Question about biblical dress/modesty

[Willa]

1Ti 2:9  In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, αγάπη said:

This specific person mentioned God clothing Adam & Eve, as well as I believe it was Paul talking about dressing modestly. I can't quote scripture on this, my apologies. 

I want to live as God wants me to; Obedience to his Word. 

Per this specific person, I must be in all obedience to God's Word or I am outside of His Grace. 

 

1 - The Bible is God's highest authoritative communication to humanity. Therefore, my response to this "person" would be to challenge them to justify their claim through the authority of scripture. If they are unable to do so, you are under no obligation to take their claim seriously. It's just something this "person" made up. It does not represent God's opinion.

To my knowledge, there is no Biblical ordinance that compels Christians to "dress exactly like God clothed Adam & Eve (tunic like garments)".

 

2 - Furthermore,

This "person" does not understand what "grace" means. "Grace" is a gift - not something we can earn by righteous actions nor lose by unrighteous actions. "Grace" is completely independent of "obedience to God's Word". The concept of "grace" does not make sense if it is reliant on "obedience". God provided us a Savior because He understands that we are all corrupted by sin - and it is therefore not possible for us to act righteously without His "grace". Through God's "grace", we were saved from the consequences of our former sins; through God's "grace", we continue to be saved from the consequences of our sins - which we do less-&-less because we are under His "grace", and not under law or legalism.

This "person" is teaching you a weird type of legalism (the opposite of "grace") - that God's favor is dependent on what we wear. A legalistic mindset condemns us and keeps us from God. Whereas "grace" empowers us to walk with God, under His guidance. Satan uses legalism to condemn us into despair and continually remind us that we are not good enough for God. "Grace" guides us forward with God, through love and conviction - and compels us to God - even if we have sinned.

 

By these two above arguments, I would suggest that the "person" telling you these things is not a reliable resource of Bible doctrine.

By your description in the opening post, as compared against 1 Timothy 2:9, your current mindset and behavior is in line with the Bible. Therefore, I would not be concerned with what this "person" has told you regarding what you should be wearing. You appear to be doing just fine without the legalistic distraction of this other "person".

 

[farouk]

1 minute ago, Tristen said:

 

1 - The Bible is God's highest authoritative communication to humanity. Therefore, my response to this "person" would be to challenge them to justify their claim through the authority of scripture. If they are unable to do so, you are under no obligation to take their claim seriously. It's just something this "person" made up. It does not represent God's opinion.

To my knowledge, there is no Biblical ordinance that compels Christians to "dress exactly like God clothed Adam & Eve (tunic like garments)".

 

2 - Furthermore,

This "person" does not understand what "grace" means. "Grace" is a gift - not something we can earn by righteous actions nor lose by unrighteous actions. "Grace" is completely independent of "obedience to God's Word". The concept of "grace" does not make sense if it is reliant on "obedience". God provided us a Savior because He understands that we are all corrupted by sin - and it is therefore not possible for us to act righteously without His "grace". Through God's "grace", we were saved from the consequences of our former sins; through God's "grace", we continue to be saved from the consequences of our sins - which we do less-&-less because we are under His "grace", and not under law or legalism.

This "person" is teaching you a weird type of legalism (the opposite of "grace") - that God's favor is dependent on what we wear. A legalistic mindset condemns us and keeps us from God. Whereas "grace" empowers us to walk with God, under His guidance. Satan uses legalism to condemn us into despair and continually remind us that we are not good enough for God. "Grace" guides us forward with God, through love and conviction - and compels us to God - even if we have sinned.

 

By these two above arguments, I would suggest that the "person" telling you these things is not a reliable resource of Bible doctrine.

By your description in the opening post, as compared against 1 Timothy 2:9, your current mindset and behavior is in line with the Bible. Therefore, I would not be concerned with what this "person" has told you regarding what you should be wearing. You appear to be doing just fine without the legalistic distraction of this other "person".

 

Like you say, @Tristen, it's easy to get distracted legalistically.......

[enoob57]

Satan wants our focus on what he controls= this present creation...
The bottom line is God is burning all this up and removing from memory... so put it in the not continuing with us file...

[Starise]

I think it's all really pretty simple. Is it something you would have used to your advantage to attract the opposite sex? 

If so, cover it up unless you are showing to to your husband in private.

Is the clothing such that if you bend over nothing shows from all angles? Low cut tops in stairwells don't work. I have been sitting across the table from a friends wife at a restaraunt and my eyes were just looking straight ahead but happened on a certain area of the chest. At that same time, she seen where my eyes were and she looked uncomfortable like she thought I might be specifically looking there. I wasn't. It was just that she was sitting in front of me and my eyes went down. I have to ask myself, if it made her uncomfortable , then why wear that dress to start with? 

Just never give any room for probems and you won't have any problems. There are plenty of unsaved women who could care less we man have to worry about. 

It is a well known fact that women who want attention use certain assets to their benefit, although I have never seen the value in attracting any sleeze ball that sees you or even a potential boyfriend if said boyfriend only likes you for those assets. If you marry and grow old together, I certainly hope there is more to it than that since those visual assets will go away or decrease eventually.

But I see it a lot working in a college town, especially in the summer. I have to ask myself, Is she selling herself? And on at least one occasion someone ran into a tree with a pickup truck because his eyes were not on the road. He would never admit it, but when classes change it's almost a skimpy fashion show on the sidewalk. These young women are young enough to be my daughters, so I digress. I like to think I am well past all of that now as a happily married man, but I feel sorry for those young dudes who are trying to make the right choices and get a decent education. 

It's the old bees to honey attractions thing and in order to be noticed 'some' women seem to lean a lot on the physical. This is probably a stereotype I have since I doubt this is all women, and Christian women especially I would hope are different. No you don't have to dress Mennonite or Amish, just not suggestively, because it 'suggests' things.

Just my .000002 from a man's perspective.

 

[TheBlade]

19 hours ago, αγάπη said:

If someone were to say that if you don't dress exactly like God clothed Adam & Eve (tunic like garments), you are in sin/outside of Gods Grace....

What is the best way to respond? 

I had this happen to myself, & I didn't really know what to say. 

The person was very clear about it though. They believe it to be sin & if I live in this willful sin, I am outside of Gods grace/Christ's blood won't cover me.

I believe I dress modestly. I don't show much of my skin, if any. I am properly covered in nice enough clothes, but not super expensive clothes. I don't wear anything flashy. 

Any advice/comment is appreciated. 

I would say as the word says "I'm not here to please man."

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Edited January 10, 2023 by TheBlade

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, TheBlade said:

I would say as the word says "I'm not here to please man."

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

I think that verse is more to do with inward and spiritual matters rather than dress codes....... (You might agree, actually......)

Edited January 10, 2023 by farouk

[TheBlade]

Just now, farouk said:

I think that verse is more to do with inward and spiritual matters rather than tattoos....... (You might agree, actually......)

LOL... yeah sometimes you just have to focus on "not to please man". Just playing. 

I didn't read all the posts. I just mean in general. Yet tattoos for me would fall into this. There are Churches where mostly people from the streets if you know what I mean and the do not dress hmm like most PRAISE GOD! Yet we are there to see to hear from the king of kings lord of lords. I stop here lol 

[αγάπη]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

1 - The Bible is God's highest authoritative communication to humanity. Therefore, my response to this "person" would be to challenge them to justify their claim through the authority of scripture. If they are unable to do so, you are under no obligation to take their claim seriously. It's just something this "person" made up. It does not represent God's opinion.

To my knowledge, there is no Biblical ordinance that compels Christians to "dress exactly like God clothed Adam & Eve (tunic like garments)".

 

2 - Furthermore,

This "person" does not understand what "grace" means. "Grace" is a gift - not something we can earn by righteous actions nor lose by unrighteous actions. "Grace" is completely independent of "obedience to God's Word". The concept of "grace" does not make sense if it is reliant on "obedience". God provided us a Savior because He understands that we are all corrupted by sin - and it is therefore not possible for us to act righteously without His "grace". Through God's "grace", we were saved from the consequences of our former sins; through God's "grace", we continue to be saved from the consequences of our sins - which we do less-&-less because we are under His "grace", and not under law or legalism.

This "person" is teaching you a weird type of legalism (the opposite of "grace") - that God's favor is dependent on what we wear. A legalistic mindset condemns us and keeps us from God. Whereas "grace" empowers us to walk with God, under His guidance. Satan uses legalism to condemn us into despair and continually remind us that we are not good enough for God. "Grace" guides us forward with God, through love and conviction - and compels us to God - even if we have sinned.

 

By these two above arguments, I would suggest that the "person" telling you these things is not a reliable resource of Bible doctrine.

By your description in the opening post, as compared against 1 Timothy 2:9, your current mindset and behavior is in line with the Bible. Therefore, I would not be concerned with what this "person" has told you regarding what you should be wearing. You appear to be doing just fine without the legalistic distraction of this other "person".

 

I know there are different opinions on salvation & whether we can ever truly lose it. 

I believe this person is coming from a place of, "faith without works is dead". No, the lack of dress is not what condemns me, but it is a lack of fruit that shows that I haven't truly been born again. 

[αγάπη]

14 hours ago, Willa said:

1Ti 2:9  In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing;

Certainly. I struggle with how Paul talks about this. To me it sounds like we shouldn't adorn ourselves on the outside, but others would argue that the outward adorning should pale in comparison to the inward. 

Thanks for commenting!