Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Women Dressing Like Men?

Even the world understands that trousers are male dress.

77 comments:

Don said...

A young lady told us about her experience in applying for the Chilean police force. She was waiting for her interview when an official told another yound lady wearing pants for the interview that she would not be able to be seen because the guidelines demand that candidates dress like ladies and that means wearing a skirt, not pants. They sent her home and had her come back when she was properly dressed.

Gary said...

Your using the French to prove your point. That's funny

Back in the 1800s the law makes sense, but today we have those wonderful pants made just for women, so that they won't be confused with the men's pants.

Joshua said...

Gary, the point has been proved extensively on this blog and over at Jackhammer.

This is simply another example of a proven point.

I'm interested to see the day when your sons wear wonderful skirts made just for men, so they wont be confused for women's skirts. Truly, God will be glorified.

Claymore said...

Gary, unless you are speaking tongue-in-cheek, you will likely be hammered here for that comment. In case you are not, and for those who do not know this: perhaps you have not realised it before, but the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 22:5 where it reads "the woman shall not put on that which pertaineth unto the man" covers more than just the garments, so the argument that the cut of a woman's pants is different is a sieve (e. g. does not hold water). The term is so broad as to include a man's tools, weapons, armour, grip, or anything else one could reasonably expect a man to wear. In the near future, I hope to put what Dr. Clarke wrote about this matter, but have not time to do it now. Moses says that all who do such are an abomination -- the Hebrew word for abomination is used twice before in the Torah: once related to sexual perversions (incest, sodomy, bestiality, etc), and once in the context of the occult. In this matter, it ought to go without saying that a woman ought not to wear that which pertains to men.

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

Gary,

I'll take arguments like yours seriously when I see you wearing one of those wonderful dresses made just for men.

Gary said...

Joshua,

I have two daughters and no sons.
If I had sons and the culture had masculine "skirts" for men than I guess it would be ok. I am 25% Scottish and kilts can be very fashionable. God Bless.

Oh by the way, the "point" has only been proven in your own mind. Kent is highly educated and intelligent, but has never been able to prove his "point", because the scripture and history does not back him up.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Gary,

You say that history doesn't back me up. The article that I link to says that history backs me up. Your credibility plummets when you say that history isn't on my side. Even people that don't practice the same as I do know that that history is on the side of women--dresses or skirts, and men--trousers or pants.

Joshua said...

Why wait for culture Gary? Someone has to get the ball rolling!

You can be on the cutting edge of culture change with the man-skirt. If you pull it off, Christians 30 years from now will be vindicating you every step of the way. Surely if your culture as a whole adopts it, God must be okay with it? What kind of a Christian would judge the first women to pull on pants 70 years ago but have his wife and daughter wearing them today? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? Clearly then, the end justifies the beginning. In the same way, you'll be vindicated for being that heroic pioneer.

Look Gary, in seriousness, you've clearly hardened your heart against any truth here. Your ears itch for false teaching that justifies your rebellion, which is why you were so quick to applaud Dr Claude's modernist "levitical tradition evolved" explanation of Deuteronomy 22:5. You went dead silent when that was pointed out to you last time - but it didn't change anything for you.

You will believe what you want to believe, and no amount of Scripture and reason will change that.

Claymore said...

I knew a missionary to Zambia once who said that a sign of demon possession is when cross-dressing takes place. It is a matter of confusion and God is not the author of confusion. Confusion and Chaos resulted from idolatry (see Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" the word "Chaos" is from the word "Cush" who was the father of idolatry at Babel).

Anyway, Gary, since when did culture dictate anything? I am about the same amount of Swedish as you are Scottish, but that does not give me permission to go iviking. It is the Bible that dictates dress, not the culture.

Claymore said...

For that matter of Dr. Clarke that I mentioned earlier: he writes (and I paraphrase it), that in countries where dress alone distinguishes the gender (for in Israel every man wore a beard)the confusion that would result would be intollerable. The close-shaven gentleman may appear to be a female in a woman's attire, while a woman may easily appear to be a man in a male's attire. He also speaks of one man who dressed as a woman to mingle with the Roman ladies at a feast, and was universally execrated.

Regarding the kilt, if a man were to come to my church dressed in one, the only thing to do is tell him to put his pants on. For the most part, Christians in Scotland used tartan pants if they wished to identify with their clan. Indeed, kilts were not used in Scotland until about the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Until then, the Scots wore pants.

Anonymous said...

I have a simple question to ask of all of you:

If a "Christian" woman wears pants, will she go to hell for that?

Just a simple question.

God Bless.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

It's not the right question. No one goes to hell for one particular sin, but all liars, etc. will be in the lake of fire (Rev 21:8). God's grace teaches us to live godly. Does a believing woman want to glorify God or would she care if she was an abomination to God? If we continue in His Word, then we are His disciples indeed. If we say that we know the truth and we walk in darkness, are we not liars? Those are some things that are appropriate to think about regarding any sinning. Believers are saved from sin, not to sin. Paul expected saved Cretans to adorn their doctrine with godly behavior.

Claymore said...

There is one sin that sends men to hell - and only one: rejection of the work of Christ on the cross. Otherwise, Dr. Brandenburg speaks the truth. It is not so much a matter of it being what Romanism would call a "mortal vs. menial sin" but it is a matter of what is good and what is more excellent. It certainly is not more excellent for a woman to wear pants, just as it is not more excellent for men to don the skirt. As the Bible speaks against such, so ought we to live. You might say that it is found only in the Old Testament - so it is, stated directly. So also is the command for a man not to prostitute his daughter - what we do with one of the least commands of God we must do with all the others.

Anonymous said...

O.K, let's say that a Christian woman goes to church and lives a life devoted to the Lord and obedience but it so happens that she wears pants because either her Pastor doesn't study scripture as earnestly as he should or doesn't have the understandment of scripture to teach his church. Is she "walking in darkness" because she is unknowingly an abomination to God because she wears pants?

Anonymous said...

Claymore and Dr. Brandenburg,
I understand what you're saying about the rejection of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, yes, that would constitute an eternity in Hell. I happen to know many godly Christian women who serve the Lord and wear pants. Would it be a situation where there would be a loss of reward or will they be told to depart from the Lord?

Same goes to alcohol consumption, divorce/remarriage, emphasis on soul winning, non-KJV, you know, the typical doctrinal differences that merit biblical separation. What will happen to those Christians that aren't as "doctrinally sound" as maybe your church but live obedient godly lives?

I mean, every church out there believe in what they are taught by their Pastors based on scripture. Most will not hold to the same position as maybe IFB churches. Does it mean they aren't saved?

I understand that there needs to be biblical separation but the same question applies to all those we separate from. Are those believers not saved because they believe differently on those certain issues?

Claymore said...

Anonymous,

There are two classes of sin in the Bible (see Leviticus chapters four and five). You mentioned a woman who is truly trying to live for the Lord but wears pants because her pastor has not studied this issue out - that falls under Leviticus four as the sin through ignorance. It would be like a motorist doing 30 kph in a 20 kph area if he did not know it was only 20 kph, he would still be guilty of breaking the law, but his ignorance is taken into account. It is the same with our sins of ignorance. God takes account of our ignorance, but when we learn it is a sin, we are expected to despise it as much as He does. The remedy for this type of sin is knowledge through study of Scripture.
On the other hand, one who knows it is a sin, yet does it anyway falls under the heading of a presumptuous sin with Leviticus five. This is a far more serious matter, as it shows the heart to be opposed to what God says. the remedy for this sin is repentance and obedience to what we know God desires of us. Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Hey Claymore,
I see what you're saying. Now, would that "ignorance" lead them to be held accountable for that? I mean, will they be cast into the lake of fire? I get those questions as well which is why I'm here. I will not refute what you guys show me in scripture, I just want to know the truth and learn as I go.

I get asked if they'll go to hell because they didn't know but lived a life devoted to the Lord or will they go to hell because they saw both "interpretations" and their Pastor held to one position rather than the other.

I get frustrated because I don't know the answer. It would seem to me that they wouldn't but who am I to say that, so I don't. I know I'm not perfect and struggle myself, not with me wearing pants by the way, but with other things.

What if they pass away not ever getting the true understanding of scripture about all those "doctrinal" differences? They would have never gotten the opportunity to remedy this type of sin. Would they then lose rewards but still be saved as by the fire?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

The saved person is someone faithful to what God said. Characteristically he will give in to the Word of God. I can't judge who is saved and not saved. In the judgment God will separate the tares from the wheat. I can only regard someone as saved or not saved based on what our church sees (Matthew 18:15-18). If someone will not "hear" the church and repent, we regard him as a publican and a sinner. I don't know if he is saved or not. I do know how to treat that person.

Gary said...

Sorry, I've been very busy this week, but I wish to respond quickly to the comments.

Kent,

You said that the article proves your point, but didn't it make clear that the law was out dated and not really being inforced. In the 1800s the law made sense, but now with women's pants (not to be mistaken with men's pants) all is well in France.

My challenge to you is still the same, to prove your point in scripture and ancient biblical times.

Joshua,

I knew that you would put a notch in you gun belt in regards to Mariottini's post, but...
1. He got tick because you came on a little to strong than what he is used to on his blog, so he discontinued the comments section.
That is why I was dead silent.

2 If you read Kent's previous posts on this matter you will see that I do not hold to Mariottini's Idolatry only view, but if you wish I have read enough that I could argue on his behalf. My personal view on Deuteronomy 22:5 is that I don't know the official reason behind the law i.e. Idolatry, sexual perversion, etc. and neither do you.

Until you can prove your point with scripture, kindly stop talking about my inching ears and false doctrine. When I thought that I was wrong in the past, I put my wife and kids in dresses, but when I realized that your doctrine was incorrect, I allowed them back into pants. You seem to be the one who has hardened your heart, brother.

Claymore,

I am familiar with the "appareal" in Deuteronomy 22:5. I do not have the time now to look up the Scholar's name right now, but he mentioned that he thinks that it deals with a man's sword, because in those days garments did not show enough gender distinction on the male side as they did on the female side.

Unfortunately I'm out of time for now, but will try to get back on this weekend.

Oh to Titus and Joshua,

Trust me, you do not want to see me in a"male dress".

d4v34x said...

So if a woman in your church will not stop wearing slacks after Matthew 18 style progressive confrontation, she is disciplined from the church?

Just to be exceedingly clear here.

Claymore said...

Anonymous,

As to the question of your second paragraph, nobody is born at the center of truth. However, one who is truly a Christian will desire to learn more truth, which is commended among the Berean Christians because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things [that Paul taught] be so. Since nobody is born at the center of truth, we need the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. A sister who is seeking God, but still wears pants because of ignorance on that subject really is not worse than one who has come to the conviction that it is wrong. God does not always lead to the same truths in the same order. In my own family, we did not come to it through a pastor's teaching: my mother and father decided that it was right for my mother and sister to cease wearing pants because they found this in their private Bible reading. It was at that time that God providentially led them into that truth. To ask the question about whether or not one would have loss of rewards if they died in ignorance of that truth really is a "God-question" which only He knows the answer to, as none of us have yet stood before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Rather, the question to be asked is, "If you are searching out the Word of God for your daily life, will you be obedient to that which you find?" If we answer "yes" to this, He will reveal truths to us all through our lives - there will always be truths that were always there, but that we did not see before, which will be revealed. Only if we are willfully ignorant is there any real trouble, for that shows that we do know better, but will not be obedient to the truth that we know.

Blessings

Kent Brandenburg said...

Did I mention that this was my shortest blog post ever? 22 comments and counting. As far as church discipline goes, we have no special discipline for women in pants. We practice discipline the same for every violation of scripture. However, we are very patient with everyone and we would primarily concerned with those CAUSING DIVISION AND OFFENSES (Rom 16:17-18). A church is a place to grow.

D4,

Do you restore sinning brethren in a spirit of meekness? Do you confront sin when you see it in your church? I want to be clear too.

Gary,

If something or someone is an abomination to God, I don't have to know why. It is enough that it or he or she is an abomination to Him. However, in this instance and considering the use of the Hebrew word translated "abomination," I have a good idea why. You should just obey the passage. If not, I understand. Many in this world will not.

Joshua said...

Gary,

I agree I did go too strong over at Mariottini's blog. I do find it curious that he allowed me to do so up until the point that I exposed his "Levitical law evolved over time rather than was given by God to Moses" false teaching.

My point in mentioning Mariottini is that you were lapping up what he had to say, and then when you were shown that he was basing his argument on a false doctrine, you just went quiet. You didn't pause, you didn't admit that you were too hasty, you just left it. It seems pretty clear to me that you will listen and applaud anyone who will say what you want to hear, no matter how doctrinally unsound. I think that's what is called in Scripture as "itching ears" - tell me what I want to hear.

Even if you now claim your position is different to his, he still helps you because you want a plethora of different opinions on this to justify your "we can't know what this means" approach. It doesn't wash. What you are doing is exactly what is described here:

http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/the-seriousness-of-the-symbolism-for-male-headship-part-two/

d4v34x said...

Kent, yes I have and do, but I leave some things to soul liberty. For me these would include a woman wearing a industrial tool belt while remodeling her home, or using a power nailer while roofing her house, or firing an AR-15 in order to really learn to use the weapon.

I know you didn't necessarily imply the tool/firearm thing, but one of your commenters did.

While I'm commenting on other comments-- Claymore, you understand that Brother Brandenburg's post could be seen, if not as an appeal to cultural authority, at least as one to cultural affirmation.

And those of us who read that article on Drudge the other day realize that this law was enforced in France back in the mid 1850s or so, not presently.

dmicah said...

Why are members of the body of Christ subject to Hebrew law? Paul spent much energy fighting this entire concept. The error is not in those wearing pants, but those adding to the gospel. Gal. 2:11-14 Those who add to the gospel are accursed. Gal 1:9

I am assuming that if you require women to wear pants based upon Deut 22, you also have tassels on your garments, have roofs with parapets on your homes and confirm the virginity or lack thereof for all women married in your churches with evidence before the church leaders.

Since I am sure you don't follow all of the Law, don't waste time trumpeting personal standards of modesty that you deduce through eisegesis.

Joshua said...

dmicah,

It's tough to join a debate half way through, but if you are curious as to what is being argued here, the link below will give you a pretty clear grasp of what is going on.

No one is adding anything to the gospel:

http://jackhammer.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/who-wears-the-pants/

Claymore said...

D4,

The idea of the "tool/firearm" matter says this: a woman is not to do that which is considered a man's work. This is why the Law said that if a man had female servants, they were not to go out (to labour) as the men do. The idea of the weapons and armour is simply illustrative of what the Hebrew word "kaliy" translated as "pertaining to" means (it has a very broad interpretation if you look at some of the 326 times it is used in the Old Testament. This does not mean that a woman is never to know how to use them - to the contrary, it is incumbent upon all citizens of a free state to know how to defend themselves, but a woman is not to go to battle as fighting is a man's business.

Also, it is against the law to commit adultery in some places, but that law is never enforced. Does it not being enforced make that law outdated? But, yes, I do see that it was a reference to cultural acceptance of what the Bible plainly teaches - it is because of what Paul said to the Romans, the law is written on their hearts.

Gary,

Gender distinction is important to maintain - God created it for a reason. That is why Paul says that even nature tells us it is wrong for a man to have long hair. It is contrary to nature for a woman to wear that which pertains to men, and until "Rosie the Riveter" came with WW2, American women did not wear men's clothing. The whole purpose of having women's pants today is to do away with the divine order by erasing the distinctions (hence we see men with long hair, women with very short hair, and of course, the subject in hand). As to the statement about there not being a distinction, no scholar has ever seen actual Biblical garb - what we have is an artist's rendition. Therefore, you do not know that there was not more to distinguish them than what you claim. Why should God make such a commandment unless there was some way to distinguish it?

Mr. Wesley's words on the subject are as follows: "Now this is forbidden, both for decency sake, that men might not confound those sexes which God hath distinguished, that all appearance of evil might be avoided, such change of garments carrying a manifest sign of effeminancy in the man, of arrogance in the woman, of lightness and petulancy in both; and also to cut off all suspicions and occasions of evil, which this practice opens a wide door to."

dmicah,

It is not so much a matter of Christians following Hebrew Law as following God's Law. Obviously, some of the laws of ceremony were discontinued (even by force in A. D. 70) such as the offering of animals and the dietary laws were expanded with Peter's vision. However, it is not "Law vs. Grace" that Paul contemns in Galatians but Flesh vs. Spirit (Gal. 3:3). If you were right, it would fall under Romans 14 with doubtful disputations. This matter, however, does not fall under such, because it involves blurring a distinction that God has made. Show me one non-ceremonial law that was overthrown. Is there a place that rewards murder instead of punishing it? Is there a place that encourages, rather than discourages theft? Taking your statement at face value, one might accuse you of being an antinomian.

dmicah said...

well, i am certainly not antinomian.
as to coming into the discussion halfway, i've been around long enough to know the situation.
i know that i cannot convince you guys of a position change. I just think that if you boil this thing down, it is a secondary matter, where you consider it a primary matter. Men being men and women being women and passing these things on to our families is essential. I don't believe that the specific article of clothing "pants" defines these roles in the way the article at jackhammer did. By nature of the argument being tied to North American culture, the hermeneutics applied are eisegetical. These ceremonial laws are in no way the same as the moral laws of the ten commandments which were reiterated in the NT. To claim equality is a misunderstanding of interpretative rules.

There are two sides to the issue. If you wish to hold to this position as a form of personal conviction on roles and modesty, great. I can appreciate that and respect it. I grew up in that atmosphere and love my brothers and sisters still in that area of the body. But making a non-core matter into a doctrinal issue of primary importance does imo opinion elevate it a level of adding to the core doctrines of scripture, and therefore the good news. Jesus gave very harsh warnings about this.
But I guess what i am ultimately getting at is that there has to be a point of unity among the body of Christ. I have watched over the years numerous folk who do not fall in the ultra conservative side of the family serve the Lord with passion, dedication and humility. This pants position seems very isolationist, but so unnecessarily. There are so many folk with whom you could fellowship if it weren't for such dividing lines. There are godly women who have a heart for the church and reaching the lost, and still wear pants. So, i vehemently disagree with the position that forbids women to wear pants, but i know that the kingdom of God and the kindred spirit among Christ's followers are far more important than where we come down on these issues. Therefore i don't vehemently disagree with anyone personally, just the position.

Best wishes,
micah

Gary said...

Joshua,

Once again you stated that I was silent on Mariottini's blog, but I would like for you to explain how I was suppose to respond to a closed comment section. I said before I could argue in his place on the "Idol theory", as I did due diligence on studing the different positions in regards to Deut. 22:5

If you read Kent's post where we first met, you will see that I originally did not hold to a certain position, because I was seeking and looking at at all of the positions and sciptures on behalf of my sister in law. As the bereans honestly search, so did I. When I thought that I was wrong about the pants issue, I put my wife and girls into dresses ( that is being open and willing to be corrected). When I found out that pants were ok, I allowed them to wear them. In referencing to the Jackhammer post, you are assuming that I'm using a scorched earth tactic so that I can "justify my sin". That is not a correctly reading a sincere heart. I am constantly seeking God and his truth through prayer and studing his word and I am always willing to be corrected, but you and Kent have not produced the evidence. Throwing out a couple of scriptures and making an assumption about the meanings does not make your position infalliable and "the only possible truth". I know that we may never see eye to eye on this, but at least I know that I can sleep at night knowing that my heart is open to God's truth.

Gary said...

Joshua,

Once again you stated that I was silent on Mariottini's blog, but I would like for you to explain how I was suppose to respond to a closed comment section. I said before I could argue in his place on the "Idol theory", as I did due diligence on studing the different positions in regards to Deut. 22:5

If you read Kent's post where we first met, you will see that I originally did not hold to a certain position, because I was seeking and looking at at all of the positions and sciptures on behalf of my sister in law. As the bereans honestly search, so did I. When I thought that I was wrong about the pants issue, I put my wife and girls into dresses ( that is being open and willing to be corrected). When I found out that pants were ok, I allowed them to wear them. In referencing to the Jackhammer post, you are assuming that I'm using a scorched earth tactic so that I can "justify my sin". That is not a correctly reading a sincere heart. I am constantly seeking God and his truth through prayer and studing his word and I am always willing to be corrected, but you and Kent have not produced the evidence. Throwing out a couple of scriptures and making an assumption about the meanings does not make your position infalliable and "the only possible truth". I know that we may never see eye to eye on this, but at least I know that I can sleep at night knowing that my heart is open to God's truth.

Gary said...

To "Team Kent",

I know know that your interpretation on Deut. 22:5 won't allow for the idolitry, sexual sins, or even women can't use things i.e. swords, tools of trade, etc views, even though you can find biblical and ancient historical support for these views.
Don't you think that it is strange that God would make a law in regards to women wearing mens distinct garments, when in the hebrew's culture at that time it would not benefit the woman at all to wear the man's garment. In regards to distinct garments (and Kent please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't simlah also worn by men, thus meaning the same garment, but maybe different in fabric or color, thus his and hers.

You keep saying that your interpretations and assumptions are the true and only meaning, thus anyone who dissagrees with you is in sinful error. The only thing that I know is that I see women in pants that are showing all of the fruit of the Spirit. I've seen former prostitues, drug addicts, and alcoholics come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit clean up their lives and help others to know Jesus also.

Now if you do happen to be right (but I don't think so) than the ladies can thank God for James 5:20and 1 Peter 4:8.

Please remember to be good shepards to your local church, but keep in mind Romans 14:4. God Bless

Kent Brandenburg said...

Gary,

I don't mind taking the time to answer your questions. There are a lot of problems in the last few comments you've written. But you seem to be already set in your way on this. Let me know.

dmicaiah,

Could you show me the secondar/primary matter passage? You might think an abomination to God is secondary, but I don't.

Claymore said...

Something that those who advocate the opposite position than what I and "team Kent" have taken have failed completely to do is to prove, as was recently stated, that this is of primary or secondary importance. Nobody has answered my statement about the use of "to'ay-bah" (translated as "abomination") being used in reference to sexual perversions in Leviticus and to occult practices earlier in Deuteronomy. Obviously, God links these all together: indeed, no sin is ever trivial, for even if we fall asleep whilst reading the Bible it is a sin (irreverence to the Word of God/failure to hear correctly - note that this is what caused Adam's sin) for which Christ had to die. All sin is equally heinous to Him. None have yet answered what Mr. Wesley said of the subject.

Concerning Romans 14:4, the entire idea of the matter of scrupples is that the stronger takes the position of the weaker until the weaker comes to this conclusion. I have already stated that it was the opposite with my background, and Dr. Brandenburg may possibly tell the same story.

To Dmicah, I don't believe it is necessary to separate from somebody until he will no longer hear what the Bible says. If one is trying to live for the Lord, the Holy Spirit will guide him into all truth, just as He continues to do in my own life. Only when one reaches the point of being as Saul after the slaughter of the Amalekites does it become necessary to take such measures. I can tell you of a woman who, having been a Christian for a short time, heard our pastor preach on modesty, and asked if she was immodest (which she was, but she was still a newborn and so had not learned these things). It was handled graciously as another lady took her aside and taught privately what the Bible says. No condemnatory or abusive language was used, nor was there any hint of separation from this soul over the matter, as she desired to seek God in it.

Gary said...

Kent and Claymore,

The problem that you have is that you have to look at the plain meaning of the text, in context to how it would have been received by the people back then. Claymore stated correctly about abomination being used to discribe God's feelings towards cultic practices and sexual perversions. These sins can be seen throughout the OT as a constant problem. The issue of women putting on men's distinct garments has never been shown in the OT to be a problem. Even Jezebel did not put on her husbands clothes to inforce her evil ways.

Your theory that it deals with specific gender garments that for example (women can't wear pants because the men beat them to it and the women have to first wait for the men to replace pants with something else) can niether be seen biblical in the OT or in ancient times, thus it cannot be correct.
So you can see, as long as the woman's intent for wearing pants is not for idolatry, sexual perversions, or just plain trying to be a man, there is absolutely no sin.

Kent,

I know that it would be very difficult for you to change my mind, but if you could show me where I'm wrong in my last post and even this one it would be apprieciated.


Kent,

I know that it will be

Joshua said...

Gary,

You reject the truth based off this assumption:

ASSUMPTION: Assuming that practises called abomination can only be sexual or occultic in nature, then Kent's application of this verse to modern practice has no Scriptural or historical basis.

That assumption is utterly wrong.

Deuteronomy 25:15-16

But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Face it - God calls what he hates an abomination. You and Mariotinni tried to jam God into a box by limiting the definition of any practice called abomination to being purely sexual or religious in nature. Was this a sexual balance used in a pagan market ceremony? No. This is the voice of God. What He decides is an abomination is an abomination. If He wanted us to know that ONLY sexual practises and ONLY religious practices are abomination, then he would have made that very plain. In the absence of this, we must accept what He says on face value. On face value, without your fallicious assupmtion that this must be a sexual or religious practice being addressed, then it looks like the verse means exactly what it states.

God hates sexual perversion, so he calls it an abomination.
God hates false religion, so he calls it an abomination.
God hates cheating in business, so he calls it an abomination.
God hates women wearing the male article and vice versa, so he calls it an abomination.

Relax. Don't fight it. It's what believers have understood for thousands of years. It's the plain reading of the verse. It fits the context and the times (both then and now) like a hand in a glove. You don't need to explain away His Word, you just need to believe it and practice it. You don't need the twistings of apostate scholars to reason it away. You don't need to try and create "reasonable doubt" over the Scriptures. You don't need to follow the world on this one.

dmicah said...

"dmicaiah,

Could you show me the secondar/primary matter passage? You might think an abomination to God is secondary, but I don't."

Kent, this comment is a little beneath your level of intelligence. Let us not patronize one another.

You and a very small isolated group of Christians have concluded that one verse contained within the Hebrew ceremonial law is enough information upon which to build a doctrine for the church. Your conclusion based upon misguided hermeneutics does not make it an abomination. I appreciate that you sincerely believe that a women wearing pants is an abomination. And you are entitled to such belief. But as it is not a core doctrine in this or any of church history, and as it does not have the gravitas of broad textual support, it can not be promoted as a matter of primary importance. So i don't have to show you a verse for secondary vs. primary; i can show you the lack of verses. That makes it secondary.

As i mentioned in my earlier post, and to which you did not respond, i know that i will not convince you of a positional shift. I can only offer that there should be a heart for unity on both sides of the discussion. Flippancy and sarcasm from either side only hurts the overall mission of the church.

Claymore, thank you for you thoughts.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Dmicah,

I believe scripture is the greatest level of intelligence. It is ironic that something not found in the Bible, the primary/secondary doctrine teaching, you raise to the level of a primary doctrine. And something in the Bible, that God says is an abomination, you allow disobedience because it isn't mentioned enough times. Where do we get the idea that it must be talked about a lot in order to be important to God. He says it's an abomination. As well, there is more in the Bible that relates to the teaching of Deut 22:5, including 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. I don't care that a small group wants still to obey all of the Bible. See how many times we see "remnant" in Scripture, and then think of Noah and Jeremiah. We're talking about our God and I'm not with you if you are going to play loosey-goosey with what He said.

Regarding hermeneutics, my position is the historic, orthodox position that has not been overturned by any new exegetical information. Yours is new doctrine based on your own convenience. It reminds me of the scoffers in 2 Peter who had a different idea about the second coming because it didn't line up with their own lust.

Gary said...

Kent,

I know that Joshua is going to think that my ears are itching, but I think that you have met your intellectual match with dmicah. You say that there is more scripture that refers to Deut 22:5, but only mention 1 Cor 11. I know of other questionable doctrines that have more to go on than that.

You keep mentioning that it is important, because it is an abomination to God, but you refuse to understand( as I said in the last post) that it is very unlikely that the abomination In Deut. 22:5 is referring to women trying to get away with wearing men's garments. You need to look at the OT in its entire context.

With respect, you are taking Deut. 22:5 out of context to fit your own beliefs. If God supported your position, he would have put it in his word (Genesis chapter 3 would have been a great place).

Kent Brandenburg said...

Gary,

I couldn't care less about intellect. I've said nothing about that at all. Scroll back. You're the only one obsessing with intellect. Knowledge puffs up.

What is missing here is faith and courage. God spoke. This is the historic position. I don't hear anything that overturns it from you except for a scorched earth method.

All DMicah is saying is: I don't believe it. That's it. If you think that is smart, it says a lot about you, Gary.

Gary said...

Joshua,

Sorry, I think that we were commenting at the same time , because I didn't see your last comment.

I'm not trying to limit abomination to only a few sins. I agree that toebah can mean more, but when you look at Deut. 22:5 in context with the OT as a whole, you find your view lacking. You can't just read it with your own limited understanding of the culture and draw your own conclusions.

Most women today wear pants to feel comfortable, thus there is no sin. The few who have the sinful INTENT of trying to "be the man" or to dress improperly, I'll let you throw the first stone.

Joshua said...

Gary, that basically amounts to "I'll only do it if God asks twice".

QUOTE FROM GARY:
"but you refuse to understand( as I said in the last post) that it is VERY UNLIKELY that the abomination In Deut. 22:5 is REFERRING TO WOMEN trying to get away with WEARING MEN'S GARMENTS."

NIV: A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

GWT: A woman must never wear anything men would wear, and a man must never wear women's clothes. Whoever does this is disgusting to the LORD your God.

AKJV: The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD your God.

ASV: A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto Jehovah thy God.

BBE: It is not right for a woman to be dressed in man's clothing, or for a man to put on a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God.

WEB: A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.

WBT: A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination to the LORD thy God

NASB: A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

TM: A woman must not wear a man's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing. This kind of thing is an abomination to God, your God

NLT: A woman must not put on men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does this is detestable in the sight of the Lord your God.

REQUOTE (Gary):
"but you refuse to understand( as I said in the last post) that it is very unlikely that the abomination In Deut. 22:5 is referring to women trying to get away with wearing men's garments."

Mate, you must be more KJV-only than me, because that's 10 Bible translation committee's who flatly contradict you. I can get more if you want. I'm curious to see how you “context” your way out of this one.

Claymore said...

Gary,

since when did our personal "comfort" make the final standard? If you try this escape hatch, you will find it blocked because in Genesis three, the first clothes made were from animal skins - likeley, that does not allow for comfort.

In contrast, something about trousers when placed on a woman automatically draws attention to places that ought not receive any - whether it is intentional or not, the effect is the same.

As to them trying to "be the man" I think that argument is completely moot because it has already been clearly stated that they were unused by women until women began taking jobs that men would have, and the so-called (and misnamed because its advocates only want to use them) "women's liberation" which has the intent of making women be the man encourages it. It is now so rare to find a woman who wears the skirt or dress that if I see one, I automatically wonder if she knows the Saviour. Intentional or not, it is part of the same philosophy.

Gary Webb said...

Gary,
You said:
"Most women today wear pants to feel comfortable, thus there is no sin. The few who have the sinful INTENT of trying to "be the man" or to dress improperly, I'll let you throw the first stone."
A woman might abort her baby in order to feel comfortable. According to your thinking, she would not therefore be sinning because there is nothing wrong with her INTENT - especially since every one who does not accept the authority of Scripture is telling her there is nothing wrong with abortion. You have a reprobate mind.

d4v34x said...

Brother Brandenburg, I think that some matters are primary and some secondary was made clear when Jesus refered to the pharisees omitting the *weightier* matters of the law.

By the way, I do not say this in order to make a sly comparison between you and the pharisees, because, from what I have read here and heard in the WOT audio casts, you DO NOT omit the weightier matters. Just so that's clear.

David

Joshua said...

d4v34x,

Folks have gotten Jesus around completely the wrong way when they try and justify ranking doctrines. Lets have a look at what he said:

You quote Matthew 23:23. Let's backup and have a look at the preceding chapter.

Matt 22:34-36 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Look whose asking the question here. A Pharisee. A legalist. This question is called a tempting question - ie, this is NOT a good question. Why would a legalist Pharisee be interested in which was the most important Law of all? If you were a man trying to establish your own righteousness y the Law, and trying to minimize the commands down to a manageable level (see Corban: Mark 7:9), you'd want to make sure you weren't telling folks not to worry about the most important command.

Jesus doesn't let him get away with it. He askes for one "most important" Law. Jesus gives him two. Then Jesus points out that the whole of the Law and the Prophets is based off these two anyway. It's a sad day for the doctrinal minimizers as it turns out EVERYTHING in Scripture is built off two very important principles:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, the Pharisee's want to rank doctrines, quibble about which ones are the most important. Jesus tries to direct them to important things by asking them a question about who the Messiah is. They fail badly at answering this question, and the whole next chapter Jesus chews them out.

Enter Matthew 23:23. Jesus commends them for doing the easier matters, but points out they've missed the harder matters of the Law.

To go from "okay we need to do everything" to "clearly we can now sort out what God said into IMPORTANT and NOT VERY IMPORTANT" shows the true spirit of the Pharisee.

A parent asks his eldest son to wash the dishes and look after his little sister. When the parent gets home we have three different scenario's:

a) Dishes washed perfectly but little sister is dead - was too busy washing dishes to watch her.

b) Daughter looked after but dishes undone. Important task done but other command "ranked" and found secondary.

c) Dishes done and little sister looked after.

Which scenario pleases the father here? Which parent would rejoice upon getting home and finding that their son had only done half of what they asked? One may be weighty, but a faithful child does EVERYTHING.

Matthew 5:17-20
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 28:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Christians have no right to rank the commands of their God. It's a pernicious doctrine invented by men who want broad fellowships. It's pure Pharisaism. Do it all. Stand for it all. Contend for it all.His commandments are not grevious.

Gary said...

Claymore,

You mentioned that women in pants draws your attention to one area.
When I visited my sister in law who goes to a no pants church, I thought that the ladies there revieling their bare calves and the way their feminine skirts hung from their waists were far more tempting that a woman in slacks. I'm not trying to make fun here, I'm serious and the skirts and dresses were not inappropriate. A woman in slacks and a nice blouse can look more appropriate and modest.

Kent, Gary Webb, and Joshua,

From scorched Earth to Joshua's kindly taking the time to give me multiple translations of Deut. 22:5(I hope that Lamblion will forgive you)I can sum it all up into one word "INTENT". You have to look at "women shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man" in context with the whole Bible other wise you risk FALSE DOCTRINE.

Gary Webb,

You are bringing up apples and oranges. Every woman that I have witnessed to that had an abortion knew that what they did was wrong and sinful. Abortion can be proven to be a sin in the bible, women wearing pants cannot be proven.

Your comment about me having a reprobate mind is foolish and shows a lack of discernment.

I am very active in the church and thanks to the Holy Spirit's guidance I have helped to lead many people to the Lord and plugged them into discipleship programs. My church has reached out into the community and has helped a multitude of down and out people from drugs to alcohol become clean and productive within the church. Some now are married with children and are leading others to Christ.
I fear that because you have chosen to make the OT laws and Separation more important than the love and grace of God that God may judge you severely.

You can respond to this if you wish guys, but I probably won't respond, as to your hearts are totally harden and blind to the truth on this subject.

D4,

Good luck brother, Joshua's that post says alot.

Joshua said...

Millions of sincere Catholics commit abominations worshipping the Host. Cain had good intent. So did Uzziah. Intent doesn't excuse disobedience. You claim to have studied the Scriptures for so long yet we must explain these basic principles to you?

Reforming Baptist said...

Oh brother, this subject again.
In some cultures, skirts are masculine such as in the Samoan islands....oh ya, I remember Kent's rebuttal "that is a heathen culture, that example doesn't count!"

like anglo western culture isn't?

"we used to obey the Bible and have a male article"

The Bible doesn't say what a male article is so, Who determines what male or female articles are?

"The godly western culture of 200 years ago that used to obey the Bible"

But the Bible doesn't say which article is male or female

"Ya, but The godly western culture of 200 years ago that used to obey the Bible and have a defined male article."

But the Bible doesn't define it....


and around we will keep going in endless circles.

d4v34x said...

Joshua,

I freely stipulate that Jesus followed His "weightier matters" comment by saying, "these things ought ye to have done and not to have left the others undone". Nevertheless Jesus described certain of His concerns as weighter than others, and not merely because He was talking to hypocrites.

Kent Brandenburg said...

D4,

I've dealt with "weightier" a few times here and at Jackhammer. It is the word "barus" and the idea is not "more important," but "more difficult." Because the Pharisees operated in the flesh, period, they failed at doing the things that were more difficult. They left them undone. They accomplished easy things like tithing on little herbs and such. When it came to ranking doctrines, they made the easy things prominent and didn't do the hard things. They shrunk the commands to a manageable number, one they thought they could accomplish in the flesh as a part of works salvation. This is no argument for ranking doctrines, but an argument AGAINST it.

It explains the very reason why evangelicals and fundamentalists shrink doctrines today. It is left wing legalism and a corruption of the grace of God. God's grace doesn't allow for not doing what He said (Rom 6:1). It teaches us to deny ungodliness.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Will,

If I can locate one person or a group of people on earth who agree with my position, does that make it legitimate? We have historic doctrine and historic practice. We search for some Samoans who practice differently and take them as our example rather than that of generation after generation of Christians. If you want to go with that, that's your decision, but it isn't a normal way of dealing with doctrine for me.

Your approach fits the postmodern attack on the truth. Because people now are arguing about it and disagreeing, it must be uncertain and, therefore, up for grabs. We can't know what scripture says anymore, so we are free to do what we want. Voile'. It's now a tertiary doctrine. At least to you. God says the people who do so are an abomination. Worthy of a sigh from you, but an abomination to God.

And your scoffing, mocking tone, if you think that represents you well, I guess the first amendment protects that right. Men have died to allow your scoffing and mockery. It isn't persuasive as an argument though.

Anvil said...

Joshua,

Your example with the daughter babysitting/dish washing scenario is a perfect example of why people will "rank" commands when they have to.

Of course, your choice c. is the correct one and should be the result when possible. However, one possible outcome is that c. is impossible to accomplish. If the little sister is extremely disobedient and willful, and the older daughter was given no authority to try something like lashing her to the bed, and cannot reach the parents, she may have no choice but to spend so much time watching the little sister that the dishes do not get done.

Upon explanation, the parents may decide she did the right thing, or punish her for not doing everything, but in that situation, if the older daughter chose to watch the sister OVER doing the dishes when doing both was impossible, she either did the only thing she could see as right to do, or her parents were crazy for thinking dishes were more important than the safety of the little sister. Christians can and do face choices like this, and will have to decide how it is to be handled.

Back to the point of the topic however, even though there are some who think Deut. 22:5 is a "secondary" command, many who disagree with Pastor B. on this subject actually agree that Deut. 22:5 should be obeyed, but that it is not true that pants must always fit the parameters of that verse when culture has already decided differently. When pants are not solely a male garment any more than shirts are, then obedience to that verse does not require no pants on women.

Joshua said...

Anvil,

I don't disagree with you there. The analogy was to demonstrate a very simple point - true obedience does everything, hard or easy.

To leap from these two passages in Matthew to a position where you have the right to rank the commands of God into primary, secondary and tertiary is wrong.

But many folks have to for practical reasons. If you want your spot on the platform at the Resolved conference, you better move the doctrine of the Blood of Christ over into secondary or tertiary column. Want Piper to preach for you? Put sound teaching on spiritual gifts into the "non-essentials" list.

Evangelicals have been doing this proudly for ages. Fundamentalists have been doing this in practice for just as long. Now the emergents have come along and joined in the doctrinal ranking game. They don't mind if you believe in a literal hell, but they want it in the secondary or tertiary column. Same for the substitutionary atonement.

Evangelicalism lifted itself up above the Most High and started sorting the commands of Scripture to justify their fellowships. Now its children have taken it to it's natural conclusion and they aint happy about it. If mere men get to decide what is important and what isn't in Scripture - why can't those men be emergent ones?

This primary/secondary teaching is a wicked doctrine with rotten fruit.

Reforming Baptist said...

" We have historic doctrine and historic practice."

I've never seen a doctrinal statement where prohibition of women wearing pants was part of a confession of faith. It seems like traditions of men are your authority since the Bible doesn't specifically give us article of clothing specifics. So, if I'm being a postmodern, you're being a Catholic.

"Because people now are arguing about it and disagreeing, it must be uncertain and, therefore, up for grabs. We can't know what scripture says anymore, so we are free to do what we want."

What the Bible is teaching is clear enough - cross dressing (whatever the culture would widely agree on as being men's clothing or women's clothing) is an abomination and the reason it is, is not because of the article per se, but because of the wicked homosexuality in the heart that would cause someone to do that.

So, if a woman were taking a shower in a building that caught on fire and the only thing she could put on quickly while exiting the building to save her life were her husband's pants, that would be an abomination right? Walking out naked would be also, so she should just stay in the building and die rather than commit an 'abomination' in your interpretation.

This is where your logic will lead you.

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

Micah - These ceremonial laws are in no way the same as the moral laws of the ten commandments which were reiterated in the NT. To claim equality is a misunderstanding of interpretative rules.

I wonder, could you clarify exactly what your dividing line is between "ceremonial" and "moral" laws? Typically, commentators that I have seen will say that "ceremonial" laws are those which served to illustrate types of either Christ, or some aspect of Christ's ministry, while "moral" laws envelope timeless truths that apply in all ages.

Is that your definition? If not, then what IS your definition of what constitutes a "ceremonial" law?

The reason I ask is because the distinction, as it is applied, frankly seems artificial to me, and often seems as if it serves more than anything else to allow interpreters the opportunity to declare particular parts of the Bible that they, for whatever reason, choose not to abide by as being "ceremonial" and therefore "only applied to Israel," allowing them to dispense with them.

Not that I am arguing that we all need to go around wearing borders on our clothing, avoiding pork, or wearing only clothing made of one kind of fabric. However, the "ceremonial" laws existed for a reason. They illustrate timeless moral truths - this is the whole reason God gave them to Israel. Paul hints at that when he provides his exegesis of Deut. 25:4 in I Cor 9:9. That law wasn't given because God was concerned about whether oxen really got to eat a little bit of the milled grain. Rather, the law was an illustration to Israel that a spiritual labourer was to partake of the carnal things of his work - that's PAUL'S interpretation, given under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The same can be said for the other "ceremonial" laws as well. Not yoking an ox and an ass together? I think that's pretty obvious what the deeper, spiritual meaning is. Some, like a lot of the dietary laws, I don't understand the underlying point yet, but do reckon that they had a spiritual lesson to teach Israel.

In that sense, a "ceremonial" law IS "moral." Drawing the distinction as you do misses the point, and is an unfortunate excuse to break the commandments of God, and to teach others to do so as well.

So, looking at Deut. 22:5 - I fail to see what is so hard to understand about this passage teaching the spiritual truth that God's created order of male and female should not be confused. One of the most obvious ways of preventing that confusion is by having obviously different styles of dress for the two genders (and before you whip out the old "they all wore robes" argument, do a little study on the actual clothing people in ancient Israel wore).

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus said...

Micah (cont.) - Sure, maybe it WAS a part of pagan Canaanite practice to have cross-dressing as a part of their religion. I know that it was in certain Greek rituals as well. But that doesn't negate the more fundamental point. Pagan cross-dressing was wrong because it was, likewise, a confusion of and rebellion against the created order God has instituted in the beginning. Same goes with women wearing men's clothing. Cross-dressing is cross-dressing, and in whatever case it is confusion.

Now, in some cases, the "spiritual" application of one of the "ceremonial" laws allows us to not abide by the strict letter of the law (i.e., today, someone would not be sinning if they actually did yoke an ox and ass together). They WOULD be sinning, however, if they spiritually yoked themselves with an unbeliever in some spiritual work or relationship. That is what the "spirit" of the law over and against the "letter" truly means.

In other cases, such as with the pants on women issue, the spiritual outflowing of the law IS the same as the letter - since the whole issue revolves specifically around the articles of clothing in question, as that is the primary way (aside from hair length) to keep the distinctions God made.

but again, in either case, a "ceremonial" law IS a "moral" law. ANYTHING that God has established as rules for the behaviour of mankind is de facto moral. We just have to have the spiritual discernment and leading from the Spirit to understand what the particular applications may be.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Will,

I've never applied the "building on fire" test to my dress standards, but this authority-by-hypothetical-situation doesn't lend itself toward obedience to scripture. It's very much like this: "since we don't baptize people in intensive care on oxygen ventilation, then baptism must not be necessary."

I think that since I compared your thinking to something postmodern, you had to have my thinking be Catholic. The big difference is that your thinking is within the realm of the postmodern on this, and what you showed has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Deut 22:5 is in the Bible. Applying it like Godly believers have for centuries isn't what Roman Catholics do. My problem with your interpretation is that you make it "cross-dressing" when that is not a historic teaching. The passage doesn't say "man's clothing" or "women's clothing," so perhaps you should relook at it, Will. You should hold yourself to what the verse actually says. Historically, that's what Godly exegetes have done, that you are not doing.

The fact that it doesn't appear in a creed doesn't mean that it isn't historic teaching. Corporal punishment of disobedient children (spanking) doesn't appear in a creed either, but it is historic teaching of scripture.

I'd appreciate it, Will, if you'd think through your writing a little more. And I'm saying everything in as kind a way as possible at this point.

d4v34x said...

Brother Brandenburg, I know you embrace the Baptist Distinctives, one of which is Soul Liberty. Is Soul Liberty for individual believers? I believe you would answer yes, so I will continue on that basis. Obviously you and I both would say there are areas we do not allow soul liberty to run unchecked. The Diety of Christ is one of these. Substitutionary atonement is another. God's soveriegnty is still another. However, if we do not allow soul liberty in the interpretation of passages that are not definitively tied to an orthodox doctrine, we infringe on soul liberty. If we do allow it in these passages, I posit we tacitly confirm primary, secondary, tertiary, etc, doctrines.

I do not believe that your view of what I think you call "spiritual kinship" means that at any given point in history there has been a church or churches that believe every verse in scripture means exactly what you think it meants and that those who didn't after sufficient reproof should be separated with.

I don't wish to build a straw Brandenburg here, but this is where we seem to be heading in these conversations, although I am willing to say I am sure there are gaps in my understanding of your theology. If so, please fill me in.

Also, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

David

Kent Brandenburg said...

Happy Thanksgiving to you too David. I believe in priesthood of the believer, but we priesthood is not just a privilege but a responsibility. We don't have liberty to sin (Rom 6:1). We don't have liberty to sin. We have liberty in non-scriptural issues (Rom 14). Deut 22:5 is in scripture.

You may have written the previous comment under the wrong post, but I'll answer it here. I believe there are always NT churches in every generation since Christ based on Mt 16:18, and the belief in no total apostasy (1 Tim 4:1, etc.). How churches independent of Roman Catholicism are recorded or reported by history, I can't be sure to trust all of the reporting when the powers that be had the last word. I think there is enough evidence though.

We have unity on scriptural, liberty on non-scriptural, and charity in all. I have found that there are many churches that believe and practice like we do. It is the smallest group, but many have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Gary said...

Joshua,

I could not leave this topic just yet, because you have been gracious enough to try to "explain these basic principals" to me. I think that you need to take another look at the scriptures and commentaries dealing with Cain and Uzziah. You'll find that these men did not have good intentions and they where being very disobedient. Please, let me know if I've misjudged them, because I see pride as one of their "little" problem areas. The God fearing women that I know do not wear pants out of pride and they are only seen as disobedient under your assumptions on the meaning of Deut. 22:5.

1 Samuel 16:7 But the Lord told Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the HEART.

Also Hebrews 4:12 (do to space I'll let you look up)

Most scholars will tell you that Deut. 22:5 shows that God doesn't want the genders blurred. I spent about an hour sitting in the mall while my wife shopped and the whole time I was there, I did not see one woman in a dress or skirt. The amazing thing was that I could tell the difference between the male and females quite easially, The women looked like women, because their INTENT was to look like a woman.

Pant's have not been a male only garment for decades. The bathroom signs show women in skirts, because both sexes wear pants, but only women wear skirts. In Kent's last post on this topic, one of the people that he quoted mentioned the Frick Collection Library in regards to women having to wear skirts in the PAST to go into the library. The funny thing is that the requirement for the men was not pants (so I guess they could wear a kilt?), but a suit jacket. Maybe the suit jacket is the real "male only" garment for today?

Gary Webb,

You looked at my line of thinking with great error, but what about your line of thinking? The "building on fire" test that Reforming Baptist used does seem to fit you. A woman in mens pants are an abomination, right? An abomination is an abomination, right? The woman should try to remain obedient and burn in the building, so that she won't die in sin, right. Otherwise, you would have to look at the woman's INTENT which was to save her own life, not disobedience. I know that Kent says that he does not use such harsh standards, but according to your position, YOU obviously make it God's standard.

Joshua said...

Gary,

What other Scriptures dealing with Uzziah? I don't recall any. If there is then let's look at em, but if not I'd be very curious to know how a commentator knows he plotted evil in his heart before he tried to steady the ark.

The point of the 1 Sam passage was God pointing out that Samuel assumed good things about Jesses eldest but couldn't see him inside, where God saw what was rotten. You are assuming intent for all these ladies, and you've come up with "innocent". You are going to have to work a lot harder than this to prove God winks at sin if you intent seems wholesome.

Isn't it interesting how (after your reasoning), literal obedience isn't required, and instead the whole matter must be judged by something no man or woman can know: intent. You make the commands of God of none effect.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Gary and Dmicah,

If you took your dealing with Deut 22:5 and treated any other passage the same way, you would be ridiculed by any Bible exegete or expositor. You only have credibility with evangelicals and fundamentalists because of the hatred of the historic position on this verse.

Gary said...

Joshua,

You said Uzziah not Uzzah.
Uzziah was a king in 2 Cronicles 26. The point still stands that the women in today's society are not being disobedient, because they are not trying to blur the genders. The women go out of their way to keep up their womanly appearences. As I said before, Pants have not been a male only garment for decades, if not close to a hundred years. So even by your standards they should be OK. What, in a 100 more years are your grandchildren going to still be trying to get women back in skirts? Think about that. I think that the garment that you need to try to preserve as "male only" now is the suit jacket.

Oh and God isn't winking at sin, because the sin is not in women wearing pants. God will be the judge of them, because he knows their hearts.

Kent,

Do you mean "a" historical position? We can go back into the commentaries again if you want and spend another month on this post. It's your "ink". You can even hold to the pants were men's only, thus women can't touch them and I'll refer you to my comment to Joshua. This culture made pants unisex along with tee shirts decades ago and if your grandchildren wish to join Joshua's grandchildren than good luck. I just hope that the world will no them by their love for each other and not by their judgment of each other.

The women that I know that wear pants show the fruit of the Spirit. You can see God working in their lives. I've seen the broken hearted healed, the drug and alcoholic women restored. Their hearts are humble before the Lord and that is proof positive that you are wrong.

Just out of curiousity, do you see this happenning in your church or do you reject the ones who seem "unloveable"? Just curious.

Gary said...

Sorry, but I wanted to clarify that God did not make pants male garments, the culture did, and the culture made pants unisex. I know Kent will say that the culture has not replaced the pants with another garment, but Deut. 22:5 does not state that one garment must be replaced with another.

The culture that dictates what is male and female clothing now says that pants are unisex, just like tee shirts and socks. Society does not view pants as male only. Sorry guys.

Joshua said...

Fair enough Gary, guess I misspelt his name. Still changes none of my points.

You mentioned that our culture made pants unisex.

Question: is the unisex movement of God or anti-God?

Hopefully my grankids will honour God with their dress. Hopefully yours will reject having the unisex movement and the world decide what is and isn't Godly.

Gary said...

Joshua,

It's not the unisex movement that worries as long as the women and men still show enough distinction.

I say this with total respect to Kent, that the women in his community might need to wear dresses to set themselves apart, as he lives close to San Francisco (which is like a homosexual hot spot). I would probably have my family in dresses if I lived near there, because the women and men are seeking each others gender.

Due to the economy I had to put my 12 and 14 year old girls into public schools for the first time. They had always been sheltered in a Christian school. I was shocked to see just how anti-God to the extreme that the school system has become. I told my girls that they should concider themselves as missionaries to the public schools. My daughters have found other Christian kids to hang out with and they give each other support. The blessing is that they are very active in inviting non believers to church and Wed. night youth. My oldest daughter says that she knows 100% that their is a God, even though some of her teachers try to say (to my surprise) otherwise. She says that she can feel the Holy Spirit guiding her as she prays and that God helps to give her boldness. How awesome is that!!!

My girls wear modest, appropriate clothes and God willing, they will always dress in a way that honor God.

Gary said...

It's after 10pm on the East coast and I'm going to bed, but I just wanted to say one more thing.

I appologize to anyone that I may have spoken to harshly to in the past. We may disagree on this topic, but that doesn't mean that we have to strike low blows. God Bless.

Claymore said...

I apologise for not responding sooner to the arguments made above, but am kept quite busy with my work.

If I might sum up the arguments on both sides of the issue:

For women wearing trousers:

1. Subjective argument of culture dictating what garments are masculine vs. feminine - in some cultures, it is or was perfectly acceptable for people to go about a-la-bare, but this does not make it right.

2. Subjective argument of personal comfort - I can point to hundreds, if not thousands of women who find trousers completely uncomfortable.

3. Subjective argument of intent - whether or not one intends to commit a sin, all sin is still sin. Whether one intends to do good by that sin, it is never right to do wrong.

4. Pants may be more modest than knee-length skirts. Here, and only here is there a possibility of the argument being made. The coats of skins in Genesis three clothed from neck to heel, which is why I oppose men wearing shorts as well. interestingly enough, until the twentieth century, long pants were the mark of a grown man, but short pants made the distinction of being a lad - could it be that men wearing shorts are immature? It was not until the twentieth century (which exemplifies the escalating of sin) that hemlines began to rise higher than the ankle, and not until later did they rise to the knee. Indeed, it was not until World War Two (which marked the rise of Neo Evangelicalism, Charismatism, Neo Morality, and in general showed the complete decadence of society) that society made women's pants to be acceptable.

5. Women are able to look feminine while wearing them, so it does not blur the genders - however, the next statement made was that they take great pains to look like women. I don't suppose that anybody seems to realise that, if they simply wore the skirt, these pains would not need to be taken.

6. Subjective argument that Deuteronomy 22:5 does not distinguish the particular garments. However, the other part of this verse, which provides against men dressing like women, shows the opposite, for the idea of a man putting on a woman's garment means that he wraps it about him, and the word for a woman's garment can mean nothing but the garment.

Arguments against:

1. The objective standard of the Bible.
2. The objective standard of the Bible.
3. The objective standard of the Bible.

BTW, Gary, I do appreciate your later comments.

Gary said...

Claymore,

The culture for the last few hundred years made pants a male only garment, not God. God set the standards on what is appropriate and modest. A culture that honours God will wear clothing that is appropriate and not immodest. I agree that you are probably right in regards to men wearing shorts, because the bible does consider that as nakedness, maybe we should go back to wearing neck to ankle coats like in Genesis 3, it would solve alot of problems. But going back to the culture, it is the culture that in the end decides what is masculine and what is feminine. For better or for worse, the culture has made pants unisex, just like tee shirts for decades.

The verse specifically says "that which pertaineth to a man" and since our culture made pants unisex, it cannot be considered a sinful act for a woman to wear pants, as long as they are not immodest. Where am I wrong in this arguement?

Also, even though I've seen women in both pants and dresses go through "great pains" to look feminine, I did not mean that women had to work harder to look feminine in pants.

One question for you in regards to the women's "clothing." isn't simlah unisex ( both men and women wore them) just like pants. Kindda like telling men not to wear women's pants. This is a serious question, I'm curious as my Hebrew is only as strong as the Strong's concordance.

Claymore said...

From what I understand of Hebrew (having taken but one year of it in seminary), the word is a general word for clothes - as it is seen in Jacob saying to his household to change their garments after purging the idols that Rachel brought in, as well as the idols procured from Shechem. It is later found that Jacob rent this garment in mourning for Joseph, and that Joseph changed it when he went beforre Pharaoh. As such, it is like the English word "clothes" - used interchangeably for garments of men and of women - a list of garments for women (rather lengthy) is found in Isaiah (it rather makes one think of a car, speaking of mufflers and bonnets).

In Deuteronomy 22:5, the word is used specifically of a woman's garment - if literally interpreted, there is no other legitimate explanation for it. The idea is clearly stated by the possessive case in the word "woman". Indeed, the word "simlah" itself is feminine, with the masculine being "Salmah". In this way, it differentiates between the genders. It is somewhat like the word "Iysh" and the word "iyshah" meaning "man" and "woman" respectively - the one is the masculine form of the other. Thus it does provide our reason for men not wearing a woman's clothing - but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander also.

In answer to your second paragraph, I refer you back to my statement that it was not until sin began to escalate (as exemplified by the war) when women began to wear men's clothing at the factories so as to do their work, and then with the so-called and misnamed "women's liberation" movement, which has the singular intent of blurring the genders endorsing the matter that it took off.

For better or for worse, it was a culture of sin that made a woman's pants unisex (the first nation to try this was France under Robespierre - a misnamed republic built on godlessness). Therefore, it was not true culture. True culture is found only with Scripture, and is subservient to it - not otherwise. All other cultures are sub-cultures or, more properly, counter-cultures. As such, the Christian has a moral obligation not to follow them, but to follow the Bible alone. This is why a bushman cannot use the music of his former gods in the worship of Jehovah - it may have been his culture, but it was a culture of idols. This is why we cannot have Contemporary Christian Music (an oxymoron as it is neither Christian nor is it music) in our services - it exemplifies an unbiblical counter-culture.

Gary said...

Claymore,

For only a year of Hebrew, you did an excellent job on explaining simlah. When I used my limited knowledge of Hebrew and the Strong's concordence, I noticed that the word was used both in Gen. 9:23 to cover Noah and in Deut 22:5 and thought that that was curious. Thank you.

In regards to your comment - "True culture is only with scripture, and is subservient to it-not otherwise. All others cultures are sub-cultures, or more properly, counter-culture."
I find this interesting, can you elaborate on this statement,please.

My understanding is that "culture" is the predominating attitudes and behavior of a people i.e. American culture- blue jeans and apple pie, Japanese culture- komonos and sushi, etc.

Christianity, I think would be considered a sub-culture, especially since we are only ambasadors here.

True we need to live by God's standards and not the worlds i.e. if we are in a country and the people all run around naked, we should remain clothed, because the scriptures tell us to be modest and clothed, but pants do clothe the women and can be modest. The bible does not tell us what is male and female clothing, it allows for the culture to decide. The woman's job is to make sure that they dress in modest appearal and that they do not put on what culture has decided is the male only garment.

Gary said...

Claymore,

One more thing that I was curious about.
The history of mankind is full of very sinful periods of time, but weren't the American people during world war 2 concidered to be the most patriotic and self sacrificing Americans up to this present time?

d4v34x said...

Kent, I intended my above post as a response to this thread as your liberty and the "true church" theology seem to me to have a great deal of bearing on the pants/headship issue.

Regarding your statement: "We have unity on scriptural, liberty on non-scriptural"--my understanding on the Baptist concept of soul liberty is that in also includes scriptural matters. At least I believe it has historically (Roger Williams?).

And I am certain that those in the NT church that forbad the eating of meat sacrificed to idols believed it was a scriptural matter, or at least the application of scripture.

Btw, since the subject has come up, what are the Romans 14 issues in our day and age? Whether or not riding roller coasters is a sin? Whether fly-fishing is more righteous than bait fishing?

I gently kid, but I think Romans 14 has to apply today to issues serious Baptist folks would fiercely defend or object to, or we aren't really applying it.

Claymore said...

Gary,

Thank you for your compliment about my Hebrew (Thomas Ross would say that it was rather poorly done). In answer to what I said about all other cultures than Biblical being counter-cultures, we find that Adam had true culture in the days (however long they may have been) before sin entered the world. When he sinned, The principle of sin (which Paul calls ta hamartia - or the sin) dominated all aspects of his being, including his culture - this may be seen in the first culture to be established through the line of Cain - the first city, the first musical classes, animal husbandry, brass and iron works, and even the first song (Lamech's words to his wives). This was a culture that gave itself to sin. The giants in the earth then were intellectual giants - the men of renown were literally men of a name - they had a reputation, or a culture. However, it was a culture built on sin. The flood was God's answer to it. In contrast, Seth's line had true Biblical culture, but by the time of the flood, it was only Noah and his family that held to it. After the flood, the story is repeated with Nimrod's Babylon - since then, culture has been dominated by sin, with the exception of the Hebrews, particularly under David and Solomon - most of the rest of the time, they were apostate. When Christ came, He died to restore Biblical culture which man had lost - therefore, Christianity is not the counter-culture but the true culture.

Regarding your statement about Americans in the war - patriotism is not synonymous with godliness. There were thousands upon thousands of German and Japanese patriots who fought for their countries, but were still in the wrong - Erwin Rommel and Kurt Student in Germany and Fuchinda in Japan could be cited (Fuchinda later became a Christian). If you look at history since World War Two, you will find that:
1. Neo Evangelicalism was born in 1948, just three years after the war through Dr. Ockenga at Fuller Theological Seminary. While Liberalism and Neo Orthodoxy had been in existence for decades, this was the first time that the heresy was this close to Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism.
2. Israel was reborn as a nation, built on the apostasy of the Jew. 3. The rise of communism which has ravaged numerous countries, enslaved billions, and is even now working in the West through the guise of political liberalism and pseudo conservatism.
4. The great increase of drug abuse, pornography, and "free love" in the '60's was merely the next step in these.
5. The holocaust of abortions numbering now ten times the estimated number of Jews killed in the Nazi holocaust rose out of the free love of the '60's.
7. The rise of Islamic countries to greater power over the West (this began with some rather little-known events during the war).
8. After the war, hundreds of wars have been fought, all over the globe - among these are Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and even the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

All of these came to a greater head because of the war. World War Two was not so much against Nazism and Japanese militaristic imperialism, but was against a truly evil empire - one that believed in racism, the occult, and performed great attocities (both Germans and Japanese on all counts). The war would not have been necessary were it not for the escalating evil in the world - since the war, anybody who reads his Bible can see that its aftermath has been a steady rise in sin. Patriotism or not, this war was the turning point in the escalation of sin. Heretofore, Christians kept it in check according to Paul's words to the Thessalonians, but this is not the case today as Christians give in to sin, thinking it is just part of the mutating culture of a world that rejects Christ, clean contrary to obedience when God has said not to be conformed (Greek, metaskema - an outward manifestation of that which is not truly within) to this age, or to the culture of it.

Gary said...

Claymore,

I do not wish to seem ingnorant in regards to your meaning of true culture, but I think that I'm ingnorant about your meaning of true culture.

It seems that it is a repeating cylce of receiving and disregarding God's true culture, until Christ's return.

My question to you is, what is the clothing of the true culture.

Adam and Eve were naked before the sin. After that God clothed them in a long (neck to heal) one piece garment. This seems to be kinda unisex to me, unless Adam wore a different type of animal skin than Eve, but the bible does not say. It might be best if we all went back to the original garment, especially for modesty's sake.

We really don't know exactly what Noah and his family wore.

I really don't think that the Hebrews really ever were pure in their culture even during David and Solomon's time. They always seemed to have short term memory of God's provision and constantly rebelled against God. In regards to their clothing and all around outer appearence, if we were to try to be like their true culture, does that mean that we should grow beards?

In the NT in regards to the dress of the true culture. I only really see that we are to dress modestly I don't think that the greeks started to wear the jewish clothing (which would be the true culture's clothing) right? I think that the Christian greeks wore modest greek clothing. I don't know what your veiw of the women's head covering is, but I THINK that Kent's view is that it as a cultural thing of that day, but is not nessesary for today. If it was a part of the restored true culture, shouldn't women wear head coverings today?

I don't think that Christians have their own clothing line. We all go to the same stores as the people of the sinful culture, buying their pants, shirts, dresses, etc. If you compare the clothes that you wore today with a man your age that is not a Christian, you'll find the clothes simular.

The only requirement that I can really see in regards to the true culture's clothes is that they were modest from head to toe (Genesis 3:21 and 1 Timothy 2:9).

I understand God does not wish for there to be blurring of the genders, but as I mentioned before about being in the mall, 100% of the women were wearing pants, Christian and non Christian and I had no problem at all telling the men from the women.

I think that we should let God judge his servant's heart. Just like the Pharisee and the tax collector, the clothes do not always reveil the persons heart and that is what God looks at. God Bless you and thank you for your patients with me.

Claymore said...

Gary,

Previously, in your first statement, you said that you may think yourself ignorant of what I meant, and then said, "It seems that it is a repeating cylce of receiving and disregarding God's true culture, until Christ's return." Essentially, that is the way that it has happened.

Obviously, if sin were not a factor in humanity, the perfect environment and culture would exist today. However, because of sin, God had to modify the earth, and culture - sin truly caused a marring of all that was good and right. When the restoration of all things is come, God will right all the wrongs. Until then, the three "L's" must be kept in mind for clothing - loose, long, and lots of it. As a general rule, the jeans that a woman might wear are rather tight - almost to the point of making one wonder if she was melted and poured into them. This is naturally harder to do if a full skirt is worn.

Your statement about clothing of a man my age being similar to what I wear is rather interesting - most "my age" are rather slovenly dressed today. To me, it is not a shirt unless it has a collar, and in all respects I try to keep an immaculate appearance - something most my age do not.

Ultimately, we could discuss this well into the next century, but it will avail nothing.

Gary said...

OK, I think that we can agree on the three Ls. To me that is more of a modesty issue ( as I mentioned in the past about the women in my sister in laws church that wore skirts that exposed their calves). Men can be immodest in their pants also. I still think that if we all were to go back to God's custom made Genesis 3 coats that there would be less problems, especially when it comes to women wearing poured into jeans.

I think that this is a good place to end this discussion, as I have alot of other more troublesome discusions going on.

I go to a simple men's breakfast once a week at a local restraunt, where we spend a couple hours going through God's word. A young man that joined our group turned out to be a Kenneth Copeland fanatic. He thinks that our teaching on how God provides for our needs is "stupid". He says that we have Abraham's blessing which means that God wishes for us to all be financially prosperous. This of coarse this is in error and he himself is flat broke (I guess according to Copeland's teaching, this young man must be in sin or lacks faith). I know that you would probably say that I should ask the young man to leave our breakfast bunch, but I think that because of his age (mid 20s) that maybe I can correct him in a loving way.

If anyone has any experience with these word of faith people, I could use some insight, as this teaching is new to me, but from what I've seen it could be a salvation issue as they seem to be preaching another gospel. God Bless.