Question for someone who is still IFB please...

[Ransom]

(Ask your husband. I Corinthians 14:35 (a) - And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.)

I Corinthians 14:34-35 - Let your women keep silence in the churches:

[Moderator hat ON]

The FFF isn't a church, and anyone is free to ask any question they wish. Let the moderators do the moderating. Thank you in advance.

 

[T-Bone]

(Ask your husband. I Corinthians 14:35 (a) - And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home.)

I Corinthians 14:34-35 - Let your women keep silence in the churches:

[Moderator hat ON]

The FFF isn't a church, and anyone is free to ask any question they wish. Let the moderators do the moderating. Thank you in advance.

Yeahhhhh!  ??

 

[TidesofTruth]

Some other things to consider:

Hermeneutical study in taking scripture as a whole and coming to a conclusion of what God desires.  If one were to study "pants" on women and study the whole council of God it is logical for someone to come to a reasonable conclusion for a woman not to wear pants.  It is up to the Holy Spirit of God put application in one's heart in the matter of dress.  A true study with an open heart would take these things under consideration:

The descriptions of who is offended by the transgression
Abominations to God as opposed to abomination to oneself.  An Abomination to God never changes.  Once an Abomination to God, always an Abomination to God.  But that is not the same as a general Abomination nor an Abomination to oneself so careful study of the different laws is needed.  Eating shellfish is not the same as homosexuality.

The understanding of the laws purpose:
Not mixing of genders, the clear distinction of the genders. 
The scripture in question deals with the girdle worn by men.  Men would wear this girdle around their waist but when they went to work or war they would take the girdle and wrap it around their loins, through the legs and "gird" themselves In preparation to be physical.  Women were not to ever do that.  1.  Because they had nothing to gird.  2.  They would show their form. 

(disclaimer: the following statement cannot be strictly proven from scripture but there could be a reasonable case made)
There is an interesting study that teaches that man and woman in the garden were clothed in glory (as God, Who we are made in the image of, is) that they lost when they sinned.  That is why they then were naked after they sinned.  From that point on they realized the shame lay not in their nakedness per say but in their lost glory.  That shame was covered with physical clothing provided by God to cover their nakedness so their form would no longer be visible.  When we are naked we are reminded that we lost our glory that covered our nakedness.  We may understand if this is a true teaching when we get to heaven but it does make sense of the importance of clothing and how we wear it and why we should be ashamed of our nakedness.
/disclaimer

If you study then in light of the pure OT teaching of dress and Paul's admonition of modesty then one must decide for themselves what God would have them do in the matter of dress.  All things are lawful because our continued shortcomings were paid for.  But one must also be true to their Savior in desiring within themselves a deeper sanctification of the heart and in that what clothing would glorify their Savior.  Withholding judgment  against a fellow believer when they have not been called to the same sanctification is insanely difficult in IFB because it has been so ingrained to be moral law to the point of Judaizing, that this to needs the cauterizing scalpel of the Holy Ghost of God to cut it out of the heart.  We must pray that the Holy Spirit removes the spirit of Judaizing judgment from our hearts and replaces it with grace filled discernment.

 

[FSSL]

If one were to study "pants" on women and study the whole council of God it is logical for someone to come to a reasonable conclusion for a woman not to wear pants.

It would also tell us that men did not wear pants either.

 

[TidesofTruth]

If one were to study "pants" on women and study the whole council of God it is logical for someone to come to a reasonable conclusion for a woman not to wear pants.

It would also tell us that men did not wear pants either.

I think I stated that.

 

[FSSL]

Then, somehow, I missed it Having reread... I am still missing it.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Then, somehow, I missed it Having reread... I am still missing it.

"The scripture in question deals with the girdle worn by men.  Men would wear this girdle around their waist but when they went to work or war they would take the girdle and wrap it around their loins, through the legs and "gird" themselves In preparation to be physical."

 

[rsc2a]

Some other things to consider:

Hermeneutical study in taking scripture as a whole and coming to a conclusion of what God desires...

I am impressed. This sentence followed by an epic amount of terrible eisegesis.

 

[FSSL]

Then, somehow, I missed it Having reread... I am still missing it.

"The scripture in question deals with the girdle worn by men.  Men would wear this girdle around their waist but when they went to work or war they would take the girdle and wrap it around their loins, through the legs and "gird" themselves In preparation to be physical."

I saw that. A belt around the tunic was still not pants. How do you come to an opposite conclusion that men can wear pants and women cannot when they both had the same tunic.

 

[TidesofTruth]

Some other things to consider:

Hermeneutical study in taking scripture as a whole and coming to a conclusion of what God desires...

I am impressed. This sentence followed by an epic amount of terrible eisegesis.

Because I was being Lazy.

 

[FundamentalDan]

If one were to study "pants" on women and study the whole council of God it is logical for someone to come to a reasonable conclusion for a woman not to wear pants.

It would also tell us that men did not wear pants either.

Exodus 28:42 KJV

And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

That word breeches is the same word we currently refer to as pants. But, the description of them sounds closer to what we would call underwear.  They were worn by the priests under their robes, and all priests were men. 

 

[rsc2a]

Gonna tell my wife the Bible says she shouldn't wear underwear!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

I would expect them to say that women and pants is a moral law, whereas mixed garments and shrimp are ceremonial laws.

 

[rsc2a]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

I would expect them to say that women and pants is a moral law, whereas mixed garments and shrimp are ceremonial laws.

"How can you tell the difference?"

"If I think people should follow it, it's moral law. If I think people can ignore it, it's ceremonial law."

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

I would expect them to say that women and pants is a moral law, whereas mixed garments and shrimp are ceremonial laws.

"How can you tell the difference?"

"If I think other people should follow it, it's moral law. If I think people I can ignore it, it's ceremonial law."

FIFY

 

[Vince Massi]

Swamp Hag, there was a time, decades ago, when a small number of rebellious women were about the only ones wearing pants. It became an IFB "thing" to preach against it, and they've never gotten away from it.

1) Everyone has a concept of reality.
2) If you are isolated from the vibrant, ever-changing world around you, your concept of reality MUST become inaccurate.
3) The more authority isolated leaders have, the more chaos will result.

 

[Bruh]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

Correction, what is called shrimp at Golden Corral, really isn't shrimp.  FYI!!

 

[prophet]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

Correction, what is called shrimp at Golden Corral, really isn't shrimp.  FYI!!

What is called "food" at G.C. isn't really ....

 

[subllibrm]

Gonna tell my wife the Bible says she shouldn't wear underwear!

Let us know how that goes for you! 

A video of her slapping you would be nice touch. 

 

[subllibrm]

SwampHag:  Why do pastors preach against women in pants but not mixed garments or shrimp?

Maybe I missed it, but did any IFBs actually answer Swamp's original question?  They seem to get all tangled up on the "wimmens and britches" argument, but they sure love their shrimp fest at the Golden Corral...

I would expect them to say that women and pants is a moral law, whereas mixed garments and shrimp are ceremonial laws.

Umm, cause the white sheet came down to Peter with some really big juicy prawns but no Lee jeans. Duh.