larry_boy_44

At least we shouldn't have church leadership setting down a rule about such things. Yikes! These things are spiritually discerned on an individual basis, as one walks with Christ. He is gentle in convicting us about certain behaviours, and I dare say that church leadership is not all that gentle about it. Condemnation is the name of the game in that regard, I am sure.

So, Butero, if you consider pants on women as a sin, then fine. You, however, have no right to tell a woman how to dress. That is discovered on an individual basis between the Holy Spirit and the woman. Enlarge that to a group of church leaders and you have the makings of a closed-minded, legalistic body where the Holy Spirit is stifled in women hearing from Him about personal holiness. Modesty is all the church needs to preach. Furthermore, let it be the women who teach it, and live their lives before you.

Then likewise, we shouldn't have church leadership talking about standards period. Everything is spiritually discerned on an individual basis, as one walks with Christ.

I have no way of forcing anyone to dress in any fashion. We all have free will. On the other hand, a church has every right to dictate to the members a code of conduct. In addition, there is no place in scripture that says that the man who is the Pastor over a church cannot teach any portion of the Bible to the congregation.

Yes, so tell me where it says that WOMEN SHALL NOT WEAR PANTS! ??

when it says women shouldn't wear a man's garmant...

My point is that neither the word, nor the anti-legalism doctrine is found in the Bible.

That's funny too. Jesus was an anti-legalist.

no, Jesus was anti-hypocrite, HUGE difference

Legalism: Placing yoke around another that is not from God.

I believe he asked for Bible for that, not what you say it is... We know what you are saying it is...

I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves?

Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free.

doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays?

Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...)

here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly.

Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree?

I'm not saying anything in either direction, I'm just saying that interpretation is not that great of a stretch and to attack a church for saying those things is just as bad, if not WORSE, than what they are doing...

Glad you're not saying either...regarding the rest of what you wrote, you lost me.

if you attack a group of Christians for believing that celebrating Christmas or Holloween is wrong than you are doing worse than they are doing.

I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves?

Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free.

doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays?

Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...)

here you go again interpreting things legalisticaly.

Much about how christmas is celebrated today in america is pagan. So, what? The tree itself is pagan. Are you gonna force believers to never celebrate christmas with a tree?

I'm not saying anything in either direction, I'm just saying that interpretation is not that great of a stretch and to attack a church for saying those things is just as bad, if not WORSE, than what they are doing...

God states crossdressing is sin, right? Well, a spriitual authority stating that pants on a woman is cross-dressing is perfectly fine.

Have you ever actually read the Bible??? Even Paul does things like that himself...

Women wearing women's clothing, pants included, is no greivous sin. You are so typical of many males...shame on you.

Yes, I have read the Bible! Paul syas nothing about pants! Do you really know what cross-dressing is? Get a grip.

Did you read what I said? Paul didn't say things like "pants are sinful", he applied spiritual principles to things. "don't be vain", well Paul defines vanity...

things like that.

If your spiritual authority preaches that women wearing pants is a sin, for you it is a sin... if you don't like it you need to find a new spirtiual authority because otherwise your sin is your rebellion moreso than yoru pants-wearing...

I wonder if it is possible to be so anti-legalistic and have such a loose definition of what is legalistic (ie. calling a person who feels personally convicted not to honor Halloween in any way legalistic.)that the person who uses the term "legalistic" so loosely is actually being legalistic themselves?

Paul was a free man. One doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, so be it. I personaly don't because I don't like the 'holiday'. What would be legalistic in this case is for you to tell a believer that they cannot celebrate Halloween. That is the point of legalism, putting yokes around the necks of the free.

doesn't hte Bible say something about not participating in pagan holidays?

Also, wouldn't a holiday celebrating what Holloween does be considered idol worship and, in a lot of ways, satanism??? (except real satanism doesn't actually worship satan...)

Obviosly I haven't read this whole thread, so this may have already been addressed. What I don't understand is people who think keeping the 10 Commandments is legalism. The look at it as trying to work your way to heaven. To me, this is rediculous. The 10 Commandments are a standard by which we can know if we are sinning. We can't work our way tp heaven by keeping them.

No one is saying that biblically named sins are not sins. It's when people call sin those things which are not named as sin which is legalism. It is for an outward show of pirty. God gives us freedom in many areas...dress is one of them, except He sdoes say we must be modest, and must not cross-dress, which is a sexual perversion, a fetish.

But where does God say exactly what would qualify as cross-dressing for each gender? OH YEAH!! He doesn't tell us.

Now, let's apply the principle from Exodus where God didn't tell them what "mountain" was, thier spiritual leadership did... and all the scriptures in the New Testament about obeying your spiritual authorieis, for they watch for your soul, etc... hmmm.... Maybe our leadership should make some boundaries and tell us what they think crossdressing and immodesty is....

There is alot the bible doesn't specifically cover, and I think in such areas, we are expected to just do our best. For example, God does not dictate specifically what is men's clothing and what is women's clothing. And yes it does vary from culture to culture which is beside the point here. Scripture does clearly tell us that God appreciates when men dress more masculine and women dress more feminine, and I see nothing wrong with taking it a step further and choosing to wear skirts/dresses every day. I would see something wrong with a woman who wears skirts/dresses every day holding it over my head and telling me wearing a skirt would save me from hell. We are still human, and we will trip and fall. God knows our hearts and if we desire to honor and obey Him, and acknowledge our need for a saviour. Truthfully, I think women who choose to wear dresses on a daily basis are looked down on more by the pant-wearers, than the other way around. And that is where the anti-legalistic people sort of are being 'legalistic' themselves.

I don't agree with the hell thing, either... But you need to realize that if you have a spiritual authority in your life who preaches that you have two options:

1. find a new authority

2. do your best to obey your authority

you don't have any other options. If you don't do one of those things you are living a life of rebellion and God will not accept those who live in rebellion....

and I agree, the anti-legalist people tend to be more legalist in thier opinions...

So preaching against cross-dressing is extra-Biblical?

preaching against vanity is extra-Biblical?

Paul preached agianst wearing gold/jewels, so is preaching against jewelry extra-biblical?

You don't agree with thier application, but you applying your own application and demanding eveyrone else to follow it is the exact thing you are ripping them for.

You don't seem to understand here. Of course, cross-dressing is wrong, according to God's Word! Of course we preach against it! It is wrong for a man to wear women's underwear, as it is a sexual fetish and a perversion.

An overabundance of jewelry for vanity's sake is also something that is mentioned in scripture. Of course that would be a proper thing to instruct about.

We are discussing particular clothing items...pants! these types of things are not discussed in scripture, and if one person feels it is sinful for he or she to wear, then so be it! But for a church doctrine to lay down a law that says DRESSES ONLY FOR WOMEN oversteps the bounds of scripture, and takes a legalistic approach to governing behaviour of people where it is only God's job to do.

I might add: the churches that pronounce such things most likely do NOT have women in leadership, or it just wouldn't happen.

first of all, Paul wrote ALL gold and jewels, not an overabundance. He specifically and exactly stated that all gold and jewels were not to be worn...

second, it is a spiritual authorities place to state things like that. Now do I agree with them acting like all churches who don't think like them are going to hell? Of course I don't agree with that. But for a specific group of believers to say that they believe that women wearing pants is crossdressing, there is not one problem with that, even if that "doctrine" comes from the spiritual authority of that group. That is how things work, BIBLICALLY...

This argument over pants being men's attire is so silly. It boggles my mind?

As I said, you wanna be more like Jesus then dress like he did too!

As a man, one cannot dress like he did in this day and age!

Darn that legalism! It always likes/manages to creep in somewhere!

PS I don't mean or intend to come across harsh, just BLUNT! For I cannot help but go straight to the heart of the matter.

PSS: One last thing, grab the mind of Christ and take hold of it!

how are you being any less legalistic than those you are judging?

Take the plank out of your eyes, and get rid of your own "legalism" before you start talking about other people's...

Firehill is being very clear-sighted in this matter, larry_boy. She displays no legalism in her remarks. she and I see it as it is: legalism.

no, niether of you are. You are making rules up yourself, you are doing exactly what you are accusing everyone else of doing. You are saying that certain things are ok, and other things are not, yourself, as a human. Then you are telling everyone else to listen to your opinion on those things.

Which is exactly what you are saying is wrong.

Have you actually read this thread and the one this is stemming from? Give your head a shake. We are FREE people in Christ! I am NOT holding forth RULES that are NOT is scripture. Only what God states is actual sin is sin...otherwise what is sin for one and not for the other is SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED, as Paul discusses. We cannot hold people to adhere to rules we have made up.

God states crossdressing is sin, right? Well, a spriitual authority stating that pants on a woman is cross-dressing is perfectly fine.

Have you ever actually read the Bible??? Even Paul does things like that himself...

I think you are still missing the point. It is perfectly alright for a preacher to preach against sin. However, the preacher should not have to do that. If the preacher is having to do that, the condition of the hearts of his flock is quite bad. The hearts of the flock have becme hard. The preaching against sin is a band-aid, but the root condition must be changed to make a real difference. The problem is the flock does not Love the Lord with all their heart, soul, and mind; and they do not love their neighbor as themselves. This outward sin that is manifesting is the visible sign of the inward problem. Merely addressing the outward sign, does not correct the inward problem.

No, I get the point... You seem to think that the church is capable of being perfect and never sinning (which is absolutely not true and you and I both know it)

If you ever find a church that seems to not contain sinners, don't go there, because either they are hypocrites or, if they really are that perfect, you as a human being are just gonna screw it up... Because WE ALL SIN!!!

How can you read the Bible and honestly think that the church is without sin so much that sin can not be preached against?? Read the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMETN!! Every epistle talks about sins that the reciever is committing outside of a few (and those are generally incredibly short)...

Obviosly I haven't read this whole thread, so this may have already been addressed. What I don't understand is people who think keeping the 10 Commandments is legalism. The look at it as trying to work your way to heaven. To me, this is rediculous. The 10 Commandments are a standard by which we can know if we are sinning. We can't work our way tp heaven by keeping them.

No one is saying that biblically named sins are not sins. It's when people call sin those things which are not named as sin which is legalism. It is for an outward show of pirty. God gives us freedom in many areas...dress is one of them, except He sdoes say we must be modest, and must not cross-dress, which is a sexual perversion, a fetish.

But where does God say exactly what would qualify as cross-dressing for each gender? OH YEAH!! He doesn't tell us.

Now, let's apply the principle from Exodus where God didn't tell them what "mountain" was, thier spiritual leadership did... and all the scriptures in the New Testament about obeying your spiritual authorieis, for they watch for your soul, etc... hmmm.... Maybe our leadership should make some boundaries and tell us what they think crossdressing and immodesty is....

e) no it doesn't, but God said that women can't wear men's garments, if your leader (read: Bishop/Pastor) says that pants are a man's garmant, than you (if you are a woman) cannot wear pants.

Does God say that pants are for men? Because if He does, then I want to see it. anyone with half a brain would know that the command for men to not wear women's clothing and vice versa is an edict forbidding the perversion of cross-dressing. Ya know, the He-she abomination we see so much of today.

You tell us all how pants are a man's only garment and I'll show you a caveman. (Hey! Even Fred Flintstone wore a dress! But he butched it up with a tie, thank goodness!)

did the Children of Israel go "Ya know Moses, anyone who has half a brain would know that this isn't a mountain here, even though you said it was"???

Well, they might have... and do you know what God would have done to those children of Israel, EVEN IF it wsn't a mountain? He'd have killed them on the spot, because that is what He told them would happen to anyone who went up the mountain.

Do you see a principle about authorities setting boundaries here?? Yes??? Good...

I don't know what you are saying! Leaders who put inordinate amount of pressure on people to conform to their extra-biblical view of outward righteousness are sinning against God and the people...putting yokes on them that God never does.

So preaching against cross-dressing is extra-Biblical?

preaching against vanity is extra-Biblical?

Paul preached agianst wearing gold/jewels, so is preaching against jewelry extra-biblical?

You don't agree with thier application, but you applying your own application and demanding eveyrone else to follow it is the exact thing you are ripping them for.

This argument over pants being men's attire is so silly. It boggles my mind?

As I said, you wanna be more like Jesus then dress like he did too!

As a man, one cannot dress like he did in this day and age!

Darn that legalism! It always likes/manages to creep in somewhere!

PS I don't mean or intend to come across harsh, just BLUNT! For I cannot help but go straight to the heart of the matter.

PSS: One last thing, grab the mind of Christ and take hold of it!

how are you being any less legalistic than those you are judging?

Take the plank out of your eyes, and get rid of your own "legalism" before you start talking about other people's...

Firehill is being very clear-sighted in this matter, larry_boy. She displays no legalism in her remarks. she and I see it as it is: legalism.

no, niether of you are. You are making rules up yourself, you are doing exactly what you are accusing everyone else of doing. You are saying that certain things are ok, and other things are not, yourself, as a human. Then you are telling everyone else to listen to your opinion on those things.

Which is exactly what you are saying is wrong.

This argument over pants being men's attire is so silly. It boggles my mind?

As I said, you wanna be more like Jesus then dress like he did too!

As a man, one cannot dress like he did in this day and age!

Darn that legalism! It always likes/manages to creep in somewhere!

PS I don't mean or intend to come across harsh, just BLUNT! For I cannot help but go straight to the heart of the matter.

PSS: One last thing, grab the mind of Christ and take hold of it!

how are you being any less legalistic than those you are judging?

Take the plank out of your eyes, and get rid of your own "legalism" before you start talking about other people's...

e) no it doesn't, but God said that women can't wear men's garments, if your leader (read: Bishop/Pastor) says that pants are a man's garmant, than you (if you are a woman) cannot wear pants.

Does God say that pants are for men? Because if He does, then I want to see it. anyone with half a brain would know that the command for men to not wear women's clothing and vice versa is an edict forbidding the perversion of cross-dressing. Ya know, the He-she abomination we see so much of today.

You tell us all how pants are a man's only garment and I'll show you a caveman. (Hey! Even Fred Flintstone wore a dress! But he butched it up with a tie, thank goodness!)

did the Children of Israel go "Ya know Moses, anyone who has half a brain would know that this isn't a mountain here, even though you said it was"???

Well, they might have... and do you know what God would have done to those children of Israel, EVEN IF it wsn't a mountain? He'd have killed them on the spot, because that is what He told them would happen to anyone who went up the mountain.

Do you see a principle about authorities setting boundaries here?? Yes??? Good...

Right, so basically it MIGHT become part of the spiritual authority as a result of the extent to which these people exercise their authority. I have to say, I think the only church I've been in whose leaders have dictated the skirt thing was a Mormon church.

then you need to look a lot harder...

Nazerence, some Southern Baptists, most Pentecostals, heck even the Salvation Army preaches about skirts... (note: YEs, the Salvation Army is actually a church denomination...)

I can't show you that verbage, but I can show you a decent principle that shows us why our leaders should do it...

In Exodus when Moses went up Sinai and God said that anyone else who went on the mountain would die, who decided where the Mountain started (read: who said what was mountain and what wasn't mountain): Moses or God???

That passage has nothing to do with skirts or pants.

yes it does. Who decided what exactly was mountain and what exactly was not? Answer the question and you'll understand how it applies...

a) you didn't give me a reference to go by

b) I hate rhetorical questions

c) It's probably the leaders

d) the leaders are still MEN

a) its in Exodus... right before the 10 commandments... not too hard to find

b) not really rhetorical, but there was a point

c) Moses decided what was mountain and what was not

d) Doesn't matter, God gave Moses the authority to decide things like that, just like God gave us spiritual authorities to make decisions like that. Obey your spiritual authorities, period...

e) no it doesn't, but God said that women can't wear men's garments, if your leader (read: Bishop/Pastor) says that pants are a man's garmant, than you (if you are a woman) cannot wear pants.

Its a really simple principle, really... if peopel weren't so stuck on doing what they thought was right rather than what God thought, everyone would understand it... but our whole society is self-centered, so no one sees it...

I'm not sure how pants/skirts fall under spiritual authority, but okay. Also, often bishops, leaders, pastors, whathaveyou are still left to their OWN (mortal) discernment. For another, many people go to many different churches where many different God-fearing leaders tell them that pants are wrong for women or that pants are okay. I'd say that that probably means that there is no Biblical dress-code so we are still left, as I said, to what you brand as man-made standards, whether or not they're made by a leader.

I would agree, there likely is no Biblical standard, you are to obey your authorities discernment on the matter...

pants/skirts fall under that because if your authority states that pants are only a man's garmant, you are to obey your authority's decision on what is a man's garmant and what is a woman's....

I can't show you that verbage, but I can show you a decent principle that shows us why our leaders should do it...

In Exodus when Moses went up Sinai and God said that anyone else who went on the mountain would die, who decided where the Mountain started (read: who said what was mountain and what wasn't mountain): Moses or God???

That passage has nothing to do with skirts or pants.

yes it does. Who decided what exactly was mountain and what exactly was not? Answer the question and you'll understand how it applies...

a) you didn't give me a reference to go by

b) I hate rhetorical questions

c) It's probably the leaders

d) the leaders are still MEN

a) its in Exodus... right before the 10 commandments... not too hard to find

b) not really rhetorical, but there was a point

c) Moses decided what was mountain and what was not

d) Doesn't matter, God gave Moses the authority to decide things like that, just like God gave us spiritual authorities to make decisions like that. Obey your spiritual authorities, period...

e) no it doesn't, but God said that women can't wear men's garments, if your leader (read: Bishop/Pastor) says that pants are a man's garmant, than you (if you are a woman) cannot wear pants.

Its a really simple principle, really... if peopel weren't so stuck on doing what they thought was right rather than what God thought, everyone would understand it... but our whole society is self-centered, so no one sees it...

Yeah, um, Larry...if you're looking for the person who's saying "pants are mens-only" it's Butero, not lnj....just FYI.

read what I said again...

"saying women CAN wear pants is just as much a man-made standard as saying women CAN'T wear pants"

Well at some point, we mortals have to make some decisions of our own, don't we? With guidance from Above, absolutely, but unless you can tell me where the Bible dress-code specifically limits women to skirts longer than knee length and ABSOLUTELY NO PANTS, then I'd say we're left to some discernment which takes into account our historical-cultural setting. Yes, you might brand it as man-made...but the standard's set by man with God-given BRAINS.

I can't show you that verbage, but I can show you a decent principle that shows us why our leaders should do it...

In Exodus when Moses went up Sinai and God said that anyone else who went on the mountain would die, who decided where the Mountain started (read: who said what was mountain and what wasn't mountain): Moses or God???

That passage has nothing to do with skirts or pants.

yes it does. Who decided what exactly was mountain and what exactly was not? Answer the question and you'll understand how it applies...

Yeah, um, Larry...if you're looking for the person who's saying "pants are mens-only" it's Butero, not lnj....just FYI.

read what I said again...

"saying women CAN wear pants is just as much a man-made standard as saying women CAN'T wear pants"

Well at some point, we mortals have to make some decisions of our own, don't we? With guidance from Above, absolutely, but unless you can tell me where the Bible dress-code specifically limits women to skirts longer than knee length and ABSOLUTELY NO PANTS, then I'd say we're left to some discernment which takes into account our historical-cultural setting. Yes, you might brand it as man-made...but the standard's set by man with God-given BRAINS.

I can't show you that verbage, but I can show you a decent principle that shows us why our leaders should do it...

In Exodus when Moses went up Sinai and God said that anyone else who went on the mountain would die, who decided where the Mountain started (read: who said what was mountain and what wasn't mountain): Moses or God???

Yeah, um, Larry...if you're looking for the person who's saying "pants are mens-only" it's Butero, not lnj....just FYI.

read what I said again...

"saying women CAN wear pants is just as much a man-made standard as saying women CAN'T wear pants"

KittyLover, I haven't read every post so this has probably already been said:

I imagine anyone today who truly loves the Lord, who tries to live seperately from the world, and who hates sin and is obedient to God, is considered by the lukewarm church as "legalistic".

I wouldn't put much stock in many people really knowing legalism from obedience in our society.

Legalism is "silliness" like not allowing women to wear pants because it's deemed masculine. C'mon don't trivialise and bring down the Word to human standards and you know human standards fall short with God. If Jesus can forgive an udulterous woman in the midst of men, surely He wouldn't frown at women who wear pants as suggested on a previous post. Legalism is a ploy from the enemy...it has NOTHING to do with obedience to the Word. Legalism destroys ala (the destroyer) ...God's Word brings Life. I KNOW where I stand and Who I stand FOR. Not legalism! Not the destroyer.

but you are imposing a man made standards on others to tell them they cna't have man-made standards... who told you that you could define what men could wear and what women could wear?? You yourself are doing the same thing the "legalists" you are coming against are doing, only you're telling everyone they cna do what they want, when they're telling people there are things they can't do...

You've got me mistaken for someone else.I have never imposed manmade standards..actually time and again I have been referring others back to God's Word which you always need to do when in doubt with what man has stated. Go back to God's Word and check it out. I won't go by mans self imposed standard but only Scripture.

stating that women can wear pants is making just as much a standard as saying they can't....

Would you equate legalism as being like a wolf in sheeps clothing......?

I would say legalism is a wolf in wolves clothing. I personally do not understand how someone could even view legalism as innocent. It is most obviously a ravenous wolf. That is also what it looks like.

I don't understand how anyone can keep coming against something that doesn't exist. There is not one place in scripture where the subject of "legalism" is ever mentioned. It is a made up sin for the purpose of silencing people from standing against whatever sins a particular individual is committing.

Wake up! Legalism exists, whether the word is in the bible or not. It is the same thing as Phariseeism...obeying the letter of the law versus the spirit of it, as Fiosh has defined it well.

Legalism imposes a form of righteous behaviour that should come from the conviction of the Holy Spirit in a process of sanctification. It bypasses that work, and is an abomination.

uh... the Pharisees didn't obey the letter of the law... Jesus called them hypocrites for not following what they preached...

The phrisees did obey the letter of the law. The problem was they obeyed the letter while having hearts like vipers. Their outward actions were righteous, but their hearts were rotten.

it is impossible to obey the letter of the law when your heart is in that condition...

Why? Elaborate.

simple, if you have a heart of a viper, God is not your true god, thus you are not following the law...

KittyLover, I haven't read every post so this has probably already been said:

I imagine anyone today who truly loves the Lord, who tries to live seperately from the world, and who hates sin and is obedient to God, is considered by the lukewarm church as "legalistic".

I wouldn't put much stock in many people really knowing legalism from obedience in our society.

Legalism is "silliness" like not allowing women to wear pants because it's deemed masculine. C'mon don't trivialise and bring down the Word to human standards and you know human standards fall short with God. If Jesus can forgive an udulterous woman in the midst of men, surely He wouldn't frown at women who wear pants as suggested on a previous post. Legalism is a ploy from the enemy...it has NOTHING to do with obedience to the Word. Legalism destroys ala (the destroyer) ...God's Word brings Life. I KNOW where I stand and Who I stand FOR. Not legalism! Not the destroyer.

but you are imposing a man made standards on others to tell them they cna't have man-made standards... who told you that you could define what men could wear and what women could wear?? You yourself are doing the same thing the "legalists" you are coming against are doing, only you're telling everyone they cna do what they want, when they're telling people there are things they can't do...