Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

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

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Razor earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...