More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by 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?

Oh yeah... the "gothcha" clause right?

I teach and preach. What people do is between them and God. He is the judge. Apparently that concept is too hard for liberals to understand.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

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

Apparently you missed this post:
"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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

"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.

This gets better and better! Where is it, specifically, in the Bible where there is this "allowance" of sin for newborn Christians as opposed to mature Christians? Here I thought sin was sin and, when finished, it results in death. What is the timeframe for this, because I'm sure you've met (as I have met) Christians who have been in church decades who are spiritually infantile. So what are the terms, conditions and timeframe for your theology?

Originally Posted by Pliny

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.

Prove it. You have nothing besides Priests wearing underwear and 3 Jewish guys wearing what may possibly be hose. Neither are pants. Nor is there any mention in the Bible of women wearing only dresses.

Originally Posted by Pliny

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

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

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

Isn't sin sin? Is there a newborn Christian version vs a mature Christian version of sin - where one is saved from hell, but the other burns in it?

Originally Posted by Pliny

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.

Again, with the noncommittal answer.

If sin is sin
and sin = death, hell and the lake of fire

And if women wearing pants = sin

Then women wearing pants = death, hell and the lake of fire.

Man up and just admit it. That's what you believe. Stop with this, "Well, there are various levels of Christians and what's allowable versus what's not allowed, depending on the length of time put in and whether you're mature or newborn. But God is the judge."

smh

Who are you, Joel Olsteen? Can't you just state what you believe, instead of giving this kind of pussyfooted, weak, pathetic answer?

The verse you have placed all your hopes in calls it an abomination. That's the same charge as lying, adultery, murder and other sins.

I mean, from your post, no sin is actually a sin, and it depends on whether you're a newborn or mature Christian as to whether your sin is allowed.

Originally Posted by Pliny

This includes me as I have sometimes fallen short.

Are you a mature Christian, Pliny?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Oh yeah... the "gothcha" clause right?

I teach and preach. What people do is between them and God. He is the judge. Apparently that concept is too hard for liberals to understand.

Actually, liberals are usually the one's who impersonate Olsteen and won't take a stance on what is/isn't sin. I never thought cons had that problem.

Why is this hard for you?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently you missed this post:
"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.

No sir, just responded to it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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).

Fascinating. You cite Hebrews 12:14 but apparently do not know what it means.
(Heb 12:14 KJV) Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
RWP states concerning following after peace:
Follow after peace (eirēnēn diōkete). Give peace a chase as if in a hunt.

Yet, the same clause to follow is tied directly to holiness as well by the inclusion of the Greek kai. Therefore, the word, as understood by RWP, to follow means to hunt for holiness. This word picture provides a message to seek after, to look for the clues and to follow them. Instead of this, you have hunted for any excuse to ignore Biblical passages.
Godly men wore pants.
Godly women did not.

[Pliny]

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.

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

Apparently you missed the part where I said

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

More wishful thinking.


Have you found that verse yet? The once that demonstrates where godly women wore pants.

Didn't think so.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Oh yeah... the "gothcha" clause right?

I teach and preach. What people do is between them and God. He is the judge. Apparently that concept is too hard for liberals to understand.

Sounds to me like you're weak on an abomination.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently you missed this post:
"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.

People don't mature out of an abomination. In fact, they are to be shunned and denied fellowship.