Adding To and Taking Away from Scripture Part I

[victorjohanson]

"Yeah, but how much dairy and eggs does a family of four need, either?"

There isn't a minimum size for a flock, as far as I know. A family of four could certainly keep "flocks" to provide for these non meat needs. But like I said, I don't disagree with your point; I just don't think this is viable proof.

Vic Johanson

[victorjohanson]

"I defend NTCC's application of this principle."

I have no problem whatsoever with the principle that men and women are different. But it would be ridiculous to tell a woman wearing pink slacks that she is trying to be masculine, or to tell a Scottish highlander clan chief wearing a tartan kilt that he is effeminate. There are plenty of other ways to distinguish our genders without falling into this trap.

Vic Johanson

[bro_derrick]

<font color="0000ff">&#34;With these things in view, we can easily see that just as the Old Covenant community was structured by written revelation which centered in Moses, so the New Covenant community is ordered by the &#34;law of Christ&#34; as given in the writing of the Apostles and prophets &#40;Eph.2:20&#41;.&#34;</font>

Perfect, couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.

Jesus did not break the Law of the Old Covenant as a transgressor. &#40;Neither do I agree he was breaking the Law of the Sabbath, because of rubbing corn...yet...&#41;

What I say is, if Jesus was not keeping certain matters of the Law of the Old Covenant, it was because He, the Lord, the Law-giver, was <u>changing</u> it, as befitting the Gospel of the kingdom being preached to the Jews as their Messaiah, and the Law has continued to <u>change</u> by the Scriptures after Jesus&#39; crucifixion with the bringing in of the New Covenant, <u>and</u> the changed Law of God for it!

I&#39;m more than willing to listen and learn, if the Bible backs it up: so, I have not been perfectly satisfied on my efforts to deny Jesus&#39; &#39;breaking&#39; of the Law of Moses. I now can say that He was changing points of it for the New Covenant, so that He was neither a transgressor, nor a verifier that the Law cannot be kept, and so Law has no place in God&#39;s kingdom and Covenants with man!

Jesus never sinned, which transgressing the Law is, and He was not showing that no Law of God can be kept, so there is no Law for us, but only grace. Rather, He was changing it: as His right to do, being Lord of the sabbath, for the Law of a better covenant, not a better Law, because God&#39;s Law has always been holy, right, non-contradictive, etc... and still is, only being changed from before by the right of God, and by confirmation of Scripture!

Well? I believe the Word of God always makes perfect sense, when it is understood rightly, and that often times it is the common ground between to opposing interpretations, and this is not &#39;compromising&#39;, nor &#39;moderating&#39;, for the sake of agreement...

[polaris]

As far as women wearing pants being a western phenomenon: didn&#39;t Chinese women and the women of India &#40;from past centuries&#41; wear slacks/pants as part of their dress?

[measinner]

<font color="119911">I have no problem whatsoever with the principle that men and women are different. But it would be ridiculous to tell a woman wearing pink slacks that she is trying to be masculine, or to tell a Scottish highlander clan chief wearing a tartan kilt that he is effeminate. There are plenty of other ways to distinguish our genders without falling into this trap.</font>

Try telling a highlander his kilt is effeminate, and he&#39;ll likely reach down to his left sock, pull out a Sgian Dubh and insert it into your belly for the trouble, no doubt with some sort of remark like, &#34;How&#39;s that for effeminate.&#34;

[leftin1991]

Well kilts are rather distinctive garb which may be discerned as pertaining to men. If all women&#39;s slacks were of peculiarly feminine design &#40;style, color, fabric, print, or whatever&#41;, that would be one thing. But you must acknowledge that the most common form of pants-wearing we see today is women and girls in blue jeans that can scarcely be discerned from any jeans that men and boys wear.

[victorjohanson]

Somehow I&#39;ve never had a problem telling a woman from a man, unless she went to lengths greater than pulling on a pair of Levis to conceal her sexuality. The holiness camp is notorious for discerning &#34;heart problems&#34; and bad motives for almost every action, when in reality most women who wear jeans do so because they are functional, durable, and versatile. To say the bible forbids it is to fulfill the first part of this thread&#39;s title.

Vic Johanson

[leftin1991]

Making an honest and direct application of this verse to specific garments is not adding to Scripture. If a woman wears jeans, she is more likely to do other things that either flaunt her sexuality and/or make herself appear or act more masculine. Women truly wanting to appear feminine and godly can and do manage to find better things to wear! In my opinion, there is just nothing feminine about blue jeans. It is the #1 article of unisex clothing.

http://www.momof9splace.com/modesty.html

[silentlamb]

Truthfully is there any guy here that has ever tried to fit into a pair of WOMANS blue jeans
they are called WOMANS jeans for a reason.
Modesty is a whole other subject.
It seems to me that there are very clear differences between women and mens clothing &#40;jeans&#41;, besides there really are greater concerns. I know, I know &#34;Your outside appearence is direct reflection of your inside heart&#34; &#40;smells kinda funny, don&#39;t it&#41; holiness dress pride is STILL PRIDE. Modesty does not create snobs and being a &#34;PECULIAR people&#34; I am sure does not have anything to do with wearing a thrift store dress that is 3 sizes too small.

[victorjohanson]

&#34;If a woman wears jeans, she is more likely to do other things that either flaunt her sexuality and/or make herself appear or act more masculine.&#34;

Some women, perhaps, but your presumption here is breathtaking. This is the kind of one dimensional keejerk reaction which alienates those women who don&#39;t fit your stereotype. You may go around deciding which women appear feminine and godly based on one factor such as this, but that doesn&#39;t make your assessment accurate. Perhaps you should rephrase that to &#34;women truly wanting to appear feminine and godly to leftin1991...&#34; I invite you to join me in being less prone to judging based on externals. One reason people don&#39;t want to put up with church these days is because of these kinds of attitudes, which are exactly what I was talking about when I remarked &#34;The holiness camp is notorious for discerning &#39;heart problems,&#39; and bad motives for almost every action...&#34; How is it that you are qualified to issue such a sweeping indictment? And which verse are you talking about? Deut. 22:5? In that case you are talking about another regression to the law of Moses, to be rejected on that basis.

Vic Johanson

[leftin1991]

Vic, My opinion is based not on presumption but simply on my own personal observation. Perhaps you would find the converse more palatable: As a general rule, women who wear dresses/skirts are less likely to flaunt their sexuality and/or do other things to make themselves appear or act more masculine. Gender distinction in dress is especially important as a teaching tool for children. That is to me the best &#34;practical benefit of the law&#34; from observing Deut. 22:5. A child might have some difficulty explaining any difference between men&#39;s and &#34;women&#39;s jeans.&#34;

Although my subsequent experience among the Apostolics and Anabaptists was not always conducive to this, I have earnestly endeavored to escape the &#34;borg&#34; &#40;NTCC&#41; mindset of judging based on externals. I do not reject a woman&#39;s spirituality based on the pants issue.

[victorjohanson]

It&#39;s OK just so long as you specify it&#39;s your opinion and not some immutable law of God. I believe in the right to form opinions; it&#39;s kind of nice to have that liberty after all the mind control, don&#39;t you think?

Vic Johanson

[bro_derrick]

<font color="0000ff">&#34;It&#39;s OK just so long as you specify it&#39;s your opinion and not some immutable law of God. I believe in the right to form opinions; it&#39;s kind of nice to have that liberty after all the mind control, don&#39;t you think?&#34;</font>

Perfect. That is the whole issue here: not so much personal standards, but rather making them a rule for all <u>without</u> direct Biblic verse and context that proves it for all!

The wearing of pants or not is a private interpretation, or application, of the clear admonition for modesty. But, to make it a rule of Law for others, is now adding to the Scripture on modesty, and preaching your private application as Scripture! &#40;2 Peter 1:20&#41;

The only Scriptural detail to modest apparel: &#40;Whether pants, dresses, kilns, robes, hats, shoes, etc...&#41; are:
1&#41; Do not overemphasize it&#39;s importance in who you are. Overdoing it &#40;1 Peter 3:3&#41;
2&#41; Do not have respect to others by it&#39;s cost. &#40;James 2:2&#41;
These, therefore, are the only areas that one may preach, or minister, or admonish to others! To go any further without legitimate Scriptural reference is to become a wanna-be judge of another&#39;s liberty and dominator over their personal faith! &#40;James 4:11&#41;&#40;2 Cor 1:34&#41; It is proselytizing: making personal followers of others...

The admonition about apparel pertaining to one sex or another cannot be proven to be started by God &#40;And in heaven it is not so&#41;, therefore it is rather dealing with social conscience, or modest conformity, rather than making difference between sexes, or modesty in it&#39;s fit.

And, that was in the Law of the Old Covenant, but has not been included in the Law of Christ. So, it has taken the position of all scripture&#39;s profit to guide individual faith, but no longer carries the weight of Law. &#40;Matthew 23:23&#41; God can and does change His Law in different ages, as He sees fit! &#40;Heb 7:12&#41;

The necessity is to know the difference between the weight of Law in Scripture and the profit of all Scripture to instruct.

<font color="0000ff">&#34;We must preach the Law in Scripture as it applies to all &#40;neither adding to nor taking away&#41;, and we may preach the instruction of all Scripture as it may profit individually!&#34;</font>

Ex: We can tell all: &#34;You must dress modestly! Don&#39;t get all caught up in it, and don&#39;t have respect to people just because of the cost of their clothing!&#34;

We can offer Scriptural advice to any: &#34;Fitting in with any societal norms of different clothing for different sexes is a good idea, as you see fit...&#34;

We can have a personal rule of certain types of clothing for ourselves, so long as we wear it modestly.

But, none can say Biblicly, or with God&#39;s authority and consent: &#34;Women ought not to wear pants!&#34; That is the false ministering of false teachers and apostles who want to lord it over others&#39; lives by preaching their private standards as God&#39;s Law for all! Oh boy! We have a new Head in town! Not Jesus, but Jesus&#39; personally assigned ruler over us all!

[measinner]

<font color="119911">Making an honest and direct application of this verse to specific garments is not adding to Scripture.</font>

Says you! The Pharisees made an application of Scripture regarding what was promised to God, and Jesus said that by so doing they were &#34;Neglecting the commandment of God,&#34; adhering to &#34;the tradition of men,&#34; &#34;setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition,&#34; and &#34;invalidating the word of God by [their] tradition which [they had] handed down&#34; to their disciples! Of course, Pharisees application was a deliberate perversion of the Scriptures, while yours is an honest maintenance of the intent of the Scriptures; right?

<font color="119911">If a woman wears jeans, she is more likely to do other things that either flaunt her sexuality and/or make herself appear or act more masculine.</font>

I don&#39;t know about that. In watching CNN news, I&#39;ve seen a lot more glimpses of immodesty in runway models wearing dresses and skirts than I have in models wearing jeans and slacks. Moreover, I&#39;ve seen nearly as much genital bas relief on men wearing jeans as I have on women wearing jeans and, frankly find it more revolting on men. I&#39;ve also seen women wearing very modest dresses and skirts exposed from the belly down because of a good gust of wind that they were not prepared for.

<font color="119911">Women truly wanting to appear feminine and godly can and do manage to find better things to wear!</font>

I suppose that&#39;s true. . . with some women truly wanting to appear feminine and godly. However, I&#39;ve known many truly feminine and godly women who typically wore jeans and slacks. But, if femininity and godliness are to be judged by the wearing of jeans vs. dresses and skirts, then I suppose their femininity and godliness must have just been a delightful illusion.

<font color="119911">In my opinion, there is just nothing feminine about blue jeans.</font>

That may just be the way your attitude has been cultivated by your church and religious reading experiences. Depending on the brand, I find many women&#39;s jeans to be quite feminine.

<font color="119911">[Jeans are] the #1 article of unisex clothing.</font>

And what official source has made this proclamation? Anyway, I thought the skort was the #1 article of unisex clothing, followed by cut-off t-shirts.

[measinner]

Victor &amp; Derrick, right on!

[leftin1991]

The articles you mentioned are not as widely worn, nor are they commonly worn year-round. But as I already said, I do not reject a woman&#39;s spirituality based on the pants issue. Why is it that if a man dons a dress or skirt, he&#39;s rightly called a transvestite or a cross-dresser, but a woman can wear slacks, button-down collared shirt, even a necktie, &amp; have a man&#39;s haircut and most people won&#39;t even bat an eyelid. Double standard here, big time.

[measinner]

I think it depends on the skirt and the man. I&#39;ve seen men, or boys, wearing skirts who I would not call transvestites; weird, maybe, but they clearly were not trying to look like women, nor was there any mistake about their sex.

In recent years, work kilts &#40;made from canvas, rather than tartan&#41; have begun to find acceptance among many men; yet I have no doubt that some simpleton law-preacher would say that was transvestism. In any event, I don&#39;t see where the New Testament says anything about what kinds of garments may or may not be worn by either men or women. All the New Testament seems to care about is that clothing be modest &#40;and the modesty issue really had more to do with cost than coverage&#41;; beyond that, a person need only be concerned about how he dresses might cause another to stumble &#40;which, given our Western culture, would require a certain degree of modesty in terms of coverage&#41;.

[victorjohanson]

&#34;...and the modesty issue really had more to do with cost than coverage...&#34;

As far as I can see, this is the only kind of modesty the New Testament discusses. I&#39;m not necessarily advocating nudity, but where does it clearly say that modesty is equated with revealing apparel? I see admonitions against costly array, gold, and pearls, but who transmogrified these verses into a prohibition of shorts? &#34;Mixed bathing&#34; and other &#34;holiness&#34; aversions appear to be just more Pharisaical condemnations of the believer&#39;s legitimate liberties. Doesn&#39;t it ever occur to these erstwhile moral legislators that people might actually go to the beach to SWIM AND ENJOY THEMSELVES, rather than filling their minds and hearts with lust? That concept may be beyond those whose motives are less pure, but it happens all the time. The jaundiced eyes of these sourpuss faultfinders view any innocent recreation as abject depravity. A week or two of real relaxation at the beach might calme them down, but unfortunately the ones who need some things the most are the least likely to get them.

Vic Johanson

[bro_derrick]

Shamefacedness and sobriety is the character of the modestly dressed.

There is also lasciviousness...

Not too richly adorned is not exactly it, either. It&#39;s not wrong to have the finest, but there is an immodest display of it, and a respect of person&#39;s issue....

These things were not emphasized where we came from, because then you could even go to the CAR &amp; HOME department!

When you say that a preacher can&#39;t be respected if his car is a &#39;junker&#39;, or 3rd hand, you are also saying that the message is secondary to the messenger! And, you are conversely implying that Cadillacs are the sign to respect the teacher, the great &#39;leader&#39;! But Paul said he knew how to be abased and to abound.

I was thinking about a Biblic principle concerning ministerial wealth, and I believe the Bible teaches the minister to lead the way spiritually, while the people lead the way materially. I&#39;ve had the opinion that a preacher ought to be in the middle class ball park of the congregation, if not also of the surrounding community.

What are we in it for anyway? That is why I believe God does not call believers into His ministry, until after they have succeeded in the advancement of their own household, then He calls them out of that to minister the same to others! i.e: already having ruled your own house well, and not trying to build your house and career by the ministry! A novice is a young adult who has not yet made it in the world: exactly the kind of folks being recruited to go out and make it happen, so they can continue to reap of the production of others! This would be for keeping the proper perspective on the purpose of the ministry: to minister to others and seek their wealth, while living of the Gospel you preach. &#40;So the preacher&#39;s living standard would naturally increase as the congregational whole increases...&#41;

[measinner]

I knew a preacher, years ago, who drove a junker. He was a godly man, generous, and kind, and gentlemanly. He could no doubt preach the pants off of most pastors, today. He supplemented his income by picking up cars at auctions, fixing them up, and selling them &#40;the church was small, and he felt that some of the money should go to missionaries&#41;. His own car was a sight to behold. One day he came to visit me, where I worked, and he had just had his seventh flat tire that day! But I dare say he had a greater impact in my life than he would have had had he been driving a Cadillac.