Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Melody - In the example you are siting, Paul was dealing with the weaker brother, not all Christians.

Maybe later tonight, I will have time to post a thorough explanation of the passage in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Melody - In the example you are siting, Paul was dealing with the weaker brother, not all Christians.

Maybe later tonight, I will have time to post a thorough explanation of the passage in question.


Alright, sounds good :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pastor J
there you go again jumping to false conclusions. I have said openly and definitely that I do not agree with Ruckman elsewhere on this forum. Two people can believe the same thing about the Bible, if it is right, and yet disagree with one another in other respects. I am surprised that you do not seem to know that by now, being a "Pastor" and all. You made an assumption based on your own prejudices, but I forgive you.


Do you know all of Ruckman's teachings? I do not think Pastor J based in on assumptions, but on the beliefs you defend on the forums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Irishman - You may not be a follower of Peter Ruckman, but you hold to a false teaching that he is the founder of and it is the cornerstone of his beliefs. So I apologize for calling you a Ruckmanite, but your position is still heretical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What does Peter Ruckman have to do with pants...????


Haha I believe this discussion came from the other post I had. Irishman said he didn't recommend Ambassador because of something I said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

My friend (who wears pants) told me she feels like women who have to wear dresses all the time are being punished for being a girl. Now, that is somewhat feministic thinking..... but I see where she is coming from.


LOL at having to wear dresses. I usually only wear pants now for sledding/skiing. The last time I was putting on some pants (at the ski resort), I couldn't believe how uncomfortable they were! And these were my old very loose cords! I believe my thought process at the time went something along the lines of... "these feel awful. Women actually fought to wear these things...?!" :shootme: Once one gets used to skirts, there's nothing more comfortable! Edited by salyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Deut. 22:5 does dovetail with Romans 1, though, and so the distinction argument is valid. I'm not saying that it is the be-all and end-all verse on pants on women, but it does tie in with New Testament principle and therefore is not putting someone under the law. If we took the stance that we aren't to consider OT law in anything because it then puts us under the law, we could justifiably throw away a good chunk of our Bibles.

That said, the biggest issue regarding pants is what the husband says about it (as has been noted). My husband would never allow me to wear pants because he is convinced God would be displeased (I have no desire to, so it's not an issue with us, either). However, he would not look down on another man as being less spiritual because he allows his wife to wear pants.

I find it amusing that women fought to wear pants because they wanted to be free of the stricture of wearing dresses...and now men are pushing for the acceptance of wearing skirts/dresses because they want the freedom that wearing skirts/dresses brings. Hmmmm....

Deut. 22:5 deals with the idea of exchanging gender clothing as the pagans went into worship their false gods. God didn't want Israel to follow that custom...and so here we are today, saying that Deut. 22:5 can't apply because it's law (even though scriptural principle of Christian identity & gender distinction - hair, anyone? - is a NT principle). And yet, garments are becoming gender neutral. Somehow, no matter what we say for or against pants on women, I don't think God is too happy with the gender blending...

Edited to add...Melodys, in other threads where we've discussed pants, I've recommended a book that is actually very good on the topic of many standards. It's called The Fall and Rise of Christians Standards by David Kidd. He is a pastor, although I don't know that he's IFB. He presents a very graciously written book that has biblical and logical support throughout. I would highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of their beliefs on various standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deut. 22:5 does dovetail with Romans 1, though, and so the distinction argument is valid. I'm not saying that it is the be-all and end-all verse on pants on women, but it does tie in with New Testament principle and therefore is not putting someone under the law. If we took the stance that we aren't to consider OT law in anything because it then puts us under the law, we could justifiably throw away a good chunk of our Bibles.

That said, the biggest issue regarding pants is what the husband says about it (as has been noted). My husband would never allow me to wear pants because he is convinced God would be displeased (I have no desire to, so it's not an issue with us, either). However, he would not look down on another man as being less spiritual because he allows his wife to wear pants.

I find it amusing that women fought to wear pants because they wanted to be free of the stricture of wearing dresses...and now men are pushing for the acceptance of wearing skirts/dresses because they want the freedom that wearing skirts/dresses brings. Hmmmm....

Deut. 22:5 deals with the idea of exchanging gender clothing as the pagans went into worship their false gods. God didn't want Israel to follow that custom...and so here we are today, saying that Deut. 22:5 can't apply because it's law (even though scriptural principle of Christian identity & gender distinction - hair, anyone? - is a NT principle). And yet, garments are becoming gender neutral. Somehow, no matter what we say for or against pants on women, I don't think God is too happy with the gender blending...

Edited to add...Melodys, in other threads where we've discussed pants, I've recommended a book that is actually very good on the topic of many standards. It's called The Fall and Rise of Christians Standards by David Kidd. He is a pastor, although I don't know that he's IFB. He presents a very graciously written book that has biblical and logical support throughout. I would highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of their beliefs on various standards.


Thanks, I'll look up the book :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Let's see, we find no verses in the Bible that say a woman wore shoes, but we do find them showing that men wore shoes.

The logical conclusion is that shoes are that which pertains to a man and women should not wear them.

After all, Deuteronomy 22:5 of the Old Testament dovetails into Romans 1 of the New Testament according to HC.

So women must get rid of their shoes since there is no indication they were a woman's attire in the Bible.

We do have evidence that women went barefoot.

Deuteronomy 28:56 (KJV) The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

I mean, if one is going to use Deuteronomy 22:5 to say a woman can't wear slacks, then they must be consistent and say a woman can't wear shoes. There is no indication in the Word of God that women wore shoes, but there is indication that they went barefoot (see verse above)

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Let's see, we find no verses in the Bible that say a woman wore shoes, but we do find them showing that men wore shoes.

The logical conclusion is that shoes are that which pertains to a man and women should not wear them.

After all, Deuteronomy 22:5 of the Old Testament dovetails into Romans 1 of the New Testament according to HC.

So women must get rid of their shoes since there is no indication they were a woman's attire in the Bible.

We do have evidence that women went barefoot.

Deuteronomy 28:56 (KJV) The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

I mean, if one is going to use Deuteronomy 22:5 to say a woman can't wear slacks, then they must be consistent and say a woman can't wear shoes. There is no indication in the Word of God that women wore shoes, but there is indication that they went barefoot (see verse above)


I,m sorry buddy, but your logic is wrong. Deut. 22:5 for one thing, says something is "abomination"--a very strong word for that which God hates. if He hated in the Old Book, wouldn't He hate it in the new? We are speaking of principles, not commands for the New Testament believer.

Secondly, as was previously stated, cross dressing is exactly what we have today--women wearing mens clothing! What else can you call it? The gender bending is very dangerous, and could be the birth of the homosexual movement; it confuses the sexes, and mixes everything together as one. Perhaps that is why it is abomination, and yes, it does dovetail Romans one.

You seem to have a problem with the letter of the law while ignoring the principle of the law. Be careful to make sure you get your priorities right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I,m sorry buddy, but your logic is wrong. Deut. 22:5 for one thing, says something is "abomination"--a very strong word for that which God hates. if He hated in the Old Book, wouldn't He hate it in the new? We are speaking of principles, not commands for the New Testament believer.

Secondly, as was previously stated, cross dressing is exactly what we have today--women wearing mens clothing! What else can you call it? The gender bending is very dangerous, and could be the birth of the homosexual movement; it confuses the sexes, and mixes everything together as one. Perhaps that is why it is abomination, and yes, it does dovetail Romans one.

You seem to have a problem with the letter of the law while ignoring the principle of the law. Be careful to make sure you get your priorities right.
So according to the Bible, shoes were something that pertain to man. That is, unless you can find an instance of women wearing shoes in the Old Testament?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Yet few use the mind of Christ, just as few there be that let Christ live within them, they're to selfish, living for self, even dressing for self.

Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ro 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

While most say I do that which i want, its no one else's business. And when we do this we cause.

Ro 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

We become a stumblingblock, cause trouble for the weaker brother or sister, & may be a stumblingblock to the lost.

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

So if you took a survey & only 10 % of the men said women wearing pants makes them lust, them you would do good not to put a temptation in front of that 10%.

Ga 5:13 ¶ For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

For you are provoking that 10% to lust.

Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

And your not considering one another, & you are not provoking that 10% to good works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...