More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I talked about this subject with a couple elders in our house church last night. In our fellowship we approach Deuteronomy 22:5 as being more about the perversion associated with crossdressing. So, we admittedly don't see this verse as forbidding women's pants on women. It would forbid women from wearing attire specifically designed for men and men from wearing attire specifically designed for women. Clothing that is gender neutral such as regular T-shirts are acceptable on both genders.

However, our elders do believe in biblical modesty. Here, with regards to women, they agree that an appropriately fitting dress or skirt is generally more modest than many popular styles of pants or jeans. However, generally speaking, women's jeans or pants are not strictly forbidden or condemned. We encourage a culturally relevant pursuit of modesty. The practice of Christian modesty is seen as an act of personal devotion and sanctification.

Attached you'll find images describing our understanding of modesty and three examples of what we understand as modest and acceptable attire with regards to women in our fellowship.

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”? A rhetorical question because it is certain the answer is: Ad-infinitum. Conservatives have been castigated as providing a list of do’s and don’ts even though they use the Bible for determining what is pleasing to God. In spite of this, they have been charged as legalists, as demonstrated multiple times on this thread.

Ironically, now we have an individual that lists things that women must do. Such as,
1) Most stores carry modest clothing. Take the time to search for them.
2) If it is skin tight it defeats the purpose.
3) Keep minimum skirt length just below the knee.
4) If a top has a low neck line, wear a second top with a higher neck line under it.
5) Get more than one opinion about an outfit.
6) When wearing pants… Always wear a long and loose fitting top that goes past the hips.

So, women must take the time to search for “adequate” clothing.
They must keep skirt length below the knees.
They must wear two tops if someone thinks the neckline is too low.
They must get other opinions.
They must wear a long and loose fitting top to cover the pants when they wear them

This is fascinating. This list of things women must do makes this post legalistic. One could argue this list even makes the poster hypocritical because the same poster has charged conservatives as being legalistic. The words of Jesus haunt this post:
(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(Mat 7:2 KJV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Mat 7:3 KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:4 KJV) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:5 KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who accuse others of legalism are themselves legalists. However, their form of “legalism” is justified by them.

Now, let’s briefly examine the list of things women are told to do.
One would imagine that they are to search for “modest” clothing. But what standard is given for modesty? Well, skirts are to be just below the knee and necklines should not be too low. Although, the knee is given as a form of measurement (legalism) necklines are left subjective. The “escape” clause is to get other opinions, ostensibly from other women.

It is fascinating that the Bible is never referred to in the legalistic list provided. The argument that modesty is the standard is subjective to time, place and culture. What may be modest today was not modest fifty years ago or later. What may be modest in Spain does not necessarily mean it is modest in America. What is modest in San Francisco is not necessarily modest in Georgia. Thus “modesty” is absolutely subjective unless one has a higher standard – like the Bible. Thus, conservatives use the Bible.

As a conservative, I have used the Bible to establish my doctrine. As can be seen, the Bible is conspicuously absent from those who accuse others of legalism while they themselves are legalists.

It has been argued for dozens of pages and posts concerning pants. It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You, the reader, must make a decision about how you want to define your life. Will you use the Bible as your guide or the subjective opinions of man? The choice is yours. I leave you with this thought:
(Mat 6:33 KJV) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I don't have any real problems with this. I do believe 6-9 are all distinct acts, but happen essentially simultaneously and instantaneously from our perspective. I would see it as error to separate 7 & 8 to such a degree they can be see as different events that can take place weeks, months, or even years apart from each other, as the water/spirit doctrine does. I do believe you cant have any of 6-9 without having them all. IOW its impossible to be justified but not regenerate (again, water/spirit doctrine).

As for 1&2, I really dont have strong opinions on election and predestination yet. Those are still things I'm wrestling with various passages and possible interpretations. I'm not convinced that the calvinistic view is correct, in fact it has major holes IMO.

But overall I'd find a lot of agreement with this post.

When it comes to Conversion, we see it as faith/repentance as turning from sin to God. The first step being water baptism. Water baptism serves to bring us unto Identification with Christ (hence being in His name). This is Conversion. Being converted, one is Justified.

Therefore, Conversion is unto Justification. This allows one to stand before God as though they never sinned. However, while many Christians stop here, we believe Justification has a purpose and is what allows us to be deemed worthy enough to receiving the Holy Spirit, which brings Regeneration.

- Justification is more of a legal declaration, not an ontological reality.
- Regeneration is actually taking part in the divine nature as the Holy Spirit comes to abide in our inner man, thus it is an ontological reality.

Experiencing Regeneration, through the abiding presence of the Spirit in one's spirit man, one partakes in the divine nature. This makes one a son of God, which is the doctrinal reality of Adoption.

So it's kinda like this.... in our perspective....

Conversion is unto Justification. Justification is unto Regeneration. Regeneration is unto Adoption. They are link overlapping links in a chain.

The entire Acts 2:38 experience.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”?

Not every conservative is a legalist.

Legalism is loosely defined as follows (we Apostolics might want to expand a bit on what it means to repent and have faith, but this is generally a decent definition):

Legalism (or nomism), in Christian theology, is the act of putting the Law of Moses above gospel by establishing requirements for salvation beyond repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and reducing the broad, inclusive, and general precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes.

For example, those who believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to pants. According to their interpretation, if a woman wears pants, she's committing an abomination. An abomination is no joke. She might as well have gone out and committed sodomy! So, a woman can be saved in a service and go home and put on a pair of pants to go to the store and... BAM... she's lost. Or at best, in danger of losing her soul. She's committing abomination.

An abomination is a serious thing. It is something that can provoke the wrath of God in an instant. Thus, if one properly applies Deuteronomy 22:5 to pants... a woman really doesn't have time to pray, find her convictions, search it out, seek the Lord, etc. to conform to the a standard. It's a direct command concerning a detestable thing. Since it is an abomination (according to those who apply Deut to pants), it demands IMMEDIATE conformity. Or... we trivialize what an abomination truly is. The Law is not designed to bring life. It's like a fly swatter designed to immediately destroy the unrepentant offender. When one reads from the Law of Moses, it's like charging a shot gun. We should hear, "SHUCK-CHUCK!", because the gun is now charged and loaded.

It's serious business to say that something is an abomination to God... and that we are still under the Law concerning that abomination. To just throw it out there... and let people just "adjust" out of their abomination... trivializes how serious an abomination truly is.

What I see is an inconsistency. Churches will declare that pants on a woman is an abomination... but act like it is a matter of spiritual discipline she has time to grow into. That's inconsistent. An abomination demands repentance, immediate condemnation and immediate repentance.

So, we (in our fellowship) see the text of Deuteronomy 22:5 as actually speaking to a more serious perversion... not just an article of women's attire. And we embrace the Christian discipline of modesty, encouraging skirts and dresses, but allowing women to follow the Spirit as the Spirit guides them into all truth. Some will aspire to greater modesty than others. But immodesty should not be named among women professing to know the Lord. There is grace. There is patience. There is time for teaching, learning, and personal convictions to be discovered. There is time for modest saints to model and serve as examples to learn from. Modesty is a Christian discipline that is practiced devotionally as one seeks to please the Lord. So we see pants as a modesty issue. Not an abomination. And being a modesty issue, we ask that if any woman wears pants or leggings, that she wear a loose long top that covers the hips and perhaps her thighs.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You are majoring on the minors. You strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

It is your opinion that Deut 22:5 is about pants. Somehow you have found a way to go back in time and you spoke with Moses, who confirmed to you that he was speaking of an article of clothing which wasn't known at that time. A simple look into ancient Jewish culture and fashion, you would see that the difference between the sexes was the color, length and style of the robes.

There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants. There is simply not one. Breeches, both in the Biblical passage and in historical writings, were for the priests and Levites who ministered in the Tabernacle.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

How many times have conservatives been castigated as being “legalists”? A rhetorical question because it is certain the answer is: Ad-infinitum. Conservatives have been castigated as providing a list of do’s and don’ts even though they use the Bible for determining what is pleasing to God. In spite of this, they have been charged as legalists, as demonstrated multiple times on this thread.

Ironically, now we have an individual that lists things that women must do. Such as,
1) Most stores carry modest clothing. Take the time to search for them.
2) If it is skin tight it defeats the purpose.
3) Keep minimum skirt length just below the knee.
4) If a top has a low neck line, wear a second top with a higher neck line under it.
5) Get more than one opinion about an outfit.
6) When wearing pants… Always wear a long and loose fitting top that goes past the hips.

So, women must take the time to search for “adequate” clothing.
They must keep skirt length below the knees.
They must wear two tops if someone thinks the neckline is too low.
They must get other opinions.
They must wear a long and loose fitting top to cover the pants when they wear them

This is fascinating. This list of things women must do makes this post legalistic. One could argue this list even makes the poster hypocritical because the same poster has charged conservatives as being legalistic. The words of Jesus haunt this post:
(Mat 7:1 KJV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
(Mat 7:2 KJV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(Mat 7:3 KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:4 KJV) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
(Mat 7:5 KJV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who accuse others of legalism are themselves legalists. However, their form of “legalism” is justified by them.

Now, let’s briefly examine the list of things women are told to do.
One would imagine that they are to search for “modest” clothing. But what standard is given for modesty? Well, skirts are to be just below the knee and necklines should not be too low. Although, the knee is given as a form of measurement (legalism) necklines are left subjective. The “escape” clause is to get other opinions, ostensibly from other women.

It is fascinating that the Bible is never referred to in the legalistic list provided. The argument that modesty is the standard is subjective to time, place and culture. What may be modest today was not modest fifty years ago or later. What may be modest in Spain does not necessarily mean it is modest in America. What is modest in San Francisco is not necessarily modest in Georgia. Thus “modesty” is absolutely subjective unless one has a higher standard – like the Bible. Thus, conservatives use the Bible.

As a conservative, I have used the Bible to establish my doctrine. As can be seen, the Bible is conspicuously absent from those who accuse others of legalism while they themselves are legalists.

It has been argued for dozens of pages and posts concerning pants. It has been demonstrated that godly men wore pants and godly women did not. I have asked ad-infinitum for just ONE passage of a godly woman wearing pants. The answer has been complete and utter silence. Thus, the argument from their silence by failure to produce a single shred of Biblical evidence to support the hypothesis. At best, all there has been is a convoluted attempt to ignore these facts.

You, the reader, must make a decision about how you want to define your life. Will you use the Bible as your guide or the subjective opinions of man? The choice is yours. I leave you with this thought:
(Mat 6:33 KJV) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

I doubt cons are concerned about this. Doesn't matter. Women better wear a dress/skirt or they'll be condemned and cast into hell.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I know is Jamaica, women are encouraged to wear pants because of the number of rapes and sexual assaults.

It was a pretty credible source...someone actually from there I spoke to about it.

I don't know the details, but maybe that was a sensible admonition. However, if one believes that the Law of Moses still applies, and believes that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about pants, they are under Law, there can be no compromise or flexibility. It would be an abomination. In such a circumstance, they'd have to leave their women more vulnerable, and just pray that God protect them.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

You are majoring on the minors. You strain at a gnat, yet swallow a camel.

It is your opinion that Deut 22:5 is about pants. Somehow you have found a way to go back in time and you spoke with Moses, who confirmed to you that he was speaking of an article of clothing which wasn't known at that time. A simple look into ancient Jewish culture and fashion, you would see that the difference between the sexes was the color, length and style of the robes.

There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants. There is simply not one. Breeches, both in the Biblical passage and in historical writings, were for the priests and Levites who ministered in the Tabernacle.

Okay. For you, the Word of God is a minor issue. That is your problem not mine. I have never ate camel so you have no idea what you are talking about.

Deu. 22:5 is about what people wear. I guess you do not believe pants are worn. Again, your problem not mine. You also make the claim that I "spoke with Moses" about an article of clothing unknown at that time. Really? You are wrong on all points. Firstly, thank you for thinking I am smart enough to use a worm hole or whatever to find an anomaly in the time space continuum. Then, you argue that ancient Israeli culture did not wear pants. This completely ignores and tramples upon the the truth. It is the Bible that demonstrates that ancient Israeli's wore pants; hence, the three Israeli young men were, in fact, wearing pants. Pants may or may not have been the popular fashion. That is not the question. The question is what is "worn". Pants are in fact worn. Also, they were in fact worn by ancient godly Israeli men. There is not even a single shred of evidence that a godly woman ever wore them.

You said "There is no scripture where all Israeli men wore pants." This is a ridiculous statement. Holiness is not a popularity contest as implied by your statement. What matters is whether or not godly men or women wore them. The FACT remains that godly men wore them and godly women did not. This has been established previously.

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 both demonstrate that the three godly Israeli young men were wearing pants. Now, if you can demonstrate where a godly women wore pants PLEASE provide the information.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There's a big difference. You have a law that, if broken, one is guilty of abomination.

We have principles of modesty. One can violate a principle of modesty and not be in "sin" or guilty of "abomination". Sometimes they are unlearned. Sometimes they work in a job that requires them to wear pants. Sometimes they have personal reasons why they prefer pants. Sometimes they have yet to see how dresses and skirts are more modest. Sometimes the Spirit is dealing with an entirely different area of their lives at the time. A principle isn't a law. It's a guiding concept. Modesty is an admonition, not a law.

Law vs. Grace.

Legalism vs. principles.

There's a world of difference.

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.