Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #411  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:33 PM
Standards's Avatar
Standards Standards is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of clothing." But did you know that in 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing, attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG. Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear long DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. can not fit the definition of this exacting word. Consult your Vine’s Dictionary for verification of this word definition.

The fact that God wants a CLEAR distinction between the appearance of a man and a woman is also repeated in I Corinthians 11 when Paul deals with the issue of hair length. God is very concerned with the outward appearance of a saved person. To believe otherwise is to profess ignorance of the Word of God.

"Yeah, but what makes you think that pants are a man’s garment?"

Good question. I have a four part answer to this which demonstrates that pants always pertain to men, even today.

"Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by God for the priests who were all men. The word does not occur very often in scripture, but in every case it’s men’s apparel (Exodus 28:42, Leviticus 6:10, 16:4). According to my Hebrew lexicon, "breeches" means "trousers that extend to the knee, below the knee, or to the ankles." This would include pants, shorts, or culottes.
Until the advent of Hollywood and the movie screen, everyone (including lost people) knew that pants were men’s apparel and dresses were women’s apparel, and they dressed accordingly. Our culture’s (and sadly most churches’) acceptance of cross-dressing has resulted largely from the influence of television, the placement of women in the workforce, and the pressures of twentieth century feminism.
The universal symbol for designating a men’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a pair of pants. The universal symbol for designating a woman’s bathroom is a stick figure wearing a dress. Coincidence? Hardly. Even our sinful society recognizes that there is a difference in a man’s and woman’s clothing.
Pants are a symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I’m the one who wears the pants in the family." Sadly, most women might as well wear the pants, since they rule their homes anyway!
"Yeah, but pants are not really that immodest"

The following is from What in the World Should I Wear? by Mrs. Cathy Corle:

"A friend of mine told me that her decision to restrict her wardrobe to dresses and skirts came as a result of a ladies’ class. All the arguments and reasons that could be given were unheeded until the lady who was speaking said, ‘Let me just demonstrate something to you.’ She asked the ladies in the audience to close their eyes momentarily. She held up a large picture of a woman in an attractive, modest feminine skirt and blouse. She asked the ladies to open their eyes. Then she inquired, ‘What is the primary focal point to this picture? Where did your eyes first fall naturally?’ The audience agreed that their eyes were first drawn to the face of the woman in the picture.

"She once again asked the ladies to close their eyes. When they opened their eyes they were looking at a large poster of a woman in a sport shirt and blue jeans. She asked, ‘Now, be honest with yourselves, and tell me where your eyes first fell naturally when you looked at this picture?’ Many of the ladies in the crowd were surprised to find that most people’s eyes first focused upon the hips and crotch area that were so vividly emphasized before they ever noticed the woman’s face.

"If this happened in a crowd of ladies, how much more would it be true of men? For my friend, Joetta, this was all the ‘evidence’ that was needed."

To this I say, "AMEN!" Christian women should always be aware of Matthew 5:28,

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "

"Yeah, but wearing pants may be wrong for some saved women, but I’m not ‘convicted’ about it."

So you’re not "convicted" about wearing pants? Big deal. Does that give you permission to rebel against the Word of God? You must ask yourself, "What is the FINAL AUTHORITY on deciding what I believe and how I live? The Bible? Or how I ‘feel’ convicted?"

Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Proverbs 14:12 - There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Human feelings are very deceptive. We cannot rely on them. Any "leading" you may feel to do or not to do something that is contrary to the Word of God is not of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit NEVER leads contrary to the Bible, but He always leads according to the Bible.

Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

I John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Many people claim not to be "convicted" about forsaking church attendance, drinking alcohol, smoking, gambling, cursing, fornication, adultery, and all manner of activities clearly forbidden in the Bible, but that does not make it all right for them to do these things. I John 4:1 warns us,

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

To try and say that wearing pants may be wrong for some saved women and not for others is to engage in moral relativism which strips all authority from God’s Word. God does not have two sets of standards. He is no respecter of persons.

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Wearing pants is either wrong for ALL saved women, or it is wrong for none. In deciding if something is right or wrong, our first consideration must ALWAYS be what the Word of God says, not how we may "feel convicted."

Ecclesiastes 12:13 -14 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Follow the Bible, and you’ll be doing what is right. Follow your feelings, emotions, leadings, etc., and who knows what you’ll be doing?

"Yeah, but wearing pants is not really that big of an issue, and they are much more comfortable and practical to wear"

It’s kind of funny that for nearly 6000 years, women always wore long dresses, but only since the last 40 years, a dress is suddenly "impractical" to wear. You cannot change history to validate what you want to make acceptable for today. Nowadays, women think that they cannot so much as rake a few leaves without adorning themselves in a pair of pants.
__________________
Jeremiah chapter 4 and verse 21 KJV
How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?


1 Cor. chapter 14 and verse 8 KJV
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?


Joel chapter 2 and verse 1
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:34 PM
Standards's Avatar
Standards Standards is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

If you saw a man wearing a dress, what would you call him? Uh-huh, you would have no trouble knowing that it was wrong, and an abomination to God (even if his dress had a fly). But we have been conditioned by the world and erring brethren that a pair of pants is a good and acceptable thing for a woman to wear today. Just because it is common does not make it right. In fact, I believe that it is all part of Satan’s plan to further defile mankind by mixing the genders. Have you noticed how wimpy the boys are getting and how masculine the girls are getting? Women’s sports are becoming the rage. We would rather have our girls learn how to "Kill ‘em on the court" than to learn to be chaste and skilled at homemaking. This is how we have come to put our women in military combat positions. We would have never even considered this 20 years ago, but now we are eliminating the difference in the sexes that God made.

Oh there will always be a difference in gender, because there HAS to be. But now, the emphasis is not on the beauty of a girl’s femininity (which brings out the masculinity in a man). NOW the emphasis in the difference in BODY PARTS! There is no longer the striking difference between a beautiful woman in feminine attire, long pretty hair, and a masculine man that practices chivalry. (Put a real feminine woman around a man and see how chivalrous he becomes.) Now the difference is emphasized in her physical body difference, which is leads to lust and a degradation of womanhood! (and manhood too). A feminine woman is in her rightful place of an elevated position. But as soon as she steps down off her pedestal to wear pants and be "equal" to a man, it drags everybody down, which is exactly what Satan wants. The devil is still whispering in Eve's ear to destroy mankind.

If you look at it, you’ll find it was usually the woman that lead in the matters of sin and error. You can begin at the garden, through Israel’s idolatrous apostasy and even into recent history, with cults, Charasmania, and other errors. Now the boys are wearing earrings and have long hair, while the girls are wearing pants and chopping their hair off, even though this is forbidden in scripture (I Corinthians 11). To top it off, most preachers will not preach against short hair and pants because this would affect a majority of the women in his congregation including his wife and daughters! (Say amen right there.)

Although I am a man, I have testimonies of women who say that an ankle length dress is far more comfortable than a pair of pants. But the ultimate question that you are going to have to ask yourself is this, "What’s more important? Being comfortable? Or obeying the Word of God?" I think we all know the answer to that one.
__________________
Jeremiah chapter 4 and verse 21 KJV
How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?


1 Cor. chapter 14 and verse 8 KJV
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?


Joel chapter 2 and verse 1
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:35 PM
notofworks's Avatar
notofworks notofworks is offline
Ravaged by Grace


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,948
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Quote:
Originally Posted by Standards View Post
Duet. 22:5 is very clear, even within the context. God says that it's an abomination for a woman to wear the garment of a man or for a man to put on a womans garment. We're not taking this passage out of context. If something is an abomination unto God, you don't do it, period. There's no reason to debate something so clear.

BTW, I am willing to debate you on this issue, but not on this forum. If you are interested in debating, please PM me, and maybe we can go back and forth that way. I don't want the liberal white coats to gang up on me again.
Fine, but I enjoy hearing the other perspectives. Often, someone will offer something that the primary participants didn't come up with. I don't wanna do a bunch of PMs on this, but by ardently focusing in on the isolated issue of men=pants, women=dresses, you are ignoring culture...except where it's convenient. If you obeyed completely the sole Deut. words and using it as it was written at that time, you, as a man, would NOT be wearing pants.



ps...I made a mistake in the post you answered. Good grief, I'm typing too fast and not proofing. I meant, "The bible does NOT need to be interpreted as much as it needs to simply be obeyed."
__________________
You know you miss me
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:36 PM
192281 192281 is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 116
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Quote:
Originally Posted by Standards View Post
Read this...and weep:

What does the Bible say about a saved woman wearing pants? Is it even an issue with God? Or is it merely a matter of preference or opinion to be left up to individuals to do what is right in their own eyes? Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led), let’s start there.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women. Notice the word "abomination" is used to describe how God feels about cross-dressing. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary.

abom.i.na.tion -’ba:m-*-’na--sh*nn 1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING

That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants.

"Yeah, but that’s in the Old Testament, so it doesn’t apply to Christians today."

Ah yes, the battle cry of the liberal and the carnal church member. Let’s deal with this objection by considering some other abominations found in the Old Testament.
I don't know many people who would ever consider pants male attire only unless raised in certain orgs...but most 21st century people would never think this.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:37 PM
RandyWayne RandyWayne is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 16,746
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

So Standards, you wouldn't be cross dressing if you put on woman's pants then -that is if pants are pants are pants and there is no difference between them. Would you wear them if someone bought them for you by mistake (or even on purpose)?
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:37 PM
rgcraig's Avatar
rgcraig rgcraig is offline
My Family!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 31,786
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Standards - - you can make it whatever you want, but it's about a man trying to be a woman and a woman trying to be a man that's the abomination. That's it.
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:37 PM
rgcraig's Avatar
rgcraig rgcraig is offline
My Family!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Collierville, TN
Posts: 31,786
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWayne View Post
So Standards, you wouldn't be cross dressing if you put on woman's pants then -that is if pants are pants are pants and there is no difference between them.
Exactly!
__________________
Master of Science in Applied Disgruntled Religious Theorist Wrangling
PhD in Petulant Tantrum Quelling
Dean of the School of Hard Knocks
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Timmy's Avatar
Timmy Timmy is offline
Don't ask.


 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 24,212
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Leviticus 11:10-12
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty

More New Stuff in Timmy Talk!
My Countdown Counting down to: Rapture. Again.
Why am I not surprised?
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Jeffrey Jeffrey is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,178
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Quote:
Originally Posted by Standards View Post
Read this...and weep:

What does the Bible say about a saved woman wearing pants? Is it even an issue with God? Or is it merely a matter of preference or opinion to be left up to individuals to do what is right in their own eyes? Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY (not tradition, opinions, or how one "feels" led), let’s start there.

Deuteronomy 22:5 - The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women. Notice the word "abomination" is used to describe how God feels about cross-dressing. I looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary.

abom.i.na.tion -’ba:m-*-’na--sh*nn 1: something abominable 2: extreme disgust and hatred : LOATHING

That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants.

"Yeah, but that’s in the Old Testament, so it doesn’t apply to Christians today."

Ah yes, the battle cry of the liberal and the carnal church member. Let’s deal with this objection by considering some other abominations found in the Old Testament.
If you're going to copy and paste, please cite your sourec -- thanks.

Since we believe the Bible, more specifically, the King James Bible, to be the FINAL AUTHORITY
Uh... what the heck? Great new blogpost right up your alley here:
stuffapostolicslike.blogspot.com


Quote:
After reading this verse, what things pop into your mind? Earrings and necklaces on men, long hair on men, short hair on women, dresses on men, and of course, pants on women
No, pretty much that's NOT what pops into my head. I know it does for you. So let's just say what pops into our head is irrevelant. What the Text meant for the original audience IS relevant.

Quote:
That’s pretty strong language, wouldn’t you say? While most church members react in disgust to Sodomites who parade down the street in dresses, they readily accept and even defend women wearing pants. According to God’s Word, it is no more of an abomination for a man to wear a dress than it is for a woman to wear a pair of pants.
You've failed to establish that a women wearing women's pants is a violation of God's word. I think you still haven't taken the time to understand what this passage meant to the original audience. Do that, come back and let's chat.
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 07-01-2010, 01:40 PM
Standards's Avatar
Standards Standards is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 363
Re: Statement by Bro. Steve Pixler

Quote:
Originally Posted by 192281 View Post
I don't know many people who would ever consider pants male attire only unless raised in certain orgs...but most 21st century people would never think this.
It's like I said. You don't want scriptures, you don't want Biblical arguments. You just want to be right in your own mind.
__________________
Jeremiah chapter 4 and verse 21 KJV
How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?


1 Cor. chapter 14 and verse 8 KJV
8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?


Joel chapter 2 and verse 1
Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Trinitarian Statement Praxeas Deep Waters 50 05-14-2022 03:14 PM
Steve Pixler - Technology and Dominion - Must hear pentecostisalive Fellowship Hall 172 01-22-2010 07:21 PM
UPC Affirmation Statement Pastor G Fellowship Hall 73 11-10-2007 08:47 AM
Godhead Statement vrblackwell Fellowship Hall 14 10-23-2007 06:35 AM
A Statement By Bro Barnes Ron Deep Waters 30 07-25-2007 09:40 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.