Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

What would you do?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
58 minutes ago, DaveW said:

And yet you ignore my question?

Forgive me.  I wasn't aware that it was a serious question.  I thought you were kidding.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

Would you insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea?

No, I would not insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.  However, if there was a church in that area, I would require that if they wanted to attend  services, that they start by covering up their nakedness as it defined by God and work with them from there.  I assume that if enough of them understand the Gospel well enough so that a church would need to be built and that they can be considered for membership in the church, that they would understand that turning toward Christ means to turn away from sin.  I find that once many non western cultures understand the Gospel and what repentance means, they are more willing to adopt new behaviors than western cultures are.  I have also found that indigenous cultures also tend to be hyper sensitive to issues of respect and etiquette.  I found these things to be true when I was in South Africa.

The very first thing Adam and Eve wanted to do, once they realized they had sinned, was to cover their nakedness.  They did it the best way they knew how, but it was not good enough.  God, Himself, had to cover them.  This has more to do with the requirement for the atonement for sin being the shedding of innocent blood, but it is interesting that the first example God used was also connected to modesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Brother Stafford said:

No, I would not insist on a suit for people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea.  However, if there was a church in that area, I would require that if they wanted to attend  services, that they start by covering up their nakedness as it defined by God and work with them from there.  I assume that if enough of them understand the Gospel well enough so that a church would need to be built and that they can be considered for membership in the church, that they would understand that turning toward Christ means to turn away from sin.  I find that once many non western cultures understand the Gospel and what repentance means, they are more willing to adopt new behaviors than western cultures do.  I have also found that indigenous cultures also tend to be hyper sensitive to issues of respect and etiquette.  I found these things to be true when I was in South Africa.

Heck, the very first thing Adam and Eve wanted to do, once they realized they had sinned, was to cover their nakedness.  They did it the best way they knew how, but it was not good enough.  God, Himself, had to cover them.  This has more to do with the requirement for sin being the shedding of innocent blood, but it is interesting that the first example God used was also connected to modesty.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Letting the world set the standards for when we draw the line in our churches is a dangerous thing because of the ever lowering of standards of decency.  

This is actually the reason I posted the question.

You are letting the world set your standard, but justifying it because you think it is a high standard.

Different cultures have different levels of "Sunday best" or formal attire.

The standard should not necessarily be "suit and tie", but "culturally formal dress".

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that the Bible sets a baseline modesty.

But formal dress is not necessarily a suit and tie.

IN YOUR AREA that may be entirely acceptable, but I can tell you that there are many people in Australia who would not darken the door of a church if a suit and tie was a prerequisite.

And I know of American missionaries whose churches here struggle because they have such a requirement.

I always wear a tie, and will wear a jacket if it is not too hot.

I lead by example, but the moment I say the men have to wear a tie is the moment that some of them will stop coming.

A friend of mine is a missionary in a south Pacific island group and he said it is the funniest thing - in official meetings the men turn up in knee length skirts and ties. No shirt - shirts are informal. Just a skirt and a necktie with no shirt.

But the men have been taught to wear a shirt to church because of modesty.

People should dress as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler.

The form that takes is different for different countries and different cultures and IS INDEED influenced by the culture of the time and region.

But in fact I broadly agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Different cultures have different levels of "Sunday best" or formal attire.

The standard should not necessarily be "suit and tie", but "culturally formal dress".

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
34 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

You mean wearing a suit and a tie is not evidence of being filled with the holy spirit?! haha. Agreed, I grow weary of people pushing the suit and tie culture with things like "professionals wear suits and ties" (even though in our culture that's not always true) (Besides since when do minister's of the Gospel mimic the way worldly business operates?) Then you have the "we should dress our best for God" bit as if God is impressed with our dressing up. (not saying we should dress like a slob either) Honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that other people somewhat expect it, I would not feel bad at all forgoing the whole suit and tie culture, the only reason why I do it is because IFBs expect it. I honestly don't feel like there is something sacred about a suit and tie. In fact, I think our culture really is getting away from that formalism, and of course, you can argue about the reason for that change being bad or whatever, but it's still changing.

I think your question reveals a lot about this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My biggest issue with this sort of thing is that it is soooooooo easy to wash the outside and impress people watching, but leave the heart completely unaddressed. 

I think that this one area where a church has liberty (keeping in mind the baseline modesty), and that anyone who wants to honour the Lord will submit to that church's standard.

But someone who is genuinely saved will come to what is considered God honoring dress BECAUSE of the change of their natural man to a new creature.

It may take some people longer than others because we all grow at different rates.

But any organisation has a right to demand basic good manners and basic modesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
43 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

I think a thread to discuss your question would be helpful and profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Overall, I agree; and I myself do practice and do emphasize the need for culturally "formal dress" in relation to church services.

However, this does raise a worthy question (at least, in my opinion) -- Does God's Word ever indicate some kind of standard for appropriate attire and/or "formal" dress for church gatherings?  (Yes, I certainly recognize the Scriptural standard of modest attire as morally appropriate for any occasion.)

While I personally agree that we should dress as DaveW said, "as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler," I don't believe that people should be denied entrance to a service if they are dressed more casually, as long as they are dressed modestly as defined by God's word.  We are commanded to dress modestly and according to our gender, but I have not yet found passages that command new testament Christians to dress formally for gatherings.  I believe that we should, as a sign of respect and devotion to our Lord, but I wouldn't set it in stone; it is just my preference.

When watching the television show, Little House on the Prairie, I wouldn't call Laura Ingalls' school dress a formal dress.  It was casual, yet biblically appropriate.  Similarly, Charles Ingalls' work clothes, although informal, should not have prevented him from attending services.  Modern day equivalents may be a t-shirt and jeans for men and a t-shirt and inexpensive, loose fitting, knee length skirt for women.  They are casual, yet modest and appropriate for each gender, which is what God commands.

I have also seen the extreme opposite, with which I disagree.  I have been to some services where people are dressed so extravagantly, in expensive clothing and costly jewelry, that I believe it also goes against Gods command against extravagance (1 Tim. 2:9).

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Here is a question I have often wondered -- If I (an American man) showed up to most Fundamental Baptist churches wearing an embroidered robe, including tassels and bells on its hem, and wearing a girdle type belt, how would I be accepted in such churches? 

As long as your robe could be distinguished as a robe and not a dress, I think that you would probably get a lot of strange looks, but I don't think that you would be denied entrance.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, pants-wear as outerwear (on men or women) is also a cultural development.  Such also is not found within Biblical revelation.

I am aware that this is a much debated topic, which has most definitely been discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I believe that the issue of pants being a specific garment for men is in line with biblical teachings. 

There has to be clothing that is gender specific, otherwise Deut. 22:5 would be meaningless.

Breeches are mentioned five times in the Bible (Ex. 28:42, Ex. 39:28, Lev. 6:10, Lev. 16:4 and Eze. 44:18).  They are described as what would today be called men's knickers or knee length shorts.  They are only mentioned in connection with men and are therefore a male garment.  Other than a top coat or a robe, there are only two types of garments that can cover the lower half of the human body: a dress/skirt or shorts/pants; I know of no other way.  If men were to wear a dress or a skirt, nearly everyone would agree that they are wearing clothing that pertains to a woman.  The only other option that a man has is to wear pants/shorts.  If that is the only option for a man, and there are only two options, then the other option, a dress/skirt, is the only option that a woman can make.

If the argument is, "Well, there are styles of pants that are specifically styled for women and those are okay for women to wear."  If that can be true, then there should be certain styles of dresses and skirts that are specifically designed for men to wear that would be appropriate to wear.  The only example of this, of which I am aware, is the kilt worn by Scottish men and some Irish men, but they are the only ones that think so; the rest of the world mocks them for wearing women's skirts.

Edited by Brother Stafford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

While I personally agree that we should dress as DaveW said, "as though they were meeting their king/president/ruler," I don't believe that people should be denied entrance to a service if they are dressed more casually, as long as they are dressed modestly as defined by God's word.  We are commanded to dress modestly and according to our gender, but I have not yet found passages that command new testament Christians to dress formally for gatherings.  I believe that we should, as a sign of respect and devotion to our Lord, but I wouldn't set it in stone; it is just my preference.

When watching the television show, Little House on the Prairie, I wouldn't call Laura Ingalls' school dress a formal dress.  It was casual, yet biblically appropriate.  Similarly, Charles Ingalls' work clothes, although informal, should not have prevented him from attending services.  Modern day equivalents may be a t-shirt and jeans for men and a t-shirt and inexpensive, loose fitting, knee length skirt for women.  They are casual, yet modest and appropriate for each gender, which is what God commands.

I have also seen the extreme opposite, with which I disagree.  I have been to some services where people are dressed so extravagantly, in expensive clothing and costly jewelry, that I believe it also goes against Gods command against extravagance (1 Tim. 2:9).

I can express broad agreement with the above (with some reservations because I am aware that you and I hold a different view concerning Deuteronomy 22:5).

(On the other hand, my thought question from an above posting still remains -- Is there any Biblical PASSAGE which indicates that "laymen," or even church leadership, should "dress up" for church gatherings?  Please understand that I DO "dress up" and that I encourage the congregation of believers to do the same, because it is culturally appropriate and necessary as a sign of respect for the Lord our God.  However, I am asking if there is actually a BIBLICAL mandate for it.)
 

12 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

As long as your robe could be distinguished as a robe and not a dress, I think that you would probably get a lot of strange looks, but I don't think that you would be denied entrance.

By the way, my attire also includes a "beautiful bonnet."  

As far as the "strange looks," how many of those are judgmental that I am wearing the attire of a woman?  (I believe that there would be a great deal of that judgmental spirit.)

In addition, would I be permitted to be a LEADER in a Fundamental Baptist church while consistently wearing such attire?  (I greatly doubt it.)

So, why do I present such an outfit in my example -- Because such is similar to the VERY outfit that God HIMSELF designed for the male religious LEADER of Israel, the High Priest.  (I wonder, since the book of Hebrews seems to indicate that the tabernacle on earth was designed after the likeness of the heavenly, was the High Priest's attire Old Testament similar to that which our Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, is now wearing in heaven?)

Finally, I would ask -- What exactly distinguishes a "robe" garment from a "dress" garment?  (Not sure that I even have a clue.) 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

I am aware that this is a much debated topic, which has most definitely been discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I believe that the issue of pants being a specific garment for men is in line with biblical teachings. 

There has to be clothing that is gender specific, otherwise Deut. 22:5 would be meaningless.

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

14 hours ago, Brother Stafford said:

Breeches are mentioned five times in the Bible (Ex. 28:42, Ex. 39:28, Lev. 6:10, Lev. 16:4 and Eze. 44:18).  They are described as what would today be called men's knickers or knee length shorts.  They are only mentioned in connection with men and are therefore a male garment.  Other than a top coat or a robe, there are only two types of garments that can cover the lower half of the human body: a dress/skirt or shorts/pants; I know of no other way.  If men were to wear a dress or a skirt, nearly everyone would agree that they are wearing clothing that pertains to a woman.  The only other option that a man has is to wear pants/shorts.  If that is the only option for a man, and there are only two options, then the other option, a dress/skirt, is the only option that a woman can make.

If the argument is, "Well, there are styles of pants that are specifically styled for women and those are okay for women to wear."  If that can be true, then there should be certain styles of dresses and skirts that are specifically designed for men to wear that would be appropriate to wear.  The only example of this, of which I am aware, is the kilt worn by Scottish men and some Irish men, but they are the only ones that think so; the rest of the world mocks them for wearing women's skirts.

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

First, it would be better to say -- "There has to be attire that is gender specific, otherwise Deuteronomy 22:5 would be meaningless."  Using the word "clothing" already biases the discussion in a direction that (I believe) is not quite accurate to the original meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5.

Second, I myself have already made clear my position on Deuteronomy 22:5, based upon extensive Bible study, in another thread, as per the following:

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440065

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440069

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440074

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440077

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440190

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440193

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440227

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440237

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440249

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440253

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440254

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440260

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440262

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440264

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440266

https://onlinebaptist.com/forums/topic/27213-the-morality-behind-christian-women-wearing-pants/?do=findComment&comment=440287
 

1.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" are UNDERWEAR garments.  Therefore, they would not be equivalent to men's knickers or knee length shorts as outerwear, but would be equivalent to men's boxer shorts as underwear.  

2.  By definition, since these "breeches" were underwear, they were not to be generally observable to the public eye.  Therefore, by definition they did not serve as a publicly observable attire of distinction between male and female.  (Unless one holds to the position concerning Deuteronomy 22:5 that it was about the distinction of under-garments, which in fact is the position that I was taught throughout the years of my upbringing.)

3.  In every one of the passages that you have presented in the above quote, the "breeches" were a part of the priesthood's HOLY garments, to be worn specifically when the priest was engaged in his priesthood (sacrificial) responsibilities.  However, there is no indication that he was required to wear them when he was not engaged in these priesthood responsibilities, or that he ever did wear that when he was not so engaged.  Thus these "breeches" were a part of the Holy garments that distinguished him, not as a male from the female, but as a priest in priesthood duties, from everyone else.

4.  Exodus 28:42-43 specifically reveals the divine purpose for these "breeches," and that purpose is not given as the distinction between genders.  Rather, that specific purpose is one of modesty, to cover the priest's nakedness, which he was to wear when he came in unto the tabernacle or when he came near unto the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest someone might perchance get a glimpse up his skirt and see his nakedness, and thereby he bear iniquity and die.  (By the way, I believe that we Fundamental Baptists could learn something about modesty from this principle, that our women who wear skirt-wear in public should be wearing something similar UNDERNEATH their open-bottomed garments, since platforms and stairways are now such a common part of public life.)

5.  It is interesting to me that every time wherein I have encountered the "breeches" argument and evidence has been present to support the "pants are man's wear" position, these others points of Biblical information are NOT mentioned.  I wonder if the reason for that neglect is because it would weaken the argument of the agenda.

__________________________________

Now, it is true that there only two basic ways for the lower half of the human body to be covered --

(1) by an open-bottomed garment, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "skirt."
(2) by an split-legged garment which is divided in accord the division of the two legs, wherein the part of the garment which covers the body down from the waist is precisely called a "pant."

In the time when Deuteronomy 22:5 was delivered by the Lord God through Moses unto the Israelites, BOTH the men AND the women wore garments with a "skirt."  At that time, neither the men nor the women wore a "pant" garment as outerwear.  Even so, the ORIGINAL meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 did NOT concern the matter of "skirts" as women's wear and "pants" as men's wear.  Furthermore, I myself most certainly would NOT say that a man wearing "skirt" wear is inherently wearing women's wear.  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ wore women's wear (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then the Lord God HIMSELF designed women's wear for the High Priest of Israel to wear (another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  If that were true, then our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed as wearing women's wear in Revelation 1 (yet another EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE implication in my estimation).  No sir, the reason for so many to claim that "skirt-wear" is women's wear is founded and influenced by a few hundred years of THIS WORLD'S cultural development.  It is NOT a Biblical truth.  

Therefore, your logical argument above about the two possible options for male and female attire is built upon faulty premises.  First, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must be a form of common clothing.  Second, it is built upon a premise that the possible attires of distinction must concern the lower half of the human body.  Third, it is built upon the premise that the possible attires of distinction must be through the shape of clothing, as opposed to the coloring or other decor of the clothing.  In fact, your viewpoint has to some extent been created BECAUSE OF the WORLD"S culture (from a number of hundreds of years of European culture); and now you attempt to read that culturally influenced viewpoint BACK onto God's Word.  IF you had studied the subject of clothing ONLY from the Scriptures themselves, you yourself would be wearing a garment that contains a SKIRT.   

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
30 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

Now that is preaching!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

Brother Kurecki,

That is correct. BY DEFINITION, culottes are PANTS-WEAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say...

Folks here know my stance (I think). I see nothing wrong with women wearing pants...if they are modest. Same with dresses. Sometimes, I feel that I'm the only one who draws a parallel between modern-day IFB "rules and regulations" and the Pharisees who placed the emphasis on outward appearance.

Whitewashed tombs? Clean the outside of the cup? 

Christ certainly wasn't in favor of those who "made proselytes".

I've said it before. I'm saying it now...and I'll continue saying it...

Allow the Holy Spirit to change a person as they grow in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. When the change comes from him (and within), the change is real. When the change is forced by others...it's not real. It's done to please man.

All of this emphasis on forcing a change on the outward appearance usurps what Christ is doing on the inside. Often more than not, it forces people to seek to please man...and often more than not, it leads to man-worship.

I would much rather see a lady (who wears pants to church) yearning to know more of Christ...than to see a woman (who wears dresses only) that gives those who don't "measure up" looks of disgust and disdain, because they wear pants

...and the same for men.

Preach standards...yes! However, don't force them on people. Allow the Holy Spirit to change them through the preaching of his word.

Please? 

You are not alone........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Here's a question, what is the difference between culottes and pants? both are garments that have a seem running down the middle... in fact last time I looked up the definition of the word pants, culottes fit. So to be consistent, woman who refuse to wear pants should also not wear culottes. 

 

I would modify that a bit to say that women who refuse to wear pants because they consider them to be men’s garments should also not wear culottes. 

If a woman does not wear pants because she considers them to be too form-fitting and immodest, then wearing culottes would not be hypocritical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Somehow we went from wearing culottes to shorts for sports activities.  At least the culottes were modest and identified one as a girl from a distance.

As to the earlier discussion, when folks in my local church tried to school an unbeliever about their immodest dress, without ears to hear with, they were offended and never came back.  Hard lesson.  When I pulled into the parking lot for the first time at our local church, my wife refused to get out of the car, saying it was a cult, all these ladies wearing dresses and long skirts!  We left but I prayed and persisted and we came back and the Lord wrought his Work on my dear wife's heart.  In the pew on a Wednesday night she leaned over and said we're home.  We did not live around women who dressed modestly.  Everything tight and or hanging out is the norm.

I had a job delivering to convenience stores once, it was tough being a child of God and going into those places with the ladies everywhere biblically naked.  I had to keep my thoughts on the Lord continually.  I loved the work but not that aspect, it was terribly stressful and soon after I was injured and could not do it anymore.

When these young ladies dress up, their dresses end barely below their belly buttons and barely the other way too!  Not a whole lot is left to the imagination.  But that is business attire, clubbing attire, its what they wear to weddings and funerals.  When not in dresses they're wearing those active wear skin tight clothes or even less.  Their momma's did too and they know no better. 

 

Only under conviction of the Holy Spirit will they begin to get curious and ask questions and have ears to hear with, then we can help win them for the Lord and get them to dress proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 40 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...