Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jerry, I didn't state an opinion or viewpoint on this issue. Simply posted an article and a rebuttal to some responses to the original article.

While your reply disagreed with the article, that was fine. However, when by inference you've questioned my "cry for knowledge" with



which gives me pause to ponder.......



Do you ever read and study anything that's outside the pages of the King James Bible? Sermons by other pastors? Commentaries? Have you ever recommended a book (article, web site, etc), written by a respected Christian author to a brother/sister in Christ or to someone who hasn't come to the Lord?

Is your position just as strong on all the points in the Deuteronomic Code (chapters 12-26 of Deuteronomy)? For example, if my great, great, great grandfather was of illegimate birth, should I be banned from entering our church? Surely that is as important as whether the garment on my lower body has been divided by a seam.

Lastly, this scripture passage come to mind as I read your reply.
2 Timothy 2:15 KJB
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Combine that with:
Proverbs 2:3-6 KJB
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

As I study any item on my "want to know more list" of God's word, I believe the Holy Spirit is my guide, not "wisdom from this world" to rightly divide His word.

Now for my "opinion" on this subject.

I believe that satan is using Deuteronomy 22:5 to drive a wedge of division into the body of the true church in Christ. This issue regarding the configuration of a piece of fabric reminds me of the fight over red carpet in the church of my youth. Much to my regret, today, that fight (and others) left a lasting impression on this, then new Christian. Yes, deep regret, as I drifted away from the church for many years. I don't know how much influence those fights had on me, but I do know, they were a contributing factor. Satan achieved his goal, in my case.


You took this verse,;

De 22:5 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.

& posted material, yours are someone else's, that bent this verse completely out of context, that takes wisdom of this world to do.

Its amazing to me what mankind will do to try & change what God's Word declares, & you did that with this verse.

As I previously stated, the verse is crystal clear, "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment,' "woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man," "for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." This means that at anytime, no matter where the man or woman may be, or what time of day it may be, & or what day of the week it may be, neither man shall wear woman's clothing & neither shall woman wears mans clothing.


That is if you want to please the Lord. Your more than welcome to wear women's clothing if you please, & your wife is welcome to wear mans clothing if you & her pleases, but you will not be pleasing the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Having thought, read, and contributed to this thread (I think that is what this is called), I have another observation. I wish to tread lightly on this, but honestly.

Why does it seem on this subject that it is it the responsibility of the woman to dress in a way that the man's eyes are not drawn to her figure?

The primary job of deciding where to look is the person who has the eyes. No Christian should put an occasion to stumble in a fellow Christian's path, and I understand the need for modest dress. But the choice to look somewhere is not up to anyone but the observer. Then, what that observer does in their mind with what they see is up to them also.

A woman who has a large bust has what she has. That is the way she was made and formed. Men, being made the way God made men, are by nature visual creatures, and notice such things. But it is the job of the man to look at the woman's eyes (in American culture) rather than 12-18 inches lower. The same principle applies to pants, whether worn on men or women who are Christians or not.

To see a woman and appreciate her beauty and attractiveness is not lust. Lust is over desire, letting the mind wander where it shouldn't. Believers ought to put the blame for evil thoughts on the person with the evil thoughts, not on anyone else. If a Christian is putting (an act of deliberation) a stumbling block in the way of another, that is wrong and should be corrected. But whether or not that happens, the renewing of the mind of all believers is required.

Christ is the end of the law for rightousness to everyone who believes.

I know some desire the law. Some desire liberty to excess. Neither are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Trell, that isn't completely true. If I dress in a way that is provocative to men, then I am being a weakness to that man. Now, my husband makes a point not to look at body parts he shouldn't be looking at, but its unfair for a woman to dress to where that is more difficult. Its like eating chocolate in front of someone on a diet.

My husband has said that he does not want other men looking at me in pants. Its very obvious that many men in the world would, if I did (not that I'm much to look at, but I'm just saying what he said). I have to respect that, and realize that the more a woman has to "look at", the more men are going to look.

By your logic, its okay if Christian women run to the store in a bikini, because its the man's job not to look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If it is a sin for women to wear pants, then it is just as much sin for the man to wear pants. There are women whose attention is drawn to the same area that mens attention is drawn when pants are worn.

An old adage fits well here... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have heard the argument about the seam drawing attention to the private area of the body, but it goes both ways... that same seam in women's pants is also in the same place for the men's pants.

Those men who preach and teach that women shouldn't wear pants need to get rid of their pants to show an example. And women that teach against pants need to get rid of their husband's pants.

Pants were created long before the birth of Christ and at the time they were created, both men and women alike wore them. Pants were not a gender specific attire then. They shouldn't be now.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No. I stated:

No Christian should put an occasion to stumble in a fellow Christian's path, and I understand the need for modest dress.

I am not suggesting anyone run into a store in a bikini, or even close to that.

However, just as your hubby and myself choose where, and where not to look, we also choose what to think, and what not to think. In this discussion, the opposite genders can either help, or hinder, their counterparts to renew their minds. I am thankful for people who help me renew my mind, but when I see a woman in a store with dress (or lack thereof) which appeals to the old man nature, the choice and responsibility to renew my mind is still their, regardless of whether someone is in a burka or naked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Whether man or woman, if we dress in a away we know will draw the yes of the opposite sex to look at us wrongly, then we are wrong to dress that way.

What Suzy brings up here: "By your logic, its okay if Christian women run to the store in a bikini, because its the man's job not to look." is very important. MANY Christian women today actually stand on that idea. They believe they can dress however they want, after all, "God only looks at the heart, He's not concerned with our dress". Their view is that whether they wear a mini-skirt, low cut blouse, or a bikini in public, if any man looks at them wrongly it's the man's problem and not theirs. They feel not the least bit of conviction for displaying their body in a manner to draw the eyes of men to where they should not look.

We (men and women) have a responsibility to not show off parts of our body that only our spouse (or potential future spouse) should see.

One of the things that really gets me is some of the wedding dresses Christian women wear which ar so revealing. Why would they or their soon-to-be husband want their family and guests to see so much of the brides body?

It's also a fact that most women, and men too, who dress in revealing and provocative outfits, do so to attract attention. They want to turn the eye of the opposite sex. Really, there is no other reason for either sex to dress "sexy" than to gain the attention of others. This is sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No law, its just 'trusting & obeying,' & doing that which pleases the Father, just because the saved person wants to please & loves the Father, after having been saved by grace though faith, knowing that doing these things will not make them more saved, & not doing them will not cause them to lose their salvation.

If a person dresses in a certain way, puts them self under the law, because they feel they have to, them they are doing it for the wrong reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Whether man or woman, if we dress in a away we know will draw the yes of the opposite sex to look at us wrongly, then we are wrong to dress that way.

What Suzy brings up here: "By your logic, its okay if Christian women run to the store in a bikini, because its the man's job not to look." is very important. MANY Christian women today actually stand on that idea. They believe they can dress however they want, after all, "God only looks at the heart, He's not concerned with our dress". Their view is that whether they wear a mini-skirt, low cut blouse, or a bikini in public, if any man looks at them wrongly it's the man's problem and not theirs. They feel not the least bit of conviction for displaying their body in a manner to draw the eyes of men to where they should not look.

We (men and women) have a responsibility to not show off parts of our body that only our spouse (or potential future spouse) should see.

One of the things that really gets me is some of the wedding dresses Christian women wear which ar so revealing. Why would they or their soon-to-be husband want their family and guests to see so much of the brides body?

It's also a fact that most women, and men too, who dress in revealing and provocative outfits, do so to attract attention. They want to turn the eye of the opposite sex. Really, there is no other reason for either sex to dress "sexy" than to gain the attention of others. This is sin.


At times when a person will do something that causes another person to stumble, they place all the fault on the one they made stumble, taking none for self, for they feel they can do anyway they please as they live life. The truth is, there lies fault on the one that caused the stumble, & the one that stumbled.

The truth is not a single one of us lives only to self, but how many of us truly lets Christ live through us?

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If it is a sin for women to wear pants, then it is just as much sin for the man to wear pants. There are women whose attention is drawn to the same area that mens attention is drawn when pants are worn.

An old adage fits well here... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have heard the argument about the seam drawing attention to the private area of the body, but it goes both ways... that same seam in women's pants is also in the same place for the men's pants.

Those men who preach and teach that women shouldn't wear pants need to get rid of their pants to show an example. And women that teach against pants need to get rid of their husband's pants.

Pants were created long before the birth of Christ and at the time they were created, both men and women alike wore them. Pants were not a gender specific attire then. They shouldn't be now.


Standing firm says that there is an old adage... Do we live by old adages, or by the Word of God? Some people cannot get it through their heads that the key word is "abomination". It does no command the man not to wear mens clothing, but the woman. This quoted post is as ridicules as the others by "standing firm", and I hope no one sees any logic in it.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" refutes the gender gap. It puts men and women equal in strength, in appearances, in every way, which is liberal modernism at its best. We need to get back to the roles that God meant for us.

By the way, (I said this before here) even the world uses pants and skirts to distinguish the difference. In many restaurants, or public places, the signs on the restrooms are silhouettes of a man in pants (for men!) and a women in a skirt or dress (for women!) DUH! For propriety and clarity, if nothing else! Try convincing a decent woman that it's ok to use the door with mans silhouette on it because times have changed, and women wear pants too! Or perhaps a Scotsman in a kilt, he could follow the sign couldn't he? Try explaining it to the judge!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Standing firm says that there is an old adage... Do we live by old adages, or by the Word of God? Some people cannot get it through their heads that the key word is "abomination". It does no command the man not to wear mens clothing, but the woman. This quoted post is as ridicules as the others by "standing firm", and I hope no one sees any logic in it.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" refutes the gender gap. It puts men and women equal in strength, in appearances, in every way, which is liberal modernism at its best. We need to get back to the roles that God meant for us.

By the way, (I said this before here) even the world uses pants and skirts to distinguish the difference. In many restaurants, or public places, the signs on the restrooms are silhouettes of a man in pants (for men!) and a women in a skirt or dress (for women!) DUH! For propriety and clarity, if nothing else! Try convincing a decent woman that it's ok to use the door with mans silhouette on it because times have changed, and women wear pants too! Or perhaps a Scotsman in a kilt, he could follow the sign couldn't he? Try explaining it to the judge!
When my wife puts on her slacks, she is not putting on men's clothing. Those slacks were meant for her. They were bought in the women's clothing section of a department store.

History reveals that pants, when first made, were made for both men and women. It is obvious that our society has returned to the original intention for pants. If one is going to preach against pants on women, then to keep from being hypocritical one must also preach against pants on men. They were made for both sexes, not one.

And yes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" fits perfectly. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Standing firm says that there is an old adage... Do we live by old adages, or by the Word of God? Some people cannot get it through their heads that the key word is "abomination". It does no command the man not to wear mens clothing, but the woman. This quoted post is as ridicules as the others by "standing firm", and I hope no one sees any logic in it.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander" refutes the gender gap. It puts men and women equal in strength, in appearances, in every way, which is liberal modernism at its best. We need to get back to the roles that God meant for us.

By the way, (I said this before here) even the world uses pants and skirts to distinguish the difference. In many restaurants, or public places, the signs on the restrooms are silhouettes of a man in pants (for men!) and a women in a skirt or dress (for women!) DUH! For propriety and clarity, if nothing else! Try convincing a decent woman that it's ok to use the door with mans silhouette on it because times have changed, and women wear pants too! Or perhaps a Scotsman in a kilt, he could follow the sign couldn't he? Try explaining it to the judge!


Someone please give me a verse where the bible, Paul, Jesus or even God says that "PANTS" are forbidden to woman. I am looking for the word "pants" here. And if we go on the fact that it actually means that they must not dress as men, then forbid them T-shirts, socks, boots, sandles, sneakers, button up shirts and anything else that is similar to what we wear! Just another case of making mountains out of dung heaps!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Someone please give me a verse where the bible, Paul, Jesus or even God says that "PANTS" are forbidden to woman. I am looking for the word "pants" here. And if we go on the fact that it actually means that they must not dress as men, then forbid them T-shirts, socks, boots, sandles, sneakers, button up shirts and anything else that is similar to what we wear! Just another case of making mountains out of dung heaps!

Actually, if approached humbly and seeking the truth, it's a matter of rightly dividing the Word of truth so we know how we should live.

The problem comes about when we put emotion into the mix, when we come at the issue with a predetermined mindset.

If we approach this issue, or any other, with a humble heart, with an open mind, relying upon the Holy Spirit to instruct us, then we can know the will of God in this matter.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

The matters of our dress would not be included in Scripture if it were not important for us to study, know and live by.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Someone please give me a verse where the bible, Paul, Jesus or even God says that "PANTS" are forbidden to woman. I am looking for the word "pants" here. And if we go on the fact that it actually means that they must not dress as men, then forbid them T-shirts, socks, boots, sandles, sneakers, button up shirts and anything else that is similar to what we wear! Just another case of making mountains out of dung heaps!


Regardless of your opinion on the subject probably somewhere around 40-50%(though the % continues to shrink) of IFB's think it is either outright wrong or at the least inadvisable. Given that there is no disagreement at all about whether or not it is proper for a lady to wear a dress if it is making a mountain out of nothing then why would someone not defer in this area? Things that are truly "nothing" do not result in significant disagreements because one side or the other simply does not care and is willing to defer to the other. On this issue though deference is rarely shown because one side thinks it is wrong or at the least inadvisable and the other side views it as a convenience issue that they don't want to give up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

First, God DOES care what we wear, and that we cover our bodies, else He would not have covered Adam and Eve with skins. There was no "public" then to object to nudity, but God made a point of covering them anyway. Modesty could hardly be the only reason, because they were married and one flesh, and could "see" one another any time.

God had specific reasons for the robes of the priests too, but the Romans who wore robes, were mostly heathen men, and we cannot use their example as the rule of thumb. There was a female pirate who dressed like a man too, and made herself quite a reputation, but is it alright? Calamity Jane, of the old west seemed to be more manly than most men, she too wore pants, or so they say. All through history women have worn pants, I suppose, but they were Bonnie and Clyde types, rebellious and wild
and wicked.

The problem has been touched on by John81, "emotion". Men have the same problem with long hair and earrings, etc., but wouldn't it be easier to just take the Bible for what it says, and not try to explain it away? Divorce is another issue we let affect us when emotion takes over. Emotion is "flesh" it is carnal thinking and acting; we should live by Bible principles, not our own emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This reminds me of reading, and seeing a documentary, on how some women actresses in the 30s and 40s began wearing pants, pant suits and dressing like men as an act of rebellion against society as they showed their support for radical feminism. Many women who saw this decided to join them in their rebellion and support of radical feminism. This opened the doors wide for so much societal upheaval and eventually turmoil and compromise in the churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Nowhere in the Bible does it say "thy women shalt not weareth pants". It also doesn't say 'thou shalt not abort babies" but it does mention having something called "natural affection" and plenty of other things regarding the subject. Likewise, it specifically says NOT to wear the clothes of the opposite sex and it DOES NOT go into some qualitfying explanation about "God gave that commandment because some Egyptian queen wore man's clothes". Hogwash! God wants men to be men and women to be women.
When my little girl was born, I left the hospital, went straight to the department store and bought two little dresses. She's 25 now and wears nothing else, and I haven't heard her complain about it one single time.

.and when my two little boys were born, my Wife and I put them in pants,,,,and you know something strange? We never had to worry about either of them wanting to wear long hair, or ear rings or act like sissies. Culture should tell you, and even nature itself should tell you that God wants there to be distinction between the sexes. Not only that but He wants Christian women and men to be modest and decent in their dress. Most pants I ever saw on women were NOT decent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Deuteronomy 22:5 needs to be examined closer, because some mistakenly think it is speaking of women putting on men's pants.

Far from it.

Look at the Hebrew words found in the verse.

The word pertaineth is the Hebrew word k@liy; (pronounced kel-ee). It means armor, apparatus in this particular verse. How do we know it means armor or apparatus? Because of the Hebrew word "geber", the word for 'man'. "geber" means "a valiant man, a warrior".

It is clear that Deuteronomy was forbidding women to put on armor or army apparatus to pass themselves off as fighting men.

And the geber (warrior) is not to dress like a woman in order to escape going to war.

The verse has nothing whatsoever to do with mens pants or women's pants of today. It is is not speaking about all men's attire on this Earth, nor is it speaking of all women's attire on this Earth. While it is speaking of the attire of the warrior, or valiant man of war, it is also speaking of the attire of the woman that has a feminine look to it.

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Deuteronomy 22:5 needs to be examined closer, because some mistakenly think it is speaking of women putting on men's pants.

Far from it.

Look at the Hebrew words found in the verse.

The word pertaineth is the Hebrew word k@liy; (pronounced kel-ee). It means armor, apparatus in this particular verse. How do we know it means armor or apparatus? Because of the Hebrew word "geber", the word for 'man'. "geber" means "a valiant man, a warrior".

It is clear that Deuteronomy was forbidding women to put on armor or army apparatus to pass themselves off as fighting men.

And the geber (warrior) is not to dress like a woman in order to escape going to war.

The verse has nothing whatsoever to do with mens pants or women's pants of today.


Pentecostals, Apostolics and holiness groups answer NONE of the following questions: Who invented pants and when? Who was the first historically to wear pants, men or women? Who created the concept of pants as male and the dress as female attire? When in history did this concept arise and how? How were women's pants introduced into our culture? How did people in Biblical times dress? What differences were there between men's and women's clothing?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  PastorMatt

      Why is it here in 2022 that truth is all of a sudden arrogance ?
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...