.

[No Nicolaitans]

I'm not asking you to actually answer this, but I'm wondering to myself...why in the world are they applying Corban to standards? In my understanding, Corban had to do with the temple treasury; in that, a Jewish "child" could simply say that part of his money was dedicated to the temple treasury instead of using it to "honor" (take care of) his parents. It was an underhanded way of keeping their money to themselves. It had nothing to do with standards, and I can't even imagine how it could apply. Let's see...

 "You're not honoring your parents if you have standards! It's Corban!!!" Huh???

"To say that a Christian should have standards takes away from taking care of your parents! It's Corban!!!" What???

"You're not taking care of your parents financially if you believe in standards!!! It's Corban!!!!!!!!!! Huh??? WHAT???

Alas...according to your testimony, it appears you are in a church in which the leadership has given in to pleasing the flesh...and being hypocritical in doing so. On one hand, they want to please the flesh of the flock (people pleasers)...on the other hand, they want to please the flesh of visiting preachers (religious pleasers). If they have moved away from believing in standards, it sounds like one of three things...

1.  They are more concerned with protecting their image (and job) than protecting the flock. 

2.  They never believed in standards to begin with, but paid lip-service to them to satisfy some who did.

3.  They've changed their view and given in to the pressure of the world.

Standards can definitely be of the flesh...and often are; however, standards are also biblical, and to deny such is to deny the word of God and the holiness of God.

The pressures of ministry can be overwhelming...but it's how one responds to the pressure that sets them apart...for the good or for the bad.

I'll be praying for you and your family.

[Invicta]

I have a question about men's hair length.

We  what know Paul says about men's hair length, but is there anywhere else in the scripture that says that?  I can only think of the Nazerites who were not to cut their hair during the time of their vow.  Paul on the other hand, shaved his head when he made a vow.  

 

[heartstrings]

On 9/8/2016 at 3:51 PM, Brother Stafford said:

If I understanding it correctly, Scripture tells us that that we are not to accept willful disobedience amongst ourselves (our homes, churches &c.), that we are to call attention to such behavior and go through the proper process to address such things and separate ourselves from them if they do not repent.  (1 Corinthians 5:11-13, Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1,  2 Thessalonians 3:6, Hebrews 10:26)

 

It is also my understanding that God believes that there are gender specific articles of clothing and that for one gender to wear the clothing that is specific to the other is an abomination and that we must not do it. (Deuteronomy 22:5) (Proverbs 7:10)

 

I have seen sermons by a number of preachers that have used an illustration similar to the attached image at the bottom of this post.

 

It would seem that there is only one piece of clothing that is specific to men and that is pants.  If we were to put pants in the “both” column, then there would not be any male specific clothing; it would be impossible for women to wear that which pertaineth to men and would render Deuteronomy 22:5 a meaningless warning.

 

It is undisputed, among Baptist churches, that there is clothing that is only for women, which men are not permitted to wear, but there are very few that will acknowledge that there is clothing that is only for men, which women are not permitted to wear.  This is a relatively new phenomenon (Mid 20th century).

 

“Breeches” are mentioned in verses, Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 16:4 and Ezekiel 44:18 and are worn by males (priests); however, they are also inferred in Judges 3:24 (Surely he "covereth his feet" in his summer chamber.”) and 1 Samuel 24:3 (Saul went in to “cover his feet”).  “Covering one’s feet” was a discreet term in regard to men going #2.  Just as today, when men need to do that, they drop their trousers and their feet are covered by the material of their trousers.   If those men were wearing dress-like garments, they would have lifted them up and their feet would not have been covered in that manner.

 

There is enough Scriptural support, for the belief that women should never wear pants, to convince me and that this should be taken seriously by Christians and not just blown off and put into the category of personal preference.

 

I also believe that there is scriptural support for Christians to dress modestly so as to not cause each other to stumble (Romans 14:13) and lust and fall into fornication and adultery (1 Corinthians 6:18).  I believe that both men (Exodus 20:26) and women (1 Timothy 2:9-10) are commanded to be modest both in attire and manner (Proverbs 6:25, Proverbs 7:10).

 

(addendum) I have said all of the above merely for context and to preface the following question.  If you wish to debate this issue, please create a new thread.

 

Why, then, are these issues virtually ignored in Baptist churches? In my search for a new church to attend, even the most promising of them post photographs on their websites that show women and girl members wearing pants, tight clothing, mini skirts, in bikinis or one piece bathing suits swimming with men and boys without their shirts on.  Many of the wives of the pastors and deacons are pictured with tops that conform to their figures.

 

The few times that I have mustered up the courage to ask a pastor about this issue, they respond by saying something similar to, "You try telling women that they have to stop wearing pants and see what happens,” or “I used to talk about that, but the women say that they’ll stop coming to church if they have to wear pants, so I just stopped preaching about it.”

 

I feel very strongly about hair length on men and women, but, at this point, I don’t treat it as doctrine because of 1 Corinthians 11:16.  However, I have, thus far, not been able to find such an allowance for the issues of apparel and modesty.

 

Why do we take such strong stands on separation from adulterers, fornicators, Sodomites &c., but not on the issues of gender specific apparel and modesty?

 

Good to know hats are OK for both........

[Invicta]

Don't cowboys wear high heels?

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Invicta

[No Nicolaitans]

On 10/7/2016 at 4:03 AM, Invicta said:

I have a question about men's hair length.

We  what know Paul says about men's hair length, but is there anywhere else in the scripture that says that?  I can only think of the Nazerites who were not to cut their hair during the time of their vow.  Paul on the other hand, shaved his head when he made a vow.  

 

Well, Absalom only cut his hair once a year...and allowing it to grow like that eventually cost him his life.   : )

[DaveW]

Numbers ch 6 details the rules for a Nazarite, and the Nazarite vow was normally a temporary thing, with the head shaven at the conclusion of the vow, and that hair offered to God.

This is an exception to the rule, and in some ways akin to a fast - temporary and for a purpose. 

Note: Samson was an unusual case in being a Nazarite from the womb.

[Invicta]

Yeas Samson was for life but the vow could be a short or long term or for life.  Perhaps John the Baptist?

[DaveW]

Well the passage does indicate that in normal instances it was temporary - it speaks of the end.

Num 6:13 And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 

I don't think there is another biblically recorded instance of a lifelong nazarite vow, although some do suggest John the Baptist.

[HappyChristian]

An interesting side note to this is that both women and men could take the vow.  

I've heard that John the Baptist was also a Nazarite from the womb, and also Samuel. There is no biblical documentation of it as in Samson's case, though.

 

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

An interesting side note to this is that both women and men could take the vow.  

I've heard that John the Baptist was also a Nazarite from the womb, and also Samuel. There is no biblical documentation of it as in Samson's case, though.

 

Judges 13:7 " But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death."

[HappyChristian]

2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Judges 13:7 " But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death."

 I think you might have misread me...I said there was no documentation biblically that John the Baptist and Samuel were Nazarites as in Samson's case. IOW, there is documentation of Samson being a Nazarite, but not the others.

[Ukulelemike]

17 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

 I think you might have misread me...I said there was no documentation biblically that John the Baptist and Samuel were Nazarites as in Samson's case. IOW, there is documentation of Samson being a Nazarite, but not the others.

Oh, my bad. Sorry. I was wondering how you missed that, lol.

I think the reason some believe John the Baptist was a Nazarite, was because, first, John's Father is told by Gabriel "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." And later, Jesus mentions "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil." I think from these, people assume he may have been a Nazarite. However, I would look at them more as being associated with someone in a position like a priest, as the priests, in the comission of their duties, were forbidden from drinking wine or strong drink. As well, Nazrites were forbidden from eating anything from the grape vine, including wine, grapes and raisins, as well as not cutting their hair, which we see nothing about in John's case, so I see where some believe it might be the case, but you're correct, the Bible really doesn't say it.

[HappyChristian]

No problem, Uke. It was worded weirdly.

I think one of the reasons, as well, that some consider Samuel to be a Nazarite from the womb is that his mother didn't drink wine. So, kind of same/same as John the Baptist (other than the priestly duties).

 

[DaveW]

Interestingly, many years ago I had someone try to justify long hair on men "because Jesus had long hair because he was a Nazarite".

He based that on:

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

He was a little dismayed when I pointed out that Jesus was a NazaRENE not a Nazarite. He didn't realise there was a difference until I showed him the actual passage he was referring to showed that a NazaRENE is someone from Nazareth. ...........

He never did argue with me about long hair again.

We discussed plenty of other things, but never that again. 

[Martyr_4_FutureJoy]

On 9/8/2016 at 3:51 PM, Brother Stafford said:

I also believe that there is scriptural support for Christians to dress modestly so as to not cause each other to stumble (Romans 14:13) and lust and fall into fornication and adultery (1 Corinthians 6:18).  I believe that both men (Exodus 20:26) and women (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

are commanded to be modest both in attire and manner (Proverbs 6:25, Proverbs 7:10).

 

Good.   Rare to find in the USA.   (most people don't even remember how to blush.  I think I've seen five to ten women (out of thousands) in the last 25 years who were modest in both attire and manner).  Of course there could be more,  and we hope there are.