Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage
As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the court‚Äôs ruling that redefines marriage. The state did not create the family, and should not try to recreate the family in its own image. We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot. The outcome of the Supreme Court‚Äôs ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage‚Äôs decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court‚Äôs actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good....
Brother Elmer, you need 5k, a generally clean criminal history, no serious transmittable diseases, and about 5 months of your time in person, after which you and your whole family can have lifetime permanent residency, and you can even be out of the country for up to 3 years at a time if needed. I got my residency last year and am now in the process of moving everything there and living. Come to the villarrica mountains area, cheap land, grow all year around, no abortion, no forced fecalism, no antichrist laws, pack and carry your own guns, plentiful water sources, nice locals who are not genocidal.
Brother Saint Elmer I wrote: Hey Brother Saint Dylan, how does a freeborn man and woman and their freeborn children who are citizens of the kingdom of heaven get into these particular lands without harassment?
B. McCausland wrote: The matter has to do with mortifying.... My morning devotional reading was, "My son, give me thine heart". If the heart is submitted to God, the life will be according to His Word. If He rule in us,we shall walk as the Lord Jesus walked. If our walk is not holy,our religion is but a form. Taken from Daily Remembrancer. I have been in many 'rule keeping' assemblies who taught all about grace but were not acquainted with it in their hearts. They looked to what they were doing or not doing as their assurance of being in Christ. Instead of looking to Christ.
Here they stand, along with the antifreedom self-professed moderator, before their god the State.
God is already judging this wicked land for "legalizing" heterosexual marriage and issuing birth certificates and ss#'s and for the Roman U.S. military cult murdering believers and unbelievers around the world.
Dorcas wrote: long (tight) denim skirts which accented their body shape, or immodest low-cut tops with their skirts, or long slits up the back or sides of said skirts. So you can make folks comply with your interpretation of the law..but it is a heart submitted to the Lord that is well pleasing to Him.
True. The matter has to do with mortifying the vile desires of our sinful nature that crave after fornicating passions and deceitful lusts.
‚ÄúPut off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and ‚Ä¶ put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.‚ÄĚ Eph. 4:22-24
Pastors and Christian leaders are reluctant to teach thouroughly such matters. They have fallen into the trap of the misrepresented/dreaded ‚Äėlegalism‚Äô, which to many is a derogative connotation to be known by.
Families, individuals and churches should uphold collective and personal standards, which provide guidance to contain mal-practice, instead of leaving things to be imagined, guessed or overlooked. If not, the door is open wide, by which young and old, trudge into fast pools of unchecked carnal modus vivendo not pertaining to saints
According to Thayer‚Äôs Lexicon, the Greek word translated ‚Äúapparel‚ÄĚ in I Timothy 2:9 (katastol?) means ‚Äúa garment let down, dress, attire‚ÄĚ.¬† The Greek word for apparel in this text is Katastole, meaning a long dress. Kata meaning down - a garment flowing down.
Adding my two mites on this subject. I have been been to assemblies where De.22:5 was preached often and all of the ladies wore skirts/dresses. My observation was that some of them wore long (tight) denim skirts which accented their body shape...or immodest low-cut tops with their skirts...or long slits up the back or sides of said skirts. So you can make folks comply with your interpretation of the law..but it is a heart submitted to the Lord that is well pleasing to Him. The command in the NT is modest apparel.
Passerby wrote: B. McCausland, ... Are you saying that it is unbiblical for women to wear pants? Please provide clarification.
Passerby, yesterday B. McCausland suggested listening to Scott T. Brown http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=12714953547. I listened and found it a very balanced discussion on modesty for fathers and daughters from the Scripture. He gave a number of texts and addressed Reserve, Adornment, Androgyny, Nakedness,Allurement and the Purpose of the body from the Scripture.
This has been a topic of consideration in my household since the 90's. My sons were use to seeing me change my mind on things if I could be persuaded by the word and Spirit. But it is interesting what the Lord can use to drive home a point to any one of our children. I'll never forget being at a farmer's market in PA with my youngest son, when he first encountered a young woman, his own age dressed modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety. It was a picture worth all the words and example I tried to put forth. It led to a very encouraging converstation.
My mind flooded with thoughts as this topic was again addressed by Mr. Brown. It was a history of what I'd been taught over the years and a reminder of the practical cost of discipleshi
MS wrote: Pastor Brian Schwertley on SA. "Women and Pants" 11/28/10.
Sister, I agree with you regarding women wearing pants. The issue is modesty and not legalism. I hope 1517 doesn't read this comment, but I think the following is appropriate. I remember visiting a Christian family in Hungary during the communist days. The first time I met them the ladies were wearing slacks. They then said when American missionaries (those who supported them) visited them, they changed to dresses, but when they left they would put their slacks back on. I was not one of their supporters. IOW, there are some things that tend to be cultural and as long as a woman and her husband think she is dressing modestly, then they are probably okay. I have never met a Christian that desires for someone to lust after his wife.
In Germany, after bible studies, etc., the men would head to the nearest bar and have beer and a time of fellowship.
And of course I could go on and on. I tend to look at these things I have noted when I am trying to decide whether I am being cultural or scriptural.
Please, refer to my previous posts and comments on the topic.
Godly, Bible based, principles should colour all Christian practice. In the light of the current pernicious unisex philosophy, certain practices as the one in question deters the disciple from Scriptural value.
God-honouring practices do not always rest on chapter and verse only, but on the whole compendium of God's revelation. Not that the topic in question has no chapter and verse to rest on, as one may anticipate, which it has. Yet, the whole context of Scripture advises in favour of staying away from customs, which exalt man-made ideas, illusions, and bondage. If the disciple has to have any bond over him is Christ's and Christ's only, not the world's. For this reason, it is advisable to cling near to what is right, say what God has designed, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to the world, our flesh, or to the devil.
Ps. 73:28 "It is good for me to draw near to God"
Sadly the idea today in Christian circles is to find out how close one can walk to the world, and still claim to please God.
The opposite is true. Let us see how close our practice gets to what He intends. This is to choose to 'draw near God'. When we love Him we keep His commandments.
B. McCausland wrote: Yes, they might in some details, yet the philosophy behind ladies' pans remains unisex. This philosophy does not proceed from Scripture but from the world. It is unbiblical per definition, as does not rest on the differenciation of roles for the genders according to God's original design. God looks into the heart, yet what is in the heart comes out by what we do or say. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, and by the fruit the tree is known. It is remarkable that "a man dressed in a Hillary Clinton pants suit would be a cross dresser" and a woman dressed with the garment largely associated in Western context with males should not cross dress.
B. Mc Causland, grace and peace to you who always motivates me to search the scripture.
Are you saying that it is unbiblical for women to wear pants? Please provide clarification.
Interesting thread. When it comes to appropriate dress, or even the evolution of what's considered to be acceptable, I can't help but consider what we see today...less and less. What concerns me more than anything is what the kids, especially girls are wearing, or not wearing, and what they are being allowed to wear. I see even young girls walking with their parent(s) who are either wearing very little, or things way too tight in certain areas that almost make you gasp, as you wonder how it is that the parents would allow them to go anywhere like that. I wasn't around when modesty was all the rage, but looking at old ads and watching older movies, etc, etc, I prefer the times when women were expected to, and preferred to cover themselves as opposed to how it is now where it's fashionable to wear as little as possible.
Freedom in Christ wrote: Let us seek to help one another all we can, but let us leave it to Christ to judge us. He only has the capacity as He only as the right to do do. Perform what you are assured to be your duty and leave others to do likewise: thereby the rights of the individual are preserved and the peace and unity of the body promoted. The dictates of conscience are not to be trifled with, and the right of private judgment is ever to be exercised by me and respected in others.
Some of the points postulated here, have been listed in this thread before.
Rights, conscience, respect, or private judgment balance against self-denial, obedience and openness.
Principle, rather that rigid letter abiding attitute, should guide and colour Christian practice. Godliness is a fragance which can be perceived rather than touched or demonstrated. Scriptural matters are the same in some measure, because they are not discerned with the natural mind.
The biblical advice is to examine all things and retain what is good.
May our lives and thoughts be guarded by Christ's love.
B. McCausland wrote: Yes, they might in some details, yet the philosophy behind ladies' pans remains unisex. ...
Brother I really appreciate you emphasis on living according to Scriptures and honoring God in all we do. Every piece of clothing you have is from the world's fashion philosphy. I am not against your conviction that woman should not wear pants. I don't see that you have enough Scriptural mandate or even historical backing to bind the conscience of all believers to your point of view. If it were all unisex then they would be no difference between men and women pants. You also run into what about t-shirts. You can buy the same t-shirt for both sexes from your vacation resort. in fact, it is once you buy a "ladies" t-shirt that you start to run into modesty issues. Other items could be named, not trying to get an argument going. God bless you brother, even if we don't see eye to eye here, may God show His truth to us all.
Let us seek to help one another all we can, but let us leave it to Christ to judge us. He only has the capacity as He only as the right to do do. Perform what you are assured to be your duty and leave others to do likewise: thereby the rights of the individual are preserved and the peace and unity of the body promoted. The dictates of conscience are not to be trifled with, and the right of private judgment is ever to be exercised by me and respected in others. Good Evening.