More on Skirts

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Quick, look over here!

Are women who wear pants committing sin and abomination?

If they are, and they do not repent and begin, post haste, to wear only dresses, then they will be condemned to hell for eternity. If you believe pants on women is sin and abomination, why would you disagree with this?

Are people who lie, commit adultery and murder others committing sin and abomination?

If they are, and they do not repent, then they will be condemned to hell for eternity. Do you disagree with this?

You want to place me on the Judgment seat of Christ. You may feel qualified to sit on it, that 's your prerogative. I don't. What is so hard about this? I am not called to separate the sheep from the goats. Are you? Are you so self-centered and "holier than thou" that you feel it is okay for you to knock Christ off His judgment seat? I certainly do not.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course. We believe in grace and patience when dealing with modesty. But when it comes to sins that are abominations, we don't play. Cross dressing, homosexuality, the occult, etc. are forbidden. One is expected to repent immediately and denounce their sin. Of course, I don't remember ever dealing with a cross dresser. We did have a gay man who was rather effeminate gather with us. We expected him to be celibate and to seek healing and deliverance. When it became obvious that he had entered another active homosexual relationship, we shunned him.

Sooo... you worked with him first?
Or did you slam the door in his face and tell him to line up before entering?

Hmmm...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ever notice how the sweet grace and tolerance crowd cannot think in anything but legalistic, dictatorial terms?

Tyrants at heart, masquerading as freedom-fighters.

Looks like I was right?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

So... according to you a person must be absolutely perfect to be saved or it does not matter what they do because they now have a "get out of hell free card" because they have been what? Baptized? If this is what you believe, no wonder your "theology" is so messed up.

Now you're just babbling all kinds of mess. You're posting two different pendulum extremes. Are you okay, Pliny?

BTW, you must have missed where I affirmed new birth, water and spirit, Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation.

In the end you had better be WITHOUT SPOT or BLEMISH (aka perfect) or you won't be saved. It doesn't matter if you're newborn or mature, sin will never enter there! Do you not believe this?

No, I don't believe in a "get out of hell free card." Absurd! I'm beginning to wonder if you do though. The past few posts have raised a lot of questions as to your belief of sin and its consequences.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Apparently, you have never read John's writings.
(1Jn 2:1 KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Of course this is dependent upon repentance.
(Act 2:38 KJV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

To repent is to, according to RWP:
Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now.

Mmmmmk. Nowhere is John claiming that newborn Christians are free to sin, but mature Christians are not.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Possibly?
I guess we have to do this again.
See the post I bumped up for you again.

Yes, possibly.

6361. petash ►
Strong's Concordance
petash: (a garment) perhaps leggings
Original Word: פַּטִּישֵׁי
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: petash
Phonetic Spelling: (pat-teesh')
Short Definition: coats
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
(Aramaic) of uncertain derivation
Definition
(a garment) perhaps leggings
NASB Translation
coats (1).

Brown-Driver-Briggs
[מְּטַשׁ] noun [masculine] a garment, meaning dubious, tunic (Thes) or leggings SACJPhil. xxvi (1899), 309; (probably later insertion in text Id.ib. 311 ff.) (Talmud (rare); √פטשׁ spread out according to K§ 57 b) a)); — plural suffix פטישי הון Kt (probably ׳מְּטִי K§§ 54, 3 a)a); 57, b)a), Kmpon the passage M78* and others ׳מַּטִּי), מַּטְּשֵׁיהוֺן Qr, Daniel 3:21; conjectures on meaning see in Behrm Bev Dr M78*.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
hose
(Aramaic) from a root corresponding to that of pattiysh; a gown (as if hammered out wide) -- hose.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Am I speaking in parables? Why is it so hard to understand a simple concept?

Why is it so hard for you to state your belief that a woman who wears pants is committing sin?

Originally Posted by Pliny

You do not believe their are mature Christians and immature Christians?
Apparently you have never read the book of Hebrews either.
(Heb 5:11 ESV) About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
(Heb 5:12 ESV) For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,

Yes. God is the judge.

This isn't about newborns vs mature. Try again.

Originally Posted by Pliny

I am most certainly not Joel Osteen. BTW, I have stated what I believe. Sorry it did not come with pictures and crayons.

You certainly have been posting like Olsteen.

Let's try again: Do you believe a woman who wears pants is committing sin?

Originally Posted by Pliny

Based on your posts, I am left with certain observations concerning your beliefs.
1) You believe there is no such thing as sin once a person is in church. They are free to do whatever they want.
2) There is no such thing as a mature Christian or immature Christian. Ostensibly, because maturity does not matter - people have a "get out of hell free card" and sin does not matter.

Do you have a brain tumor? How could you possibly read my posts, where I have stated sin is sin and sin = death, and then turn around and post something stupid like this? You, sir, are the one refusing to state if a woman who wears pants is committing a sin. You're the one, sir, who claimed there is a set of rules for newborn Christians and a different set of rules for mature Christians.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Beuna suerte with that.
Once again I am left believing that you either think no sin matters because people have a "get out of hell free card". Perhaps, you are trying to justify "fudging" (lying) on your taxes? I don't know. I am certain that God is a just God and He will judge righteously.

You forgot the "or." As stated previously, I don't believe in a get out of hell free card. Sin is sin. Sin = death.

Now, can you state that women wearing pants are 1) in sin; and 2) if unrepentant will go to hell?

Originally Posted by Pliny

Now all this must simply be an obfuscation to ignore the Bible. Since you and others are silent on providing evidence to support your justification, all you can do is ask silly questions. Anything to divert attention from the real issue. Where does the Bible demonstrate godly women wore pants?

The SILENCE has been deafening...

As has your silence proving women only wore robes, with no bifurcated garment underneath.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is not hard for me. I have never said women wearing pants is acceptable. That is your's other's un-biblical opinion. You would think that after all the pages and posts you would understand my position. I guess not. I teach and preach. After that, it is between the people and God. People must accept personal responsibility for what they do. Apparently you do not believe this. It is true, godly women never wore pants in the Bible. You and other's have not and cannot provide any evidence in which they did. Therefore, all you can do is obfuscate and try to build straw man arguments or make ad-hominem attacks because all the evidence you have is found in a vacuum.

Do you believe a woman who wears pants is committing sin and, if unrepentant, will go to hell?

If you cannot state this outright, then you should drop your argument, as it has become your personal preference and not a Biblical mandate.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sooo... you worked with him first?
Or did you slam the door in his face and tell him to line up before entering?

Hmmm...

Actually, he came to us down and out. His previous lover had kicked him to the curb and he was needing help and seeking support. He was celibate at the time. But the moment we verified that he was actively in a homosexual relationship, we approached him to see if he'd repent. When it became obvious that he wasn't going to repent, we disfellowshipped him.

How long will you tolerate the "abomination" (according to your own position) of a woman wearing pants?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You want to place me on the Judgment seat of Christ. You may feel qualified to sit on it, that 's your prerogative. I don't. What is so hard about this? I am not called to separate the sheep from the goats. Are you? Are you so self-centered and "holier than thou" that you feel it is okay for you to knock Christ off His judgment seat? I certainly do not.

You'd probably be really good at Twister.

Pliny, can a person have unrepentant sin and still go to heaven?

I'm trying to make this real easy for you...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

You want to place me on the Judgment seat of Christ. You may feel qualified to sit on it, that 's your prerogative. I don't. What is so hard about this? I am not called to separate the sheep from the goats. Are you? Are you so self-centered and "holier than thou" that you feel it is okay for you to knock Christ off His judgment seat? I certainly do not.

Pliny, you hold that the ABOMINATION of Deuteronomy 22:5 is pants on a woman. It's our job to call out evil as being evil. If you believe that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about wearing pants... it has already condemned the guilty and you are only to affirm it's truth, for all pants wearing women to hear, and hopefully be filled with Godly fear and sorrow that they might immediately repent.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Looks like I was right?

So we can't call sin "sin" anymore? If calling sin "sin" is legalistic, then I guess I'm a legalist. Sin is sin. It doesn't matter if a person has never heard of God. It doesn't matter if they're a newborn Christian. It doesn't matter if they're a mature Christian.

Sin is SIN. And you will not be saved if you have unrepentant sin in your life. The Bride must be WITHOUT spot or blemish.

Good grief! Heaven's to Betsy! I'm in the twilight zone or something!

[Aquila]

Isn't it strange... they swear up and down that the ABOMINATION of Deuteronomy 22:5 is pants on a woman. Yet, they apply the text they way we do modesty teaching, and thereby tolerate the abomination of spiritually immature believers. lol

In the end... with all their bluster about pants on a woman being an "abomination"... they're practicing what we practice. lol