Let your women keep silence

[DHK]

I'm fairly sure Scripture says nothing about wearing pants (Yep! I checked. It's not in my concordance!), but it would be amusing to see the thread, anyway, if only for the legalism to be exposed.

Ed

Between Ed, Rufus, Donna, and perhaps some others who are throwing around this "legalism" accusation, it seems obvious that the accusation is an unwarranted charge and a term used without the knowledge of what it means.

Legalism has to do with salvation. I don't think that there are any here that take the position that if a woman wears pants then she is not saved. If you take that position then perhaps one has a case to name that person as a legalist.

One of the key Baptist distinctives is soul liberty--the right to hold to our own beliefs as we believe the Bible teaches us. We find this not only among ourselves as individuals, but even from church to church. Some churches will put in their own consitution that women should not wear slacks. If you disagree with the standard of that particular church then find another. The solution is simple. We can agree to disagree. But no one can force someone else's conviction on another (though we are free to zealously debate the matter).

I am only pointing out what legalism is. Legalism is not the wearing of pants or the forbidding of wearing pants. It has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps that might be true in the COC. It is legalistic in that it requires baptism to be saved. And then to keep your salvation you must adhere to a list of rules, some of which are dress standards. If you don't keep all the rules of COC church you may lose your salvation. That is legalism. When it has a bearing on your salvation, it is legalism. When it is a matter of soul liberty and to many a simple matter of modesty and living a holy life, it is not legalism, and the charge of legalism is a false accusation.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Isaiah.

I don't see what Gen. 1:28 offers the discussion.

He gave both the same task and He spoke to them, not, He told Adam to tell her. I see it as significant.

I'm simply saying that God has given different roles to men and women in the church.

It's not different roles though is it? Men are stopping women getting the top positions that's all.
RO 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Junias was outstanding among the apostles. Junias is a she.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Rufus.

Women were not emancipated for they were not enslaved.

No of course not. The American woman was unable to vote until the 20's wasn't it?

What you call emancipation is in fact slavery.

Slavery to freedom is a fine thing.

Rather than being keepers of the home as the Bible commands, they are now enslaved to trying to be and act the role of the hunter / gatherer and the head of the household, which is a God reserved role of the man.

My hunter gathering is done at the local kwiki-mart but women call that shopping.

Rather than her doing what is natural for a woman, in nurturing and raising children, she's out climbing corporate ladders and missing out on the peace and blessings of abiding by God's instructions.

I think I'd rather hear that from a woman that has been there. As a man who raised three kids I am blessed.

If "emancipation" is so great, why do/did feminists find the Bible and Christianity to be such a stumbling block?

Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
It is Christ that is the stumbling block not the Church. Jesus is, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." 1 Peter 2:8.

Who is Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

Are you alright with mini-skirts, short shorts, lingerie in public? Judging by that other thread you find it funny that 18,000 people would be in public naked so perhaps you are one of those Christian nudists?

I think that if you have a problem living in the real world you should buy some blinkers so your eyes do not cause you to sin. It is useless blaming the girls for your weakness, do not lust is a commandment. Who else will witness to nudists if it isn't nudist Christians?

john.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Hello Rufus.

Hello john.

No of course not. The American woman was unable to vote until the 20's wasn't it?

Not being able to vote did not mean they were enslaved. It was not and is not necessary for women to be involved in politics and voting when they were to be in submission to their husbands. The man voted on behalf of the household as he was the head of the house and the head of the woman. The woman's impact on politics is that she was raising and nurturing the future generations and had a responsibility for the development of the world view of her posterity. However, since she was primarily responsible for being the keeper of the home, she had no role in figuring out who or what to vote for.

Slavery to freedom is a fine thing.

Not being in submission to their husbands and thus, not being in submission to God, is not a fine thing.

My hunter gathering is done at the local kwiki-mart but women call that shopping.

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith..." - 1 Timothy 5:8a​

I think I'd rather hear that from a woman that has been there. As a man who raised three kids I am blessed.

Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
It is Christ that is the stumbling block not the Church. Jesus is, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." 1 Peter 2:8.

Who is Elizabeth Cady Stanton?

She is one of the key antichrists that got women to take on the roles of men and men to become feminized.

I think that if you have a problem living in the real world you should buy some blinkers so your eyes do not cause you to sin. It is useless blaming the girls for your weakness, do not lust is a commandment. Who else will witness to nudists if it isn't nudist Christians?

john.

I'm going to presume you are joking.

 

[johnp.]

Not being able to vote did not mean they were enslaved.

Rufus. enfranchisement : 2 to set someone free, especially from slavery. Etymology: 16c: from French enfranchir to set free, from franc free. (Chambers.)

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith..." - 1 Timothy 5:8a

If a man doesn't love his own family he has denied the faith. He hasn't denied the faith if his woman provides instead as agreed. But that will only make him worse than an unbeliever not an unbeliever in himself. Legalism?

She is one of the key antichrists that got women to take on the roles of men and men to become feminized.

Right, Emily Pankhurst was our girls freedom fighter.

I'm going to presume you are joking.

I jest not. MT 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

JAS 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Or get some blinkers.

john.

 

[webdog]

Between Ed, Rufus, Donna, and perhaps some others who are throwing around this "legalism" accusation, it seems obvious that the accusation is an unwarranted charge and a term used without the knowledge of what it means.

Legalism has to do with salvation. I don't think that there are any here that take the position that if a woman wears pants then she is not saved. If you take that position then perhaps one has a case to name that person as a legalist.

Me thinks it is you who doesn't know what it means. From Webster's

Main Entry: le·gal·ism
Pronunciation: 'lE-g&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice>
2 : a legal term or rule

 

[EdSutton]

Pants on a woman do not cover the female form and just because they cover the skin better than some dresses or skirts that some pervert fashion designer came up with, doesn't make them acceptable.
I believe these things were covered in the links I provided and I'm not sure that a discussion about clothing was intended in this thread.

FTR, the person who opened the door about "women shouldn't wear pants", on this thread, was Rufus_1611 in post # 14, a full two pages and twenty posts before I even looked at this thread, at all.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Between Ed, Rufus, Donna, and perhaps some others who are throwing around this "legalism" accusation, it seems obvious that the accusation is an unwarranted charge and a term used without the knowledge of what it means.

Legalism has to do with salvation. I don't think that there are any here that take the position that if a woman wears pants then she is not saved. If you take that position then perhaps one has a case to name that person as a legalist.

One of the key Baptist distinctives is soul liberty--the right to hold to our own beliefs as we believe the Bible teaches us. We find this not only among ourselves as individuals, but even from church to church. Some churches will put in their own consitution that women should not wear slacks. If you disagree with the standard of that particular church then find another. The solution is simple. We can agree to disagree. But no one can force someone else's conviction on another (though we are free to zealously debate the matter).

I am only pointing out what legalism is. Legalism is not the wearing of pants or the forbidding of wearing pants. It has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps that might be true in the COC. It is legalistic in that it requires baptism to be saved. And then to keep your salvation you must adhere to a list of rules, some of which are dress standards. If you don't keep all the rules of COC church you may lose your salvation. That is legalism. When it has a bearing on your salvation, it is legalism. When it is a matter of soul liberty and to many a simple matter of modesty and living a holy life, it is not legalism, and the charge of legalism is a false accusation.

I can't speak for any of the others, but I have not advocated immodesty in any way, that I'm aware of. In fact, I advocated such modesty earlier in this thread. I'm just as sure that Scripture does not forbid the wearing of pants, either.

But as to "legalism", you are partly correct that there is a sense in which 'legalism' can be used in applying to salvation. In fact, the church council at Jerusalem was over just such an issue. However, there is a sense which goes beyond this as we tend to define "legalism". The term does not occur in Scripture, as far as I can tell, so we cannot get help from there. So I'll go to the dictionary and see what I can find.

( The "ampersand" is used for the "schwa" in pronunciation, here, since my computer does not have a schwa key)

le-gal-ism \'`le-g&-,liz-&m\ n 1: strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code <that mixture of arid ~ and semantic pretentiousness that so often passes for . . . statesmanship --G. F. Kennan> 2 : a legal term or rule
le-gal-ist \-l&st\ n 1 : an advocate or adherent of moral legalism 2 : one that views things from a legal standpoint; . . .

Seems an adequate definition.

I fully agree as to the concept of soul liberty. I also agree that one is entirely free to follow his or her own conscience, as to non-stated questions. Such an issue would be pants for women. I have already shown that there is no mention of such in Scripture; I have posted that when "breeches" is mentioned, in every instance it concerned the Aaronic priesthood and the Levites, who were commanded to wear them, in accordance with OT law. I also posted that the word from which the KJV rendered "breeches" properly meant 'covering'. I did not post this, but would personally equate this to God's covering of Adam and Eve with the animal skins.

21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. (Gen. 3:21, NKJV)

Did you notice that God here made them both tunics, or something akin to robes or dresses, not pants?? :BangHead:

I would assume there was nothing wrong with someone who was not of the priestly tribe wearing them (breeches), but that is not stated either.

What is stated is the issue of modesty, at least in the NT, but somehow these threads seem to center on the question of modesty for females. That word 'modest' occurs but once in the Bible, regarding Paul's wish for women wear modest apparel. Does the lack of mention mean that men can be immodest, and that would be OK? Somehow I doubt that is the intent of Paul, but that only is my opinion, I admit.

So I agree that one has the liberty, according to their conscience, to decide whether or not he or she thinks pants on women is or is not "modest apparel". But when one attempts to impose this personal view onto others, abridging their right to make the same decision, in accordance with their own conscience, that is legalism, and a fully rightful use of the term. I don't "stand down" from my previous statements.

(BTW, my computer connection was broken, so I did not see webdogs post until I had already completed all the above, but I am posting it anyway. Just so no one will assume that I in any way copied anything from webdog.)

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

This discussion in the
Baptist Theology & Bible Study forum


of the Baptist Board

is in what denomination?

Which church is this topic?

 

[EdSutton]

Maybe the Riverside Church, Ed??

Just noticed this, from post # 4, in this thread.

A Christian faith that is based on the Word of God for all matters of faith and practice, is quite clear about the roles of the two genders. When women or men choose the Rockefeller teachings / agenda on feminism over the Biblical teachings, then they are apostate, at least relative to this issue, and if they will ignore or spin the Bible on one issue, then chances are they will on other issues as well.

Since you (Rufus_1611) dropped the name Rockefeller, would you be surprised to know that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was the individual who, as a member of Park Avenue Baptist church, in New York City, personally bought and paid for the Riverside Church, which became the new name of the Park Avenue church, after moving into the new building, and subsequently became an interdenominational, even more liberal church still under the 'pastorate' of 'Baptist' Harry Emerson Fosdick, the best known liberal preacher of his day, and one I would definitely consider an apostate?

Ed

 

[DHK]

But as to "legalism", you are partly correct that there is a sense in which 'legalism' can be used in applying to salvation. In fact, the church council at Jerusalem was over just such an issue. However, there is a sense which goes beyond this as we tend to define "legalism". The term does not occur in Scripture, as far as I can tell, so we cannot get help from there. So I'll go to the dictionary and see what I can find.
Ed

If it can't be found in Scripture then why are you using it. It is an unbiblical concept. As you rightly pointed out the first time, the definition of legalism was given in Acts 15, when the Apostles countered the Judaizers saying that their legalistic concept of including circumcision and the law as part and parcel of salvation was wrong and unbiblical. That is legalism. There is no other definition of legalism found in the Bible. And it is the Bible that we use as our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

Let me use another example:
What does the word "church" mean?
It has one Biblical meaning. The Greek word ekklesia means assembly. Thus, from other Scriptures we learn that a church is a called out assembly of baptized believers who have voluntarily associated themselves together to keep the Lord's commands.
If you look in the dictionary and tell me that the definition of a church is a building with (usually with a steeple on it),used by religious people for worship, then I say you are wrong. That is not a Biblical definition, and nowhere to be found in the Bible. We take our definitions from the Bible, not from English dictionaries which have added further defnitions to words since the Bible was written. We need to confine ourselves to Biblical definitions when speaking about the Bible.
Legalism pertains to salvation, not to a list of do's and don'ts--as some people like to define it. Too many people have the wrong definition. And IMO, when a person tries to live a holy life they are all too often labeled as legalists even when their motives and desires are purely from their own heart, and that is a real shame. It makes the one making the accusation no better than the hypocritical Pharisee himself.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Maybe the Riverside Church, Ed??

Just noticed this, from post # 4, in this thread. Since you (Rufus_1611) dropped the name Rockefeller, would you be surprised to know that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was the individual who, as a member of Park Avenue Baptist church, in New York City, personally bought and paid for the Riverside Church, which became the new name of the Park Avenue church, after moving into the new building, and subsequently became an interdenominational, even more liberal church still under the 'pastorate' of 'Baptist' Harry Emerson Fosdick, the best known liberal preacher of his day, and one I would definitely consider an apostate?

Ed

No I wouldn't be.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1003953&postcount=15

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus. enfranchisement : 2 to set someone free, especially from slavery. Etymology: 16c: from French enfranchir to set free, from franc free. (Chambers.)

Being a keeper of the home is disenfrachisement then?

If a man doesn't love his own family he has denied the faith. He hasn't denied the faith if his woman provides instead as agreed. But that will only make him worse than an unbeliever not an unbeliever in himself. Legalism?

You are changing or ignoring scripture. It doesn't say if a man doesn't love, it doesn't say if his woman provides instead, it doesn't say if any provide for her own and her own house, she hath denied the faith, it says...

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith..." - 1 Timothy 5:8a​

...providing for the family, according to the Holy Bible, is the role of the man, it's not "legalism" it's thus saith the Lord.

Right, Emily Pankhurst was our girls freedom fighter.

“Trust in God - she will provide.” - Emmeline Pankhurst​

I jest not. MT 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

JAS 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Or get some blinkers.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Rufus.

Being a keeper of the home is disenfrachisement then?

It would be if you had your way. You have already said that the little lady should not take part in politics. Disenfrachisement is defined as slaverly and the men that premote the view that the women is a 2nd class citizenship are slavers. I'm a man, I know the truth, everyman needs a maid.

You are changing or ignoring scripture. It doesn't say if a man doesn't love...

You are mistaken, if a man doesn't care for his family he doesn't love his family. If a man ensures the best for his family then he loves his family.
MT 7:9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


Would you like it if someone took your right to vote away? Don't do it to others then.

It doesn't say if a man doesn't love, it doesn't say if his woman provides instead, it doesn't say if any provide for her own and her own house, she hath denied the faith, it says...

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith..." - 1 Timothy 5:8a

I have provided for my own by allowing my wife to go ahunting as she is the better hunter. She always seeks my permission as I do hers. She asked me recently if it was ok to speak at our friends civil ceremony. I said yes. I think a good place for Christians to be is among the sinners not sitting in judgment on them.

...providing for the family, according to the Holy Bible, is the role of the man, it's not "legalism" it's thus saith the Lord.

It is hidebound legalism. The Queen of Sheba was God appointed, RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

“Trust in God - she will provide.” - Emmeline Pankhurst

And?

You would have all women wearing sacks so that you are not tempted and made lustful but I took the only way of dealing with my sins, I asked the Lord to make me what I am. He changes one's desires. Turning your eyes away from a naked woman does not stop lust but being honest with God instead of selfrighteous is the only way we can be purified. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

john.

 

[webdog]

Legalism pertains to salvation, not to a list of do's and don'ts--as some people like to define it. Too many people have the wrong definition.

I haven't seen a dictionary that even mentions salvation. This is redefining the term, IMO.

 

[johnp.]

PHP 3:6 ...as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

legalistic righteousness was salvation for the Jew was it not?

EX 19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Matt 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

john.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I'll interrupt definitions of modesty and legalism to post this link: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2340

For those brave enough to read "apostate" opinions.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Hello Rufus.

Hello john.

It would be if you had your way. You have already said that the little lady should not take part in politics. Disenfrachisement is defined as slaverly and the men that premote the view that the women is a 2nd class citizenship are slavers. I'm a man, I know the truth, everyman needs a maid.

Every man doesn't need a maid, he needs a Godly wife who is in submission to the Lord and men who find that find a good thing. Not being able to vote would not make the woman 2nd class, it would demonstrate that she has a different role and her husband would be casting the vote for the family.

You are mistaken, if a man doesn't care for his family he doesn't love his family. If a man ensures the best for his family then he loves his family.
MT 7:9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.


Would you like it if someone took your right to vote away? Don't do it to others then.

Women did not have a "right" to vote. This was something that was forced about western nations because of screaming feminists.

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith..." - 1 Timothy 5:8a

I have provided for my own by allowing my wife to go ahunting as she is the better hunter. She always seeks my permission as I do hers. She asked me recently if it was ok to speak at our friends civil ceremony. I said yes. I think a good place for Christians to be is among the sinners not sitting in judgment on them.

You have not provided, you have delegated your role.

It is hidebound legalism. The Queen of Sheba was God appointed, RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

And?

God is not a woman. Thus, your heroine is either ignorant of scripture or is opposed to it and you are following after the footsteps of that opposition.

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." - Genesis 2:2​

You would have all women wearing sacks so that you are not tempted and made lustful but I took the only way of dealing with my sins, I asked the Lord to make me what I am. He changes one's desires. Turning your eyes away from a naked woman does not stop lust but being honest with God instead of selfrighteous is the only way we can be purified. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

john.

I would have women dressing modestly and highlighting their feminine beauty rather than their sexuality, I said nothing about sacks.

 

[EdSutton]

If it can't be found in Scripture then why are you using it. It is an unbiblical concept. As you rightly pointed out the first time, the definition of legalism was given in Acts 15, when the Apostles countered the Judaizers saying that their legalistic concept of including circumcision and the law as part and parcel of salvation was wrong and unbiblical. That is legalism. There is no other definition of legalism found in the Bible. And it is the Bible that we use as our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.

Legalism pertains to salvation, not to a list of do's and don'ts--as some people like to define it. Too many people have the wrong definition. And IMO, when a person tries to live a holy life they are all too often labeled as legalists even when their motives and desires are purely from their own heart, and that is a real shame. It makes the one making the accusation no better than the hypocritical Pharisee himself.

Actually, Acts 15 does not "define' legalism, per se.
So I offer that one 'definition' is no different than another, in that regard. And I would ask, how you would 'define' an attempt to impose one's personal views into a moral code incumbent on another, by going beyond where Scripture gives such guidelines?

I offered the dictinary definition of the word "legalism". I did not offer that that was superior to Scripture, in interpretation, but in fact, made a reverse argument for the statements of Scripture. So I'll await your term that is applicable. And Galatians might have something to say about what I termed 'legalism', that goes beyond salvation, I think.

FTR, I offered no list of dos and don'ts, save not to tell me some, that are not to be found in Scripture.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I haven't seen a dictionary that even mentions salvation. This is redefining the term, IMO.

Maybe it depends on whom is doing the defining? Or redefining?

I agree with you here.

Ed