It seems to me, Christians should be under the authority of an eldership at their local congregation. Joining a church is how both the shepherds and the sheep know who are in the flock.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Even Dragons Shall Him Praise
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
I was raised in and currently still attending a church of Christ. Generally, we do not use instruments in services. I was raised to think that all use of instruments in worship is rebellion against God's preferred form of worship and therefore people using instruments were not followers of Christ. I still think there is a lot of evidence that instruments should not be used, but I no longer think Christians of good faith cannot come to different conclusions on the issue. This article is a traditional argument against using instruments.
housetohouse.com
Why Do Churches of Christ Not Use Instrumental Music?
Churches of Christ do not sing a cappella because we dislike other kinds of music. Most of us have as many songs on iPods as the next person. We do not lack financial means to purchase instruments or capable musicians to play them. We are not just trying to be different or stubbornly upholding a...
housetohouse.com
This is one of those areas where Christians can come do different conclusions because no essential doctrines are affected. I believe instruments are Ok in worship. Not mandatory but there’s no problem if they’re used. I base this off the book of Psalms where musical instruments and musicians were always referenced in the worship and praising of God. If someone comes to another conclusion based on their understanding of scripture it’s not a deal breaker to me. It’s not an essential of the Christian faith.I was raised in and currently still attending a church of Christ. Generally, we do not use instruments in services. I was raised to think that all use of instruments in worship is rebellion against God's preferred form of worship and therefore people using instruments were not followers of Christ. I still think there is a lot of evidence that instruments should not be used, but I no longer think Christians of good faith cannot come to different conclusions on the issue. This article is a traditional argument against using instruments.
Why Do Churches of Christ Not Use Instrumental Music?
Churches of Christ do not sing a cappella because we dislike other kinds of music. Most of us have as many songs on iPods as the next person. We do not lack financial means to purchase instruments or capable musicians to play them. We are not just trying to be different or stubbornly upholding a...
As baby Christians, yes.
The intention of Yah is that we all grow up and become elders, as opposed to remaining children.
The analogy of shepherd and sheep breaks down when looked at as time progresses, because Yah’s reality is that the sheep are to grow up and become shepherds of new sheep.
Ya, it's called not wearing men's clothing. It's only burdensome if you want it to be. To push to replace dresses with pants was not only against the Bible, it was part of the feminism equality movement that got us to the present clusterfuck with the death of marriage and trannyhell.
I'm no baptist, but the fact that Christians think dresses are onerous, not just onerous but hate on Christians who do wear them, is just another example of how badly we lost the culture war.
That cannot be stressed enough.
Any man is supposedly a control freak if he denies his wife his own wardrobe.
Same.
For example Psalm 150
1 Praise the Lord!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty firmament!
2 Praise Him for His mighty acts;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness!
3 Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet;
Praise Him with the lute and harp!
4 Praise Him with the timbrel and dance;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and flutes!
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with clashing cymbals!
6 Let everything that has breath praise the Lord.
Praise the Lord!
I was thinking of this exact Psalm. Notice the instruments being played in the praise of God.
Guess I'm gonna have to disagree. I don't see anything wrong with women wearing pants. They're women's pants. I like dresses on women as much as anyone, but I don't see a Biblical mandate for it. If someone else has a conviction on it, then great for them. The idea that women need to wear dresses is more societal, ie: 1950's women wore long dresses and pearls. Nothing wrong with that but I don't see a Bible mandate for that.
I agree with you and @rockfox
If it weren't for feminism, sure, women would still be in dresses and skirts. It's a part of the women joining the workforce during world war 2. Pants are just way more functional than a dress, and won't get caught up in machinery. Plus you can bend and do more movements in pants, than the alternative. Women being in the workforce is another topic to go over, but they go hand in hand ant that is the reality of it.
but are woman's pants man's clothing? that's where I agree with @NBTX11 I see them as woman's pants if they're made for women. And i know brothers in person who disagree, and it's all good.
Except that what determines men's clothes from women's clothes is cultural. Think of Scottish kilts, traditional Japanese clothing, or even the clothes of ancient Israel. They don't match the pants/dresses divide. When it says to not wear men's clothing, it isn't saying to wear dresses. That's why I look at these rules as being extra-biblical. There are numerous ways to not wear dresses and still not be wearing men's clothes. I'm pretty sure there are some female pants that a (normal) man wouldn't dream of wearing.
Compulsory following of a misapplied rule is not a good thing. It's not that dresses are onerous, and it's definitely not hate for Christians who wear them (where did you get that idea?), but a dislike for extra-biblical legalism.
I believe there are some in my family history who had trouble because the church insisted that having rubber on tires was a sin. I view this as roughly the same thing. Use steel tires if you want, but don't make that a rule.
That said, rubber tires are objectively better than steel, while pants are only objectively better than dresses in some ways, and worse in others (visually, for example
).
Exactly. To add on to yours, this scripture shows God with a skirt, not to say womanly. But in the Ancient middle east, many of us would of called what they wore a skirt, or a form of one. Nothing wrong with that, it's culture. We must agree that culture is different in different places, and that something in and of itself isn't necessarily the sin.Except that what determines men's clothes from women's clothes is cultural. Think of Scottish kilts, traditional Japanese clothing, or even the clothes of ancient Israel. They don't match the pants/dresses divide. When it says to not wear men's clothing, it isn't saying to wear dresses. That's why I look at these rules as being extra-biblical. There are numerous ways to not wear dresses and still not be wearing men's clothes. I'm pretty sure there are some female pants that a (normal) man wouldn't dream of wearing.
Compulsory following of a misapplied rule is not a good thing. It's not that dresses are onerous, and it's definitely not hate for Christians who wear them (where did you get that idea?), but a dislike for extra-biblical legalism.
I believe there are some in my family history who had trouble because the church insisted that having rubber on tires was a sin. I view this as roughly the same thing. Use steel tires if you want, but don't make that a rule.
That said, rubber tires are objectively better than steel, while pants are only objectively better than dresses in some ways, and worse in others (visually, for example
“Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.”
Ezekiel 16:8
5“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are[c]an abomination to the Lord your God.
An abomination is a pretty big deal.
Since men weren’t wearing jeans in those days, what was Yah referring to?
Unless it is only your opinions that matter, which seems to be the prevailing sentiment.
An abomination is a pretty big deal.
Since men weren’t wearing jeans in those days, what was Yah referring to?
Unless it is only your opinions that matter, which seems to be the prevailing sentiment.
Skirts shouldn't be part of a woman's wardrobe then, based off of the last verse I left, speaking of God spreading his skirt over a woman. What then classifies as women's clothing for you?
“Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.”
Ezekiel 16
Is it possible that this is referring not to style, but to what actually belongs to a man or woman? Don't share clothes, in other words.
But I admit that I don't understand this passage. An abomination is a pretty big deal, but unless we are to go back to the exact style of clothing of that time period we must admit that style changes. If style changes, then women's clothing is not immutably dresses.
Interestingly, "anything that pertains to" appears to include tools, vessels, and instruments, and not clothing. That's only on a brief, incomplete study just now, so may not be accurate.
To me, it’s obviously more about a principle than it is about any specific article of dress. If it were about specifics, they would have been described.
The principle is, whatever the culture, let the men and women dress gender specific.
Do you not see that our current gender dysphoria didn’t start in the last few years?
It started by blurring the lines between the genders in clothing, jobs, roles in the family, etc. Yes, Rosie the Riveter broke a lot of ground and we didn’t return to what was required by Yah when the “crisis” was over, and downhill ever since.
Sure, for farm chores I can see the need for job-specific attire , but changing back to feminine clothing afterwards.
The principle is, whatever the culture, let the men and women dress gender specific.
Do you not see that our current gender dysphoria didn’t start in the last few years?
It started by blurring the lines between the genders in clothing, jobs, roles in the family, etc. Yes, Rosie the Riveter broke a lot of ground and we didn’t return to what was required by Yah when the “crisis” was over, and downhill ever since.
Sure, for farm chores I can see the need for job-specific attire , but changing back to feminine clothing afterwards.
“….shall not wear….”
So that might include a tool belt, if you want to get legalistic.
So in Scotland women shouldn't wear skirts, because men wear them. Got it.
Last edited: