More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Now, with my understanding that dresses and skirts are to be encouraged as one grows in spiritual maturity and modesty, there is room for teaching, tolerance, and even guidelines regarding pants.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

It's the classic statement, where one believes one thing, but doesn't really want to say it outright, so instead blames it on God.

"Classic statement"? Really, So a conservative is not allowed to believe that God may expect more from a "mature" Christian than a "new born" Christian? Sorry to disappoint you. I believe the mercy of God will allow some people to make in spite of their disappointments. This includes me as I have sometimes fallen short.

Originally Posted by n david

This quote from you is interesting, especially since you've pushed back on my claim that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not about pants. In that post, you somewhat agree with me that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not about pants.

I said Deu. is not specifically about pants.
Specific means: in a definite or precise manner.
Thus, DEu. 22:5 does not precisely say pants. However, it includes pants because pants are worn and Deu. is about what is worn. Sorry that is to difficult a concept.

Originally Posted by n david

From the post above, it appears you do believe women who wear pants will be sent to the smoking section of eternity.

See my post above concerning God's mercy and the difference between a mature Christian and an immature Christian.

Originally Posted by n david

Is a women committing sin if she wears pants? Yes or no?

See my post above concerning God's mercy and the difference between a mature Christian and an immature Christian.

Originally Posted by n david

If the answer is yes, then either you believe a person who is in sin will be seated in the smoking section of eternity, or you're a universalist who believes sinners will still somehow be allowed into Heaven.

If the answer is no, you've wasted a lot of time arguing over something which really doesn't matter.

Hint: the answer is no.

See my post above concerning God's mercy and the difference between a mature Christian and an immature Christian.

Your argument is fallacious because you assume the only choices are the one's you have presented. That is fallacious because there is another option - God is the judge.

[Aquila]

Pliny, are you saying that God may have mercy and overlook an "abomination"???

Do you offer the same leniency to other abominations, such as continued homosexual sin?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.

We know this, and even he knows this, but I want to have him post it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

I'm not a 1-Stepper. I firmly believe in the necessity of Acts 2:38. However, I do not buy into the legalism that is rampant within most Apostolic organizations today.

Our fellowship's holiness article reads:

Holiness is essential to salvation. (Hebrews 12:14) Man is made holy by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life. Holy, consecrated, prayerful living should characterize the life and walk of every born-again saint of God. Therefore, God requires that one must forsake the ways of the wicked (2 Corinthians 6:17) and cleanse oneself from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) Holiness is not predicated upon adhering to the Law of Moses or church standards (Galatians 3:10-13; Romans 7:7-9; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:1-3). A life of true holiness is marked by living a life of divine love towards God and others (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

Well, are you saying that Jesus didn't serve as our atonement and propitiation? He didn't pay it all???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

We know this, and even he knows this, but I want to have him post it.

It's sad. When it comes to committing to the implications of his position, he's watering it down and begins to sound like us.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That's not what "strange apparel" means. lol

The meaning of strange apparel is in verse 4:

4 “ I will stretch out My hand against Judah,
And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place,
The names of the idolatrous priests with the pagan priests—

The temple was over run with pagan's and Baal worshipers. These were the strangly clad people. The Levites had been given particular rules on what to where in the temple. These pagans did not follow these rules (among many) thus, "strange apparel".

Thank you for demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about.

Barnes:
And all such as are clothed with strange apparel - Israel was reminded by its dress, that it belonged to God...
The choice of the strange apparel involved the choice to be as the nations of the world; “we will be as the pagan, as the families of the countries” Eze_20:33.

Gill (points an opinion)
or such who arrayed themselves in garments that did not belong to their sex, men put on women's garments, and women clothed themselves with men's, and both strange apparel.

You have argued that women should wear pants like the Scythian and Persian women. I have repeatedly asked for one single shred of evidence for a godly woman wearing pants. Your silence is deafening.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, are you saying that women went naked under their garments???

People are indeed naked under their garments.
Perhaps you have scales?
Now, if you believe godly women wore pants, please demonstrate it.