More on Skirts

[Aquila]

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

I'm not a 1-Stepper. I firmly believe in the necessity of Acts 2:38. However, I do not buy into the legalism that is rampant within most Apostolic organizations today.

Our fellowship's holiness article reads:

Holiness is essential to salvation. (Hebrews 12:14) Man is made holy by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life. Holy, consecrated, prayerful living should characterize the life and walk of every born-again saint of God. Therefore, God requires that one must forsake the ways of the wicked (2 Corinthians 6:17) and cleanse oneself from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) Holiness is not predicated upon adhering to the Law of Moses or church standards (Galatians 3:10-13; Romans 7:7-9; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:1-3). A life of true holiness is marked by living a life of divine love towards God and others (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm not a 1-Stepper. I firmly believe in the necessity of Acts 2:38. However, I do not buy into the legalism that is rampant within most Apostolic organizations today.

Our fellowship's holiness article reads:

Holiness is essential to salvation. (Hebrews 12:14) Man is made holy by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in his life. Holy, consecrated, prayerful living should characterize the life and walk of every born-again saint of God. Therefore, God requires that one must forsake the ways of the wicked (2 Corinthians 6:17) and cleanse oneself from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1) Holiness is not predicated upon adhering to the Law of Moses or church standards (Galatians 3:10-13; Romans 7:7-9; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 3:24-25; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:1-3). A life of true holiness is marked by living a life of divine love towards God and others (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8).

Fascinating. You cite Hebrews 12:14 but apparently do not know what it means.
(Heb 12:14 KJV) Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
RWP states concerning following after peace:
Follow after peace (eirēnēn diōkete). Give peace a chase as if in a hunt.

Yet, the same clause to follow is tied directly to holiness as well by the inclusion of the Greek kai. Therefore, the word, as understood by RWP, to follow means to hunt for holiness. This word picture provides a message to seek after, to look for the clues and to follow them. Instead of this, you have hunted for any excuse to ignore Biblical passages.
Godly men wore pants.
Godly women did not.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

Well, are you saying that Jesus didn't serve as our atonement and propitiation? He didn't pay it all???

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin. The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies. The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, are you saying that Jesus didn't serve as our atonement and propitiation? He didn't pay it all???

Apparently you missed the part where I said

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's...

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And I could just as equally say that according to you and other's, once a person "accepts Christ" they have license to sin.

About that "accepts Christ" nonsense ... I don't believe it. Water and Spirit. New birth experience. Acts 2:38. 3-stepper. All of the above (except for that "accepting Christ" nonsense.) Try again.

Nor do I believe a Christian has a license to sin - not even newborn ones.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The OT is abrogated and of no further use and should never be read or studies.

Who ever said that? An extreme exaggeration. I have argued that if you're going to claim Deuteronomy 22:5 is applicable for today, you better also follow the other dietary laws and customs, including the feasts and Passover. But I don't believe anyone has claimed what you posted here.

Originally Posted by Pliny

The only thing that matters is, well, nothing because they will never be held accountable for sin.

Pretty sure Aquila believes there are wages to sin. I do.

You believe women wearing pants is a sin. You've spent dozens of pages and probably close to a hundred posts or more proclaiming how Godly women do not wear pants. Yet you refuse to connect the dots and follow the path from sin to death. If you believe women wearing pants is a sin, then they are (if they do not repent and begin wearing only dresses) headed for an eternity in hell.

Why is this so hard for you?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

About that "accepts Christ" nonsense ... I don't believe it. Water and Spirit. New birth experience. Acts 2:38. 3-stepper. All of the above (except for that "accepting Christ" nonsense.) Try again.

Nor do I believe a Christian has a license to sin - not even newborn ones.


Who ever said that? An extreme exaggeration. I have argued that if you're going to claim Deuteronomy 22:5 is applicable for today, you better also follow the other dietary laws and customs, including the feasts and Passover. But I don't believe anyone has claimed what you posted here.

If you would like to discuss the dietary laws and the keeping of the Passover etc. start a new thread. There are Biblical reasons for my teaching on these subjects.

Originally Posted by n david

Pretty sure Aquila believes there are wages to sin. I do.

You believe women wearing pants is a sin. You've spent dozens of pages and probably close to a hundred posts or more proclaiming how Godly women do not wear pants. Yet you refuse to connect the dots and follow the path from sin to death. If you believe women wearing pants is a sin, then they are (if they do not repent and begin wearing only dresses) headed for an eternity in hell.

Why is this so hard for you?

It is not hard for me. I have never said women wearing pants is acceptable. That is your's other's un-biblical opinion. You would think that after all the pages and posts you would understand my position. I guess not. I teach and preach. After that, it is between the people and God. People must accept personal responsibility for what they do. Apparently you do not believe this. It is true, godly women never wore pants in the Bible. You and other's have not and cannot provide any evidence in which they did. Therefore, all you can do is obfuscate and try to build straw man arguments or make ad-hominem attacks because all the evidence you have is found in a vacuum.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is not hard for me. I have never said women wearing pants is acceptable. That is your's other's un-biblical opinion. You would think that after all the pages and posts you would understand my position. I guess not. I teach and preach. After that, it is between the people and God. People must accept personal responsibility for what they do. Apparently you do not believe this. It is true, godly women never wore pants in the Bible. You and other's have not and cannot provide any evidence in which they did. Therefore, all you can do is obfuscate and try to build straw man arguments or make ad-hominem attacks because all the evidence you have is found in a vacuum.

Do you believe a woman who wears pants is committing sin and, if unrepentant, will go to hell?

If you cannot state this outright, then you should drop your argument, as it has become your personal preference and not a Biblical mandate.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.

We know this, and even he knows this, but I want to have him post it.