some truth to that. As much as I try to move past it I'll admit there are times I see a Facebook post, hear a sermon, or interact with someone and I get frustrated with what I hear.
I don't write to be divisive, I write because I see a need. Maybe you disagree with my conclusions, maybe you think I am causing more harm than good, but I see a need, and that need compels me to write and try to reach people with the Truth of God's Word. So let's examine it!
Holiness Standards are a controversial topic even within the UPCI and other Holiness groups. Not because they do not believe them, but because they can sometimes vary from church to church. You might be wondering, why is a dude so concerned about holiness standards? Don't these standards mostly affect women? Are you really bitter because you weren't allowed to wear shorts or have a beard? Of course not, I have no bitterness about this topic. I never struggled to keep them and I never really thought too much about it at all. But if I want to be a minister then I feel it is my responsibility to touch on topics that might not affect me as much as someone else.
Why talk about this? Is this really a big deal? Are Holiness Standards really something to debate about? I've had people tell me recently that these standards aren’t that big of a deal, at times I feel like I am being gaslit. If you are a part of the church, especially in a leadership role, and you stop adhering to any of the standards, people will freak out. “We have to hold a line! We are the example! Without holiness, no one will see the Lord!”
Why does this matter? My question is, why are we wanting people to conform to our church standards in the first place? One question I hear often is this, ‘If we don’t have defined standards, where will we draw the line?’
Why does there need to be a line? I understand that people will go too far, that people will take their Christian Liberty and turn it into Antinomianism or lawlessness, but if it isn’t in their heart what good does the line do anyway?
Dressing modestly because it’s a rule doesn’t make you modest. Inward modesty manifests outwardly, unless it is in your heart you are just faking it anyway.
The idea that it’s our responsibility to draw lines of modesty and holiness doesn’t come from the Bible but rather from our traditions and concerns about people abusing their newfound “Christian Liberty”.
Where did the Apostles draw the lines? Acts 15, the Jerusalem council, the gentiles were starting to receive the Spirit of God and the Jews did not know what to do about it.
They were convinced that they needed to turn them into Jews first, by holding them to the standard of their traditions. But James, who appears to be the leader of this council, declares that they weren’t going to put unnecessary bonds on them, but they instructed them to avoid sexual immorality, not to eat food sacrificed to idols, and to not eat the meat that had been strangled. All things that had to do with idolatry and pagan worship. It was a way to separate them from their pagan past!
Why do we feel the need to draw lines? Because we have been taught to do so until it has become ingrained in our minds. We hear scriptures like Hebrews 12:14 which says without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.
While this is true, we should be ashamed that we have downplayed holiness to a set of rules that only affect how we look. Man looks on the outward, but God sees the heart (1st Samuel 16:7). But, you say, God commanded Moses to draw a line! It was up to Moses to determine where the mountain ended and where the ground began! He had to draw a line that protected the people!
Let’s look at this passage.
Exodus 19:12 “Thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:”
So what is the context of this verse? It appears the command of the Lord was for Moses to set a boundary around the mountain, and if anyone even so much as touched the border of the mountain, they would be killed.
This has been used repeatedly to justify church standards, the Pastor assumes the role of Moses and believes it is his responsibility to draw this line so that his saints will not touch the borders of the mountain and be killed. This gives the Pastor the authority to decide the lengths in which his church will carry out these standards. Sleeve lengths, skirt lengths, and other issues vary from church to church because of passages like this one.
Again, context matters. In this chapter God is telling Moses that he is going to come down in a thick cloud so that the people will hear when he speaks to Moses and believe in Moses.
The boundary was to prevent the Children of Israel from trying to enter into the presence of the Lord. They were not allowed into his presence, and to avoid having to kill anyone that got too close Moses was commanded to make a boundary.
The context of this boundary wasn’t to keep people safe from sin, it was to keep people safe from getting too close to God because of their sin.
Today, because of the atonement, we have access to the presence of God that the Children of Israel did not have. We can come boldly to his throne and enter into his presence whenever we want. This passage has no bearing on what we wear or what standards we need to keep. We cannot pull scriptures out of context and try to use it to justify church standards.
Another common misconception is this, each tribe in Israel had their own standard! All throughout the book of Numbers, the Bible refers to each tribe’s standard. This word in Hebrew is “degel” which means flag or banner. This was basically a family banner.
When discussing the few verses we have concerning holiness standards, we need to be objective on where we find the text, what the context of the text is, and if it is cultural or universal in application. Also, we need to understand the difference between the law of the Old Testament and its relationship to us under the Grace of the New Testament.
When talking about Holiness Standards within the United Pentecostal Church one of the first scriptures we must address is Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”
So we have to ask ourselves, what is this talking about and how does it apply to us?
Although this verse is a specific law under the Old Covenant, and therefore we are not bound to it, there is a universal application that we can take from it. God created men and women differently and with different roles, so the principle here is gender distinction.
God is condemning the blurring of distinctions, this could be because of pagan transvestite worship, it could be because of pagan cross-dressing rituals, or it could be simply to remind his people that men and women are different. Whatever the reason behind this passage is, we would be wise to understand God’s desire for men and women to identify with their correct gender.
Error concerning Deuteronomy 22:5
This verse condemns women from wearing pants. This seems pretty straightforward but as someone who held this view for 10 years, I understand that it’s not that simple.
First off, According to David K. Bernard in his book, Practical Holiness he says this,
“In applying the foregoing scriptural concepts, we can draw several important biblical principles and make practical applications for our day.
At least part of our daily attire must be exclusively associated with our gender, providing an unmistakable visual identification at first impression. Men should not wear attire that is distinctively female, which for Western clothing means dresses and skirts. Women should not wear attire that is distinctively male, which for Western clothing means trousers, slacks, or pants.
Different cultures have different types of clothing. If clothing is modest and if there is a clear differentiation between male and female, the precise style of clothing in a particular culture is not important. Care should be taken to dress appropriately for the culture and occasion. For example, it may be proper for a Scotsman to wear a kilt for a ceremonial occasion, but improper for an American male to wear the same thing to the office.
Interestingly, priests in the Old Testament wore breeches or trousers (Leviticus 6:10; 16:4), indicating that this has been distinctively masculine from the earliest times.”
Bernard, David. 1985. Practical Holiness: A Second Look, Volume 4, p. 173.
Notice what Bro. Bernard does here. First, he says that our attire must be exclusively associated with our gender. He states that different cultures have different types of clothing and depending on which culture you are from you need to dress appropriately for the culture.
He then gives an example of the Scotsman wearing a kilt, which is a type of skirt, that would be appropriate for him in his culture but an abomination for an American to wear. But then to drive his point home he refers to the breeches that the priests wore in Leviticus 6 stating that breeches have been distinctively masculine from the earliest times.
So what about these verses in Leviticus 6:10 & 16:4?
Leviticus 6:10 “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.”
Leviticus 16:4 “He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girdled with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments therefore shall he shall wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.”
In these two verses, we find the Lord commanding the priests to wear linen breeches. According to most who adhere to the UPCI’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, this text is proof that pants were designed by God as male garments.
According to Strong’s Concordance and Brown-Driver-Briggs, the Hebrew word used for breeches is ‘miknâs’ which means, “undergarment, drawers, trousers, a priestly undergarment.”
Understand two important principles of these verses, and remember we need to understand context and intent. First, these verses are Temple Laws that only apply to the priests. These laws were to keep the priests from exposing themselves when they went up into the temple to serve.
Secondly, not all men wore these breeches. As a matter of fact, the priests themselves did not wear these breeches except for when ministering in the Temple. We can’t reach back into the Mosaic Law and try to find Temple Laws that applied only to the priests, only when they were ministering, and try to use it as a proof text that pants are male in distinction. The word breeches itself isn’t even referring to pants. They were undergarments the priests wore under their robes so they would not expose themselves when they went up to the Temple.
Another point, Bro. Bernard points to the fact that culture plays an important role in determining what is appropriate to wear. For example, there are cultures where the men wear a skirt-like garment. These are culturally men’s garments. It would be inappropriate to go to this culture and try to convert them to our American idea of male distinctions.
What Bro. Bernard fails to understand is that culture is fluid. It is impossible to create a strict command that applies to a culture that looks nothing like the culture that the text originated from. Instead, if we understand this in its correct context as a principle, we can apply this principle to any culture at any age at it will still apply.
The United Pentecostal Church has created commandments and rules that applied to the culture of the times they lived in. Unfortunately, as time has gone on these rules and commandments do not line up with the current culture.
You may argue with me and say, ‘Culture cannot dictate modesty!’ Or ‘Culture doesn’t get to decide what is masculine or feminine!’ Isn’t that exactly what Bro. Bernard states in his book? Isn’t that exactly what the UPCI did when they created their holiness standards?
These standards are not universal. They do not apply to every culture, If they did you would preach to the Scotsman in the kilt and tell him that he is an abomination unto the Lord! The times in which Deuteronomy was written men and women both wore robes. Yes, there were obvious differences between these garments but they were still fairly similar in concept.
Here’s a challenge, if pants are universally masculine then as a man you would be comfortable wearing any type of pants, correct? Why not? Is it because there are pants that are distinctively feminine? Is it because even though there are pants for men and women there is a clear distinction between the two?
Would you be opposed to wearing a pair of women’s pants even though you believe that the concept of women’s pants is incorrect? You wouldn’t because you know that if you did, you would be wearing a woman’s garment.
The type of clothing has never been the issue. Deuteronomy 22:5 simply states that a man needs to dress like a man, and a woman needs to dress like a woman. If you feel that dresses and skirts are the best way to reflect that I completely understand and respect that. What I refuse to accept is that it must be this way when the Bible doesn’t give this indication.
Is The Command Really About The Functionality of the Garments?
Another point made in the pants discussion is the functionality of the garments. The argument is that while both men and women wore robe-like garments, they had different functions. Men were commanded to gird their loins for battle or work while women were never given this command.
The argument is that since Men were the only ones commanded to gird their loins the functional difference between men’s garments and women’s garments was the dividing of the legs. Therefore pants are distinctively male.
Let’s unpack this, the KJV of Deuteronomy 22:5 says, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
The argument here is that there are actually two commands given in this text, for the woman she ‘shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man. The Hebrew word for pertaineth is ‘kliy’ which means, something prepared, I.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon).
This implies that the woman’s command goes beyond just clothing. Meaning that she is not supposed to assume the role of a man or wear his garments. While the man’s command is simply don’t wear a woman’s garment.
My issue with this interpretation is that it is solely based on the wording of the KJV. No other translation records this passage like this. For us to come to this conclusion we need to make sure that we are not just misunderstanding a particular translation.
NIV “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing,”
NLT “A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing,”
ESV “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak.”
NASB “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing.’
CSB “A woman is not to wear male clothing, and a man is not to put on a woman’s garment.”
NET “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing,”
Clearly, this interpretation is based on the way the KJV words this passage. Examining different translations is helpful for us to make sure we are actually understanding the text. Another way they try to prove this is by finding every example of Scripture telling men to gird their loins and presenting a cumulative case for men wearing pants.
Proponents of this doctrine will point to the various passages in the Old Testament commanding men to gird up their loins. This command was given to men only, supposedly proving the functional difference in clothing for men and women. However, the term ‘gird up thy loins’ that is found in the Old Testament isn’t about clothing at all.
The phrase had two meanings, first, it was literal. It was used literally to refer to preparedness of action or to prepare for a hard task. Second, it was used as an idiomatic expression to refer to spiritual and emotional preparedness.
To read these passages as proof that divided legs are the abomination mentioned in Deuteronomy is purely eisegesis. They are reading their interpretation back into the text. Again, this is partly due to the reliance on the KJV. Here are just two of many examples.
Job 38:3 KJV Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.”
ESV “Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you will make it known.”
NIV Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.”
NET “Get ready for a difficult task like a man, I will question you and you will inform me!”
NLT “Brace yourself like a man, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.”
CSB “Get ready to answer me like a man; when I question you, you will inform me.”
Jeremiah 1:17 KJV “Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them.”
ESV “But you, dress yourself for work; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them.”
NIV Get yourself ready! Stand up and say to them whatever I command you. Do not be terrified by them, or I will terrify you before them.”
NET “But you, Jeremiah, get yourself ready! Go and tell these people everything I instruct you to say. Do not be terrified of them, or I will give you good reason to be terrified of them.”
NLT “Get up and prepare for action. Go out and tell them everything I tell you to say. Do not be afraid of them, or I will make you look foolish in front of them.”
CSB “Now, get ready. Stand up and tell them everything that I command you. Do not be intimidated by them or I will cause you to cower before them.”
There is no way you will approach these passages as teaching functional differences in clothing without some kind of background in the teaching of women not wearing pants. It’s not the most obvious reading of these texts.
Even if the argument for the functionality of garments was compelling it would still go against the teaching from the Superintendent of the UPCI, the largest Oneness Pentecostal Organization, who’s books are required reading for ministerial licensing within the UPC. He says it’s cultural and not about specific clothing in his book that I quoted earlier. He even used Scotsmen wearing kilts as an example. This clearly violates the idea that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about the functionality of the garments which would mean the divided legs are an abomination.
But even if you prove that none of the things we covered so far prove anything. They argue that these holiness standards may not be clearly defined on the surface, but Proverbs 25:2 says, “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.” In other words, they claim that there are necessary holiness standards that are only seen by those serious enough in Bible Study to dig it out.
I agree that God has wonderful truths hidden throughout his Word that we can find through study and prayer. But these truths are not some vague understanding of Scripture, but rather beautiful truths often overlooked by casual Christians. Why would God conceal necessary truths? If holiness standards are necessary for sanctification, why would God hide that for only those smart enough to find it? Short answer? He didn’t.
The reality is that this interpretation is an example of eisegesis. It’s reading the Scripture with preconceived ideas, which we all do to some extent, instead of just allowing the Scripture to speak for itself. No person studying scripture by themselves would see from these passages that women should not wear pants.
When discussing this issue we inevitably have to talk about modesty. Does God care about modesty? Of course! But that’s not the question. The real question is this, ‘What does the Bible Say about it and how can we make sure we are understanding it correctly?’
1st Timothy 2:8-10 “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness, with good works.”
1st Peter 3:2-4 “Do not let your adorning be the external, the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear, but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.”
Again, we need to understand context. Is this a list of rules or are these principles that the writers are trying to get us to live by?
If you contend that these verses are black and white and they can’t possibly be just a principle. If you tell me that it says what it says then answer this question for me. ‘Why does the UPCI license women preachers and endorse women pastors then?’
This may seem like a dumb question that has nothing at all to do with the conversation but let’s go back to 1st Timothy 2 and look at verses 12-15,
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
So again, how can we point to verses 8-10 and claim that these are a list of things women shouldn’t do but then when it comes to verses 12-15 we change course and no longer think this is a prohibition any longer?
Do we see the double standard? The easiest explanation is that What Paul and Peter are both doing is laying out principles that godly women should follow. Don’t let the outward appearance be where your identity comes from, let it be the hidden person of your heart! In other words, let who you are on the inside be what defines you, not how you look.
Let’s look at the context of these two verses starting with 1st Peter 3:2-4.
In order to understand the context you need to go back into chapter 2, starting in verse 13 Peter is going to talk about ‘Submission to Authority’. He says starting in verse 13,
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people."
Again in verse 18
"Servants, be subject to your masters will all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust."
So the context moving into chapter 3 is about submission. Notice the first word of chapter 3, likewise. This lets us know we are still talking about the same thing.
"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be the external, the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear, but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious."
Notice what is being said. Peter is saying that the conduct of the wives can convert the unbelieving husband. Then he says don't let your adorning be the external but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart! In other words, let your character and conduct be the thing that identifies you, not what you wear! Don't believe me? Let's keep reading.
"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
So we can see clearly by understanding the context of what Peter is writing and why he is writing it that he is teaching them about submission. Going into chapter 3 he is focusing on this theme and when he arrives at verse 2 he is instructing the women on how to conduct themselves in a manner that is submissive and is a true reflection of what the women of God would have looked like. Women like Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel.
Not physically, as in what they wore, but in how they presented themselves. Paul says that this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, how? By submitting to their own husbands! It’s not modesty in dress but modesty in conduct that Paul is addressing.
Now let’s look at what Paul wrote to a young minister named Timothy. He is instructing him on how to be an effective leader. He says beginning in verse 1 of chapter 2,
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior."
We see the context immediately, godly living and conduct.
"For this, I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness, with good works.”
Again, the principle is on godly living and conduct, not about what we wear. He wants men to pray without anger or quarreling. Understanding that if the men are fighting with each other and are angry they will not be leading a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
Likewise, the women should let their character be their adorning, not what they wear. This isn’t saying that here is a list of things to avoid. It is a principle of not being like the women of the culture who adorn themselves a certain way to try to express their identity when Christ gave you your identity! Because your identity is in Christ you should walk in it and let that be what you show the world.
Both principles for men and women are about their conduct.
Holiness Standards are not considered a heaven or hell issue in the beginning. New converts are not expected to follow the standards right away. But, after a season of growing in God, these standards are expected of you. In fact, Raymond Woodward, Ruth Harvey, and others will say that by not following the standards as they have been taught you are in rebellion and that is a sin.
The heart of this issue then is on sanctification. What is it? How do we achieve it?
Nobody will argue that Justification or Salvation is earned by anything we do. We understand that it is by God's grace that we are saved. Yet, when it comes to sanctification, we think that WE are the ones who must work towards it. But if we can't earn Justification, we can't earn sanctification either.
In Hebrews 10 the author explains the sacrifice of Christ in contrast to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. By showing the superiority of Christ's sacrifice he shows that the Old Covenant is done away with. But notice what he says about Christ's sacrifice.
Hebrews 10:9-14 "Then he added, Behold, I have come to do your will. He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
Most people who believe that sanctification is achieved by our obedience to standards do not understand positional sanctification. Yes, the longer we live for God the more like him we become. That is called progressive sanctification. The fruit of our relationship with Christ is evidenced in how we live and conduct ourselves. But this is not the source of our sanctification, it is the result of our sanctification.
"Positional sanctification is a one-time act of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of unbelievers whom He has chosen for salvation from sin. At the moment of salvation, believers understand and acknowledge their sinful state, their inability to save themselves through any works of their own, their need of a savior, their acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as sin’s payment, and their faith in Jesus’ resurrection. At that moment, believers are brought out of darkness into the light. Our position before God has been changed forever. No longer dead in trespasses, we are made alive together with Christ (Ephesians 2:5). Our position changes in that we are made citizens of a whole new kingdom: “He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Colossians 1:13).
Positional sanctification also changes our position as sinners deserving of God’s wrath to the position of beloved children of the Father and perfect in His eyes. Our new position means we are part of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27); God’s special possession (1 Peter 2:9); new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17); dead to sin (Romans 6:2); and possessors of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Because salvation is an act of the Spirit, the believer’s new position cannot change, be lost, or be given back. We cannot “un-save” ourselves, nor can we alter our position before God through any of our works or the lack thereof. We are kept in the position of beloved for the rest of our lives and throughout eternity. Positional sanctification is the work of God whereby He sets us apart and considers us holy in His eyes: “God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6). Positional sanctification is not dependent on our feelings or whims; it is a fact of salvation, even though our actions on earth do not always align with our position in heaven.
Positional sanctification inevitably leads to progressive sanctification, with good works as the inevitable result. Those who are born again will naturally begin to act according to their new nature in Christ, and the result will be increasing holiness in personal living (1 Peter 1:15–16). The positionally sanctified will be progressively sanctified by the same Holy Spirit who regenerated us in the first place. The works that God has foreordained for us will be accomplished through His power (Ephesians 2:10).
Once we have been positionally sanctified, the process of progressive sanctification begins. Progressive sanctification is the lifelong process of becoming more Christlike as we cooperate with the Holy Spirit and yield to His control (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Once we are positionally sanctified, the Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to progressively sanctify us (John 17:17) so that in the end our practical holiness aligns with our positional holiness when we see Christ face to face in glory (1 John 3:2)."
- https://www.gotquestions.org/positional-sanctification.html
The idea that we need holiness standards to be holy misses the point that the holiness we possess is not our holiness. It has been given to us by Christ, it is his holiness given to us in exchange for our sinfulness. We cant be holy and Jesus couldn't sin. He took our sins on the cross and in exchange offers his righteousness.
Philippians 3:9 "And be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith."
2nd Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
Comments