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

  • Moderators
15 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

James 2:2 ...... there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

What would this look like? Would pants on a woman be considered vile?

I suspect vile raiment would more be considered dirty, of poor quality, damaged. Like a hobo. Or is that not a PC word anymore? Sorry, I stick with Hobo.

 

What about overalls? Can a woman wear overalls? Overalls aren't very attractive, unless worn without a shirt, (unless they're worn without a shirt by myself, which should NEVER be done, EVER).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
12 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

a friend of our Pastor had a transsexual attending his church, they confronted him about wearing dresses and told them that he had to repent of his lifestyle and submit to God and stop wearing dresses. the Pastor of the church made a statement along the lines of "the only person who's ever been to my church that had a conviction against women wearing pants is a man who wants to dress like a women". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?.

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Many old homes with flat roofs or having parts of their roofs flat do have them fenced so as to honor the Lord in Deuteronomy 22:8.

There are parts of the Old Testament that no longer apply and parts that do, such as cross dressing men and women.  It is referred to in the New Testament.  But as always said, that is not the only reason for ladies not to dress in men's clothing, there is also the issue of modesty, among others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/4/2017 at 6:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

Lev 11:10 says they shall be an abomination to you (the Jew). it does not say that doing so is an abomination to God.Not to mention: " First, Peter was taught that the Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in effect for the New Testament believer (Acts 10:9-16). The truth of this was emphasized in that the command to rise, kill, and eat was repeated three times. " -David Cloud

 

On 1/6/2017 at 10:08 AM, Salyan said:

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

Yeah I looked that verse up as well and wondered if weary warrior even read that verse before referencing it.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is a topic I am really struggling with. I will say that when I go to church I do wear nothing but skirts, modest tops, hose and shoes. At home (I'm a part time teacher) I wear whatever, pajama pants, tank tops. IF I go out (like to the store), I will wear jeans and tops. I have to dress reasonably professionally when I'm teaching so switching to skirts while teaching isn't a problem. Switching my wardrobe for everything else...well...that will be hard. 

I guess it's hard to change the habits of a lifetime...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Here is a question that must be asked when talking about gender clothing. Does culture decide what is a man's clothing and what is woman's clothing?

Well, for me -- I find nothing, nothing at all whatsoever, in Scripture that defines pants-wear as being inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I must ask -- Upon the foundation of what authority has it been determined that pants-wear IS inherently man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man")?  Pants-wear certainly was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Moses' day, when the command was originally given.  Pants-wear was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Jesus' day.  In fact, pants-wear was NOT even man's wear among the Roman and Greek cultures in the first century, since they held the viewpoint that only "those Barbarians" (primarily, of northern Europe) wore pants.  So then, when DID pants-wear become the defining element of man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man"), since it was NOT so even a few thousand years after the command of Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally given?
 

15 hours ago, busdrvrlinda54 said:

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

Amen, and AMEN!  Certainly, Sister Linda, you should NOT want to be an abomination in the sight of God in any manner, including in the matter of this subject.  However, the question within this discussion is whether pants-wear is actually the definition for "that which pertaineth unto a man," since Deuteronomy 22:5 does not actually reference pants-wear in any direct manner (and since it could NOT have originally applied to pants-wear among the children of Israel at that time, since no one, neither men nor women, wore pants-wear as an outer garment in that time).  Furthermore, there is a question as to consistency for those who do hold that pants-wear is inherently man's wear, since by definition ANY garment with a split leg is pants-wear, including culottes, hosen, pajama pant-bottoms, etc.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pastor Markle,

Thank you, sir. I totally agree that there is nothing in the Bible that states that pantswear is strictly menswear. There are, however, some hints in the Bible that suggest what modest dressing is. For instance, Isaiah 47:1-3 says "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." This says that it is shameful for a woman to show her legs, and that God considers the showing of, at least the thighs, to be nakedness. Now, I know that this is old testament, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: In Matthew 5:28,Jesus talks about men lusting after women being adultery, and I don't want to be even partially responsible for causing that sin. Romans 14:15, 16 says " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:" So, we are somewhat responsible for causing others to sin. And then there is 1 Tim. 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"  The question, of course, is "what is modest apparel?" I see it to be clothing that is distinctly feminine, but would not cause a Christian man to stumble. Since most pants for women these days are skin tight, I choose that to be long, loose skirts. However, I do believe that what a woman wears is between her and God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, busdrvrlinda54 said:

Pastor Markle,

Thank you, sir. I totally agree that there is nothing in the Bible that states that pantswear is strictly menswear. There are, however, some hints in the Bible that suggest what modest dressing is. For instance, Isaiah 47:1-3 says "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." This says that it is shameful for a woman to show her legs, and that God considers the showing of, at least the thighs, to be nakedness. Now, I know that this is old testament, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: In Matthew 5:28,Jesus talks about men lusting after women being adultery, and I don't want to be even partially responsible for causing that sin. Romans 14:15, 16 says " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:" So, we are somewhat responsible for causing others to sin. And then there is 1 Tim. 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"  The question, of course, is "what is modest apparel?" I see it to be clothing that is distinctly feminine, but would not cause a Christian man to stumble. Since most pants for women these days are skin tight, I choose that to be long, loose skirts. However, I do believe that what a woman wears is between her and God. 

Again, Sister Linda - Amen and AMEN!  I do not at all stand in disagreement with your perspective on the various passages (including those from the Old Testament), and I highly respect your decision in relation to modesty, both in order to honor the Lord our God as a woman of godliness and in order to show godly love unto your brothers in Christ through modest (non-sexually provocative) apparel.  As one of those brothers in Christ, I thank you for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Here is what we know of what God says about the matter of gender-specific clothing:

 

(Deuteronomy 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.”

 

He is clearly stating that there is clothing that exists for each gender that the other must not wear.  

 

We can all come up with obvious and uncontested examples of clothing that are only to be worn by women (dresses, skirts, brassieres, pantyhose &c.). We must be able to do the same thing for men’s clothing.  If it is not possible for women to wear clothing that is only for men to wear, then Deut. 22:5 makes no sense.

 

So, if a skirt or a dress, which covers the lower half of the body, is an unmistakable and exclusively female garment, of which a man is not to wear, a garment must exist, which covers the lower half of the body, which is unmistakably and exclusively male, which a woman is not to wear.  I believe that, today, that garment is called a pair of pants. I believe that the biblical equivalent were breeches.

 

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines breeches thusly:

 

BREECHES, noun plural brich'es. [Low Latin braccoe.]

A garment worn by men, covering the hips and thighs. It is now a close garment; but the word formerly was used for a loose garment, now called trowsers, laxoe braccoe.

To wear the breeches is, in the wife, to usurp the authority of the husband.

 

Breeches are mentioned five times in Scripture and they are all in relation to men. (Exodus 28:42, Exodus 39:28, Leviticus 6:10, Leviticus 16:4 and Ezekiel 44:18). 

 

They are also implied by the use of the euphemism of covering one’s feet in Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3.  Some argue that covering one’s feet may mean that they were sleeping (their feet covered by the blankets).  I find this unlikely since the variations of sleep (sleep, sleepeth, sleeping, slept, slumber, slumbereth and slumbered) are used 156 times and no euphemism would be needed for sleeping.  That would be akin to the word of God recording that Saul went into a cave to “saw some wood” or that King Eglon’s servants were ashamed that their king was “catching a few z’s.”

 

I don’t believe that we can draw a distinction between women’s pants and men’s pants.  That would be like saying that men are allowed to wear men’s dresses, just not women’s dresses.  

 

A male friend of mine used to wear low rise, tight fitting blue jeans.  It wasn’t until I went to a store with him that I learned that he bought women’s jeans.  He had been wearing jeans designed for women, for years, and I had no idea.  I just thought he dressed like an idiot.

 

Perhaps, there are some who might be able to discern between men’s and women’s pants up close, but who can make that distinction from 100 feet away or more?  If I see a silhouette of a person wearing a pair of pants, how am I to know if that person is a man or a woman?  Most would say that they would then try to discern feminine shapes and anatomy, which causes us to look at and concentrate on areas which contain genitalia, which is something that I don’t believe that God wants us to be doing.

 

I think attempting to draw a line between men’s pants and women’s pants is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.  We are told to "Abstain from all appearance of evil.”  When a liberty is in question, I err on the side of caution and self restriction, or like my father taught me, “When in doubt, do without.” If I am unclear on wether of not scripture permits something, or if a permitted thing will cause someone else to stumble, I have no problem abstaining from that thing or action.  

 

The subject of women wearing pants is as clear to me as men wearing dresses, but I am aware that it is not as clear to others as it is to me.  To them, I would ask, “Why is it so important for you that women be allowed to wear pants when you know that it causes division and confusion?”

 

Consider this example: An employer makes a rule that his male employees must wear black shirts and that his female employees must wear white shirts.  What would be a good reason for either gender to see how much of the opposing color they could get away with adding to their shirts before they could be accused of not wearing their assigned color?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Brother Stafford said:

The subject of women wearing pants is as clear to me as men wearing dresses, but I am aware that it is not as clear to others as it is to me.  To them, I would ask, “Why is it so important for you that women be allowed to wear pants when you know that it causes division and confusion?”

What would be a dividing line for that? I'm not trying to be ugly here...I'm just now making steps towards a stronger Christian life...

I mean, if I'm wearing sort of pajama pants in my house, but I make sure I'm dressed decently and modestly if I go out, is that OK? I'm coming from the "if I have clothes on and my shoes are on the right feet I'm good" life. I DO want to change my dress, etc...but I will have a bunch of questions, some of which may sound stupid. I apologize in advance for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Dear Sister Saved 41199,

If you don't mind, I have a question for you. Say you are relaxing at home by yourself, wearing your pajama pants, and somebody you don't know knocks on your door. Would you answer?

Linda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • 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...