Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[GoldenEagle]

Interesting I was talking to a friend from Europe and Capri pants (normally something for women) are in style for men to wear in the summers. Are they sinning too Butero by wearing that which was originally intended for a woman?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

I have already addressed some of this.  It is all rather simple.  The law of Moses was comprised of three types of laws.  1  Laws of separation  2  Laws Concerning the order Of The Levitical Priesthood  3  Moral Laws. 

 

 

The mixed fabric law was one to show separation between Israel and the idol worshipping gentile nations, so it doesn't apply to us.  We were those gentiles but we are no longer unclean. 

 

The vision of Peter was not just about food.  I am glad you noticed that.  The reason why Israel was to abstain from certain foods was as a sign of separation.  Now that the gentiles were made clean by the blood of Jesus, they are no longer separate, but there is one body.  We are engrafted into the same spiritual tree with Israel, so the symbolism has changed.  Now all foods are clean.  That is why we are free to eat pork.

 

Circumcision was another sign of separation given to the Jews.  How do I know this?  This is rather simple too.  Have you ever noticed how many sins are mentioned in the NT, and it is said that those who commit them shall not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?  These are actually laws.  If the law was done away with, we could do anything we want and inherit God's Kingdom, because scripture says, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression."  The laws that apply today are those pertaining to God's standard of holiness.  It is not so much that part of the law was done away with, but some parts were only to take us to the cross.  We don't have the Levitical Priesthood in place anymore, as Christ's one time death paid the penalty for any sin we can commit.  Instead of sacrificing an animal, we simply confess our sins, and the blood of Jesus washes us clean. 

 

It would be like this.  I write a bill, and in this bill, there are temporary measures in place to get things started.  The bill passes, and is not repealed, but when a certain date rolls around, parts no longer apply, because there are long term things in place to keep the law going.  That is how this works. 

 

 

I'm sorry Butero.  I tried to give the thread a thorough read before I responded.  If I missed your answers to some of the above then it was not my intention to ask you to repeat yourself.

 

   So, your answer to the question: Given Deut 1-12 is all one list of laws, how do you decide which laws are applicable today and which ones are not?  Your answer is that if it is mentioned in the New Testament than it remains under the New Covenant, if I understand you correctly.   

 

What do you think it means when Paul writes that ALL THINGS are permissible?  

What does it mean when Titus says.

 

"pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure."

 

 

Why did he say ALL THINGS here again, rather than specify just circumcision here?  Why do you think is there no concise list in the New Testament of what laws still apply under the New Covenant?

 

Do you also believe that a woman should not speak in Church, and that a woman should not be permitted to teach?  Most Churches have mostly female Sunday School Teachers.  A growing number of Churches have female pastors and female worship leaders.  Most Churches have female board members.  Are all of these Churches failing in holiness standards by your conviction?

 

 

"...the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." 1 Timothy 2:11-15

 

 

 

Is slavery the ideal in the Godly home?  Was it wrong to abolish slavery in America?

 

 

 

"Wives, be subject to your husband, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:18-22

 

My position is not that something has to be repeated in the NT to be valid.  I spent a great deal of time in the law, taking note of what types of laws there are, and why we are said to be no longer under law, but grace, but at the same time, we are told some sins will keep us out of God's Kingdom.  I saw patterns.  If you take the time, you can see the difference between a moral law and one that shows a separation between Israel and other nations.  They have no other logical reason for being there. 

 

You can actually do anything you wish, but there are consequences.  If Paul meant that literally, all things are ok in the sight of God, I could commit murder and be ok.  Thou Shalt Not Kill is part of the law of Moses.  We are capable of doing anything, but all things are not profitable.  Some things will do harm to us in this life, and some in the next life. 

 

We are not talking about human commands or Jewish myths.  We are talking about a command of God, and how it applies to us today?  It is interpreting God's laws, not making up new ones.

 

I am not saying that we only keep laws repeated in the NT.  You have to examine the individual laws to determine what is a moral law and what is a law of separation.  In the case of Deuteronomy 22:5 I do have the scripture in 1 Corinthians 6:9 dealing with an effeminate man, so that does add some weight but even without it, I can still clearly see this is a moral law, not a law of separation.

 

As to women teachers, this is a bit more complicated.  In the first passage you cited, it isn't speaking of women being quiet in the sense of putting tape on their mouth before entering the church.  We can see the meaning by the comment that if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home.  This is speaking of women who were being disruptive in church asking questions while someone was giving a message or teaching.  In context, it has nothing to do with women preachers or teachers.  Your other scripture pertains to the authority in the home.  In other words, the woman is not to presume to dominate her husband by usurping his authority in the home, or to tell him how he is to do things.  She is not to teach him.  This isn't really speaking of preachers either in context.  There is no Biblical reason why a woman cannot be a teacher or preacher, but she is not allowed to be a Deacon or Bishop, as she can't meet the Biblical requirements for either office.  If the Pastor's job requires that person to act as a Bishop, a woman is not qualified.  She is not the "husband of one wife." 

 

Slavery in itself is not wrong.  It was actually permitted and regulated in the law of Moses.  It isn't required that any nation allow or forbid people to own slaves.  I have advocated allowing slavery if someone desires to sell themselves into slavery as they did in the OT as a means of helping to reduce homelessness.  It should be regulated, and amount to servitude for room and board.  What we are talking about in the home is not exactly the same thing.  It is a situation where you have one person over another in authority, but that is not the same thing as slavery, anymore than children are slaves to their parents.  Even if you want to look at it as slavery, as I said, I don't believe all forms of slavery are wrong, and advocate it in some instances if someone chooses to put themselves into slavery. 

 

I don't think these questions were asked already, but I hope that helps you?  If you have more questions down the road, feel free to ask.

 

 

That's a very thorough reply Butero, thank you!  My reading of these verses in Titus are that Circumcision is referred to as a Jewish Myth, even though it had certainly been a command of God at one point he seems to be saying that because it no longer is, because we are under the new covenant, holding onto the old laws is the same as holding onto myths and that they are become human laws rather than Gods laws.  Is there Biblical support for the classification of the different laws?  Isn't there a danger, if we read through all the laws and decide for ourselves which are pertaining to morality and which are pertaining to holiness that our judgements will be wholly subjective?  There are indeed times when it has been decided by society that killing is acceptable. War is one of those times.  Self defence is another of those times.  Not going on a murderous rampage against my neighbours could be covered by the new covenant commandment to love my neighbour as myself.  The Bible gives us a definition of what love is.  Patient, kind, not boastful, etc.  There isn't a lot of elbow room left in that to allow for chopping up my neighbours children with an axe for trampling my flowerbeds!

 

Thank you also for clarifying your position as to whether the law being repeated in the NT is the test.  I had misunderstood you.  What would you say is the distinction between the duties of a pastor and the duties of a Bishop or Deacon?

 

The Biblical support is based on the fact that some laws are still re-affirmed, even though in other instances, you find where we are said to no longer be under the law.  I took the time to carefully examine the types of laws that continue and those that don't, and why? 

 

The Old Testament does say "Thou Shalt Not Kill."  Here comes the matter of figuring out the intent of that law?  We know this was not refering to war, because God ordered the children of Israel to go to battle and kill people.  We know it isn't in reference to the death penalty, because the law of Moses requires that if anyone kills someone, they must be executed.  You know the intent by looking at the OT as a whole. 

 

The deacons and bishops were created to take some of the load off the other ministers, so they could spend their time in the word and prayer.  Deacons would do things like make distribution of funds to the poor, and bishops are overseers.  Many churches have made the Pastor the bishop. 

[Guest Butero]

Right because as Christians we are to be known for our high standards. That's a command Jesus gave right?

We certainly don't want a reputation of ignoring God's Word and being in open rebellion.  I don't want any part of a church that does that. 

[Guest Butero]

Interesting I was talking to a friend from Europe and Capri pants (normally something for women) are in style for men to wear in the summers. Are they sinning too Butero by wearing that which was originally intended for a woman?

If it can be shown that Capri pants pertain to a woman, yes they are, but I reject the notion that pants ever pertain to a woman, capris or otherwise. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

Wonder what the talking donkey would say????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL!...even a donkey knows when to stop..that was my point...the end 

 

If that was your point, it is a good one, because nobody here is likely to change their mind?  I was content to drop the matter and return to the topic of movies in the other thread till the split in the thread was created.  I already stated that I have heard every possible argument for women wearing pants, so nobody is coming back with anything that will remotely change my mind.  If there is someone on the fence on the other side, and they are asking me questions for that reason, I suppose there is reason to continue, but if it is just to trip me up, you are wasting your time. 

 

If someone like GE thinks they have something so convincing they want to keep arguing over pants, I am willing to take them on one on one in the Soap Box.  That is up to you, because I am not sure what more there is to say? 

[LadyKay]

My question is this. Then I will try to let it go.

 

I am a women who wears pants. I am also a Christian. By telling you that I wear pants, would you then accuse me of not being a Christian? If you see a women at the store or on the street wearing paints. Do you look at her and say "no she is not a Christian women because she is in pants"?

 

Just trying to get a feel for how someone other then myself  thinks is all.

[LadyKay]

 

Last time I looked Nebula, women still have pain in child bearing, and men have to work by the sweat of their face.

 Not true not true! There are drugs now that a women can take at her time of birthing and she will not feel a thing. Also there are jobs now that men do and they never have to sweat.

[Guest Butero]

My question is this. Then I will try to let it go.

 

I am a women who wears pants. I am also a Christian. By telling you that I wear pants, would you then accuse me of not being a Christian? If you see a women at the store or on the street wearing paints. Do you look at her and say "no she is not a Christian women because she is in pants"?

 

Just trying to get a feel for how someone other then myself  thinks is all.

No.  I don't automatically jump to that conclusion, however I do know of some people that would.  I just look at it like we all are at different places in our walk, and we haven't all come to the same beliefs.  Jesus is the final judge of who is saved and who is lost.

[LadyKay]

I am not trying to change the way anyone thinks. I just love debating issues. The bottem line is everyone should do what they feel that Jesus in their heart is guiding them to do. If you as a Christian women believe that in your heart Jesus does not want you to wear pants. Then by all means do not wear them. Follow what Jesus tells you to do from your heart not what man or woman tells you to do.

[Guest Butero]

I am not trying to change the way anyone thinks. I just love debating issues. The bottem line is everyone should do what they feel that Jesus in their heart is guiding them to do. If you as a Christian women believe that in your heart Jesus does not want you to wear pants. Then by all means do not wear them. Follow what Jesus tells you to do from your heart not what man or woman tells you to do.

That seems like good advise.  I would imagine that advise would work with regard to the kind of shows or movies we watch?