Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue - Page 21

StMark · #**201** 05-30-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbundantGrace

I got tickled when I read the title of this thread concerning the age-old Pants On Women Sin! lol...

After my wife and I came out of UPC a number of years ago and she began wearing pants, we were reminded of Deuteronomy 22:5. I had preached from that text myself in the past. Of course, that was prior to our coming to a much clearer revelation of the freedom from that Old Law which Jesus gave us through the power of the Cross and by the Grace of God. I'll never forget a dear lady who called me and gave me the reminder of the 22 & 5 Rule and asked how could I no longer preach that women should live according to that scripture?

Well, first of all, Christ set us free through the work of the Cross, which is made very clear to us in the New Testament. But even beyond that, how can we preach that WOMEN should obey Deuteronomy 22:5 and even go so far as to make it into a "MAN-MADE SALVATION ISSUE" and then neglect to live according to the rest of the chapter or the book for that matter.

For those who are preaching that women should live according to 22:5, please allow me to ask a couple of questions.

1) For those of you who farm or garden - Do you plant more than one kind of seed in your crop or in your garden? I certainly hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:9 says plainly, Don't Do It!!! If you do, your fruit will be defiled! There may be some getting under conviction even now!

2) For all of you fashion experts - Surely you've never worn any sort of a garment that was made out of a wool and linen blend of material?

Again, I hope not, because Deuteronomy 22:11 again plainly says, Don't Do It!!! We may need to check our clothing tags. It may be time for some closet cleaning!

3) And of course, this could go on and on, but for time's sake, I'll simply utilize only one more example. Still going along the clothes line - I pray that all of your cloaks do have tassels on all four corners, because Deuteronomy 22:12 says that you must have tassels on all four corners of the cloaks that you wear.

Now, of course, I'm being a little sarcastic in my scenarios, but the point is correct nonetheless. If we are going to preach 22:5 TO WOMEN (they always seem to get the brunt of the man-made rules) and bind them to that one lone scripture and in MANY churches even make it a Heaven or Hell issue, then how can we just neglect all of the rest of the Chapter?

Can somebody please explain that? (And please don't say "Because it's in the UPCI Manual") Yes, I've actually heard that from quite a number of my UPC Preacher friends. And I've even heard from some non-UPC Preacher friends who believe that, that that's the way their parents did it, so...

Paul taught us to dress modesty, but he never preached Deuteronomy 22:5 as a dress code for women or men for that matter, at least not as far as we know. So why do some?

Just a few questions I have...

Thanks for the opportunity to share...

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??

.

StMark · #**202** 05-30-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkstokes

My philosophy is if people want to live that why fine, but don't make into a test of spirituality. MANY believe that the stricter one is with type of stuff, then the holier you are. It is written that His blood is what sanctifies, not standards.

Apart from this,

Mark I think it is time that this issue go away. I disdain the fact that this would be oneness pentecostals calling card. A man I know, sincerely saw little difference between pentecostals and the FLDS (talking about dress). I didn't even try to go into the differences because really it is the same mentality (unscriptural subjection of women). One can really make the Bible say pretty much near anything (twisting and turning it) -- Look at the crazy posts that have been going on in the forum of late.

And I will admit, that is a BIG concern for me! I hate being compared to the FLDS and UPC is starting to get hit with that comment a lot. something we cringe at whether we admit it or not.

I just heard recently that a group of Cons were at some conference somewhere and many in the community thought that the FLDS had come to town. seriously

Stokes,As for wanting this topic to go away, It's still up for debate in the UPC and yes, I like to "stoke" the fire

StMark · #**203** 05-30-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amos

Yeah...they've moved on to debating weightier matters, like whether to ordain homosexuals.

and this ought to give all the XPentecostals pause for thought.

I just read today where TD Jakes is meeting with soul force (gay christian group) to see if they have common ground.

20 years ago he was still preaching standards in Apalchia

Sam · #**204** 05-30-2008, 02:18 PM

In my opinion, it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between them and their Lord. I am not their judge ----God is.

bkstokes · #**205** 05-30-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

In my opinion, it is none of my business how a brother or sister dresses. That is between them and their Lord. I am not their judge ----God is.

Very True Sam

But many have taught levels of holiness according to dress standards.

StMark · #**206** 05-30-2008, 02:56 PM

You folks are edvidently afraid to touch those last posts I just posted
# 201/ 203

some things make you wonder .....

SDG · #**207** 05-30-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StMark

You folks are edvidently afraid to touch those last posts I just posted
# 201/ 203

some things make you wonder .....

That's because your one pre-text tells us that we must accept that pants are solely men's apparel ... which they are not ....

There is a verse that tells a woman to marry her rapist in Deut 22 ... do we obey that too?

Cindy · #**208** 05-30-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StMark

and this ought to give all the XPentecostals pause for thought.

I just read today where TD Jakes is meeting with soul force (gay christian group) to see if they have common ground.

20 years ago he was still preaching standards in Apalchia

Where did you read this?

StMark · #**209** 05-30-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

That's because your one pre-text tells us that we must accept that pants are solely men's apparel ... which they are not ....

There is a verse that tells a woman to marry her rapist in Deut 22 ... do we obey that too?

Dan, aren't we suppose to Rightly divide the Old testament ?

Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, Moral Law ??? If we do away with all of the OT then that would have to include the 10 commandments

Baron1710 · #**210** 05-30-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StMark

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??
.

Well to start with we are rejecting your interpretation not Scripture. No I do not believe there is a difference between moral law and civil law James tells us its all one law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StMark

and this ought to give all the XPentecostals pause for thought.

I just read today where TD Jakes is meeting with soul force (gay christian group) to see if they have common ground.

20 years ago he was still preaching standards in Apalchia

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH here we all go down the slippery slope...just a silly argument that doesn't deserve a response.