Eric Capaci

[ItinerantPreacher]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

 

[T-Bone]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

 

[T-Bone]

I believe it to be a huge leap in understanding of the Bible's instruction on not dressing like the the other gender to assume...that all pants do that for a lady.  As a matter of fact it is part of the homosexual movement for males to wear ladies slacks...that is intentionally wearing that which pertains to women.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

 

[T-Bone]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

The cut clearly is different...I can tell just by looking, and I think most can.  That being said, slacks only on men is a cultural matter, not a biblical one.  I know many godly ladies who wears slacks and are not wearing anything that pertains to men.  Kulotts (sp) are slacks, ugly slacks but slacks non the less.  Also find it funny, in a sad way, many who preach against slacks have wives who wear them at home.  If it is your choice to wear only dresses, I have no problem with that..but I do have a problem with erroneous teaching that says women wearing slacks equates to cross dressing...especially being presented as biblical truth.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Full suit and pants, with tie and hat.  Still looks like a girl to me. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

The cut clearly is different...I can tell just by looking, and I think most can. 

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

If she doesn't look feminine, she's a cross-dresser.  If she looks feminine, she's not being modest. 

You should convert to Islam. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

If she doesn't look feminine, she's a cross-dresser.  If she looks feminine, she's not being modest. 

You should convert to Islam.

You can slice it and dice it any way you want. Your argument is meaningless if the scriptures instruct us. I may as well be from the 1800's because I don't allow women preachers, I must be Islamic because I believe we should be modest. Nothing new in your argument, and your sarcasm is not unique either.

 

[T-Bone]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

The cut clearly is different...I can tell just by looking, and I think most can. 

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

Brother, you have clearly made up your mind, which is fine, but now your questions are disingenuous. A dress make s a woman look feminine some are modest some are not...the same with slacks.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

The cut clearly is different...I can tell just by looking, and I think most can. 

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

Brother, you have clearly made up your mind, which is fine, but now your questions are disingenuous. A dress make s a woman look feminine some are modest some are not...the same with slacks.

I was being frank. You are right, I have made up my mind, but at no time was I trying to be trite or malicious. Tone is hard to read by text or forum.

You are quite right, the fact that it is a skirt/dress does not make it modest, only feminine. Length/tightness would define the modest part. By the same token, young men now wear pants that are masculine enough, but not modest either. The painted on skinny jean is the style, at least it is hear.

See, in my experience, I have had several ladies in a church where I was only a member make the statement that they did not believe that a lady had to wear a skirt to remain feminine, that they could wear pants/slacks that were both feminine and modest. I never saw one do so. They would say that, and then clearly wear clothing that was not modest. Very, very form fitting. They negated their proposal by their action.

I believe that both sexes should be modest, that the standard or guideline of modesty does not only apply to the ladies. I point this out only because 90% of the talk of clothing is aimed towards the ladies. I also think both sexes should be gender specific. Both OT and NT make reference to it in different areas.

T-Bone, we have gotten short with each other here a couple times, but our last couple exchanges have been very respectful. I appreciate that and was not trying to be trite with you. Just wanted you to know that. I very much realize many here will not agree with me on many issues.

 

[T-Bone]

Everything else aside, I'm still amazed that anybody would think a woman wearing ladies slacks is cross-dressing!

If this hijacks the thread, we should start another one, but my question is can a lady crossdress, and if so how? I think we would both agree a man can, as a matter of fact it is becoming a much more common occurence in society, so if a man can, can a lady and if so how?

Yes I agree it is very strange time we live in, to see men cross-dressing is become to common. As for the ladies I do believe they could cross-dress, if she is dressing to look like a man. There are pants and outfits where a lady could wear to intentionally look like a man, and then there are slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady. I have no problem telling the difference.  In the same way I can tell that a man in a kilt, or Jesus in a robe are not cross dressing.

What makes them slacks that are clearly for the feminine lady? (I am not being facetious, I am curious as to what you consider feminine pants or slacks) Are you referring to cut or colour?

The cut clearly is different...I can tell just by looking, and I think most can. 

If the cut is different, are they still modest? It is a reasonable question, by cut most mean "tight" on a gal, loose on a man. I would say if it is cut to show femininity, it is no longer modest. Btw, modest applies to both genders.

Brother, you have clearly made up your mind, which is fine, but now your questions are disingenuous. A dress make s a woman look feminine some are modest some are not...the same with slacks.

I was being frank. You are right, I have made up my mind, but at no time was I trying to be trite or malicious. Tone is hard to read by text or forum.

You are quite right, the fact that it is a skirt/dress does not make it modest, only feminine. Length/tightness would define the modest part. By the same token, young men now wear pants that are masculine enough, but not modest either. The painted on skinny jean is the style, at least it is hear.

See, in my experience, I have had several ladies in a church where I was only a member make the statement that they did not believe that a lady had to wear a skirt to remain feminine, that they could wear pants/slacks that were both feminine and modest. I never saw one do so. They would say that, and then clearly wear clothing that was not modest. Very, very form fitting. They negated their proposal by their action.

I believe that both sexes should be modest, that the standard or guideline of modesty does not only apply to the ladies. I point this out only because 90% of the talk of clothing is aimed towards the ladies. I also think both sexes should be gender specific. Both OT and NT make reference to it in different areas.

T-Bone, we have gotten short with each other here a couple times, but our last couple exchanges have been very respectful. I appreciate that and was not trying to be trite with you. Just wanted you to know that. I very much realize many here will not agree with me on many issues.

We have done better lately, even in disagreement...here is another area where that is true.  I am sure there will be more in the future & while that is true there is no doubt in my mind we both love The Lord and want to serve Him in a biblical way, though we don't agree on what that looks like.

 

[bruinboy]

It's real easy boys, if there is a zipper in the front, it is for boys, no zipper in front equals girls.  Hard to imagine anyone cares about this any more.
BTW, sounds like Capaci, blows with the wind, according to his friends. A man-pleaser, don't need any more of those. If you really believe something is right, do it.  Who cares what man thinks?   

 

[subllibrm]

He still owes me money. 
































8)






















;D

 

[kaba]

It's real easy boys, if there is a zipper in the front, it is for boys, no zipper in front equals girls.  Hard to imagine anyone cares about this any more.
BTW, sounds like Capaci, blows with the wind, according to his friends. A man-pleaser, don't need any more of those. If you really believe something is right, do it.  Who cares what man thinks? 

There are many skirts that have zippers in front, sooooooooooooooooo those are to be worn by boys?

 

[subllibrm]

It's real easy boys, if there is a zipper in the front, it is for boys, no zipper in front equals girls.  Hard to imagine anyone cares about this any more.
BTW, sounds like Capaci, blows with the wind, according to his friends. A man-pleaser, don't need any more of those. If you really believe something is right, do it.  Who cares what man thinks? 

There are many skirts that have zippers in front, sooooooooooooooooo those are to be worn by boys?

Here is the fix to the whole problem: if she ain't your wife, leave her zipper alone and your's up. No more pants trouble. No more skirt trouble. 

 

[Walt]

Change, change, change.  He has gone from a traditional IFB church and college to a more contemporary position - praise and worship songs and team, small groups instead of some traditional services, change in dress standards (pants on women are ok), a dropping of many rules at the college, positive preaching, etc.  If you attended a service at Gospel Light 5 years ago and you attend one today, you would not know you were in the same church.

If he is the one I am thinking of, he was in Bob Gray, Sr (TX) church - that would explain the shallow soul-winning.

 

[bruinboy]

It's real easy boys, if there is a zipper in the front, it is for boys, no zipper in front equals girls.  Hard to imagine anyone cares about this any more.
BTW, sounds like Capaci, blows with the wind, according to his friends. A man-pleaser, don't need any more of those. If you really believe something is right, do it.  Who cares what man thinks? 

There are many skirts that have zippers in front, sooooooooooooooooo those are to be worn by boys?

You have a lot more problems, if you can't tell a skirt from pants.  Sheeesh

 

[baptistgirl63]

There were several staff members who resigned because of doctrinal issues. Several who were not going to be told what to preach in chapel, nor what to teach in the class room.... Tony Smith,  Mickey Hollars, Dave Maddox,  Buddy Blunkall. Were these men perfect? NO! But they would not compromise. These men and many others left their own churches to move to Hot Springs because Gods hand was on GLBC and CBC. They believed in Eric Capaci's vision for Champion Baptist College. They were willing to work and serve and often did so without receiving a paycheck.  I know this to be a fact... 
The services were spirit filled, choir led by Lee Green, pastors prayer team, college choir on Sunday mornings. .. Champion was filled with a holiness only brought when young men and women are wholly sold out and focused upon service to God.
I haven't been back in 4 years, but see and hear of the many changes... 
my question is this....why pretend to be.... Champion is no longer an IBF college. Why portray to IBF pastors that nothing has changed in order to get their youth, why not simply and openly state what you are and what you believe. Put it on your website, if God has led in these changes, stand strong in them and let God bless with students who follow this path of thinking ....
I agree finances played a major role in the changes, I agree Bro. Eric is a pragmatist.... he always wanted to be liked!
Just be who you are...  liberal, conservative,  etc.... if it's what God wants there's no need to be an old fashioned fence straddler.....

 

[AmazedbyGrace]

"Champion was filled with a holiness only brought when young men and women are wholly sold out and focused upon service to God. "

I find this statement disturbing.

Any Scriptural support for such a belief?