Question about biblical dress/modesty

[farouk]

2 minutes ago, αγάπη said:

Thank you for the detailed comment, Tristen! 

"This person" also mentioned Paul talking about dressing modestly, but also the greek word of something Paul said = wearing tunics? If we are to imitate Christ, & also Paul as he imitates Christ, we should then dress according to how Paul teaches ("This person's argument"). 

My apologies for the lack of Scripture. I hope what I am saying is making sense. I'll go ahead & a post a link to this person's article which speaks about what they believe. 

http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2014/10/biblical-apparel-does-gods-word-teach.html (It is a long read, which I don't expect you to read it. Just placing it here, as to avoid any confusion as to what "this person" is stating about Biblical dress).

I am struggling with how to be obedient, but not to be living under the law. We are told to strive to enter the narrow gate. We are also told that few people will find the entrance via the narrow gate. 

I believe God in His mercy illuminates the narrow road we are to travel by not only His Word, but via His Holy Spirit, which leads us into ALL Truth. 

Thank you for your patience & time spent replying to me 

 

Hi; in Romans 1 and in Romans 16 Paul speaks of 'the obedience of faith' and 'obedience to the faith'. This is distinct from supposedly being under the law.

Hebrews 7.12 says that the law was changed; Hebrews 7.19 says what we now have is better than the law.

[αγάπη]

6 minutes ago, farouk said:

Hi; in Romans 1 and in Romans 16 Paul speaks of 'the obedience of faith' and 'obedience to the faith'. This is distinct from supposedly being under the law.

Hebrews 7.12 says that the law was changed; Hebrews 7.19 says what we now have is better than the law.

I will read that, thank you!

[Tristen]

11 hours ago, αγάπη said:

Thank you for the detailed comment, Tristen! 

"This person" also mentioned Paul talking about dressing modestly, but also the greek word of something Paul said = wearing tunics? If we are to imitate Christ, & also Paul as he imitates Christ, we should then dress according to how Paul teaches ("This person's argument"). 

My apologies for the lack of Scripture. I hope what I am saying is making sense. I'll go ahead & a post a link to this person's article which speaks about what they believe. 

http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2014/10/biblical-apparel-does-gods-word-teach.html (It is a long read, which I don't expect you to read it. Just placing it here, as to avoid any confusion as to what "this person" is stating about Biblical dress).

I am struggling with how to be obedient, but not to be living under the law. We are told to strive to enter the narrow gate. We are also told that few people will find the entrance via the narrow gate. 

I believe God in His mercy illuminates the narrow road we are to travel by not only His Word, but via His Holy Spirit, which leads us into ALL Truth. 

Thank you for your patience & time spent replying to me 

 

 

“I'll go ahead & a post a link to this person's article which speaks about what they believe.

http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2014/10/biblical-apparel-does-gods-word-teach.html”

I have several concerning issues with this article.

1 – A bad start 

The argument employs a lot of eisegesis (reading ideas into scripture that are not present in the text itself).

Quote: “In the beginning mankind ( Adam and Eve ) sinned and tried to cover their forms in a apron. God saw this was NOT enough coverage and ..... in Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. God Himself placed Adam and Eve in a tunic / robe like garment ( to the knees or beyond )”

Where does the scripture say that God’s made them clothes because their attempts to cloth themselves were “NOT enough coverage”? The Bible does not state that as the reason?

Where does the scripture say that the garments were “to the knees or beyond”? These are things made-up and assumed by the author to suit the author’s conclusion. But the Bible does not actually state these ideas.

Quote: “In truth, all godly men since Noah to Jesus have worn such a garment to cover their forms per the Lord's instruction and that ha[s] never changed.”

What “instruction”? Where do I find “the Lord’s instruction” to wear this type of garment in scripture? It isn’t there. The type of argument being made here is called Non-Sequitur (meaning it does not properly follow logic). Basically, the author is claiming that, ‘Since Godly people in Biblical times wore certain types of clothing, that amounts to God instructing all His followers for all of time to wear the same types of clothing’. That conclusion does not make sense.

 

2 – The argument is a ‘Bait and Switch’

‘Bait and Switch’ (sometimes called Equivocation) is where one thing is claimed, but evidence for something else is provided. It is a type of logic trick.

Quote: “Today most ( even claimed believers) are disobeying God by showing off their forms in a sinful manner of clothing. The dress standards have followed the fallen culture NOT God's Holy Word. Note: we do not wear biblical clothes to be closer to God or look religious. No, we wear biblical dress to obey Him because we are born of Him!”

Having failed to justify any “instruction” from God to wear certain types of clothing, the author simply claims it to be a matter of “obedience” and Godliness – and then proceeds to provide evidence that we should be Godly and obedient to God.

Should we be Godly and obedient to God? Obviously yes – and there are many, many scriptures that could be used to support being Godly and obedient to God. Does that mean we are obligated to wear a certain type of clothing? Only if God instructed it in scripture – which He has not.

 

3 – The argument is legalistic.

Notice in the “Fruit of the Spirit” passage that there is no specific list of rules – i.e. no particular actions are advocated or prohibited. It’s very general. That is because we follow the Holy Spirit as to what is required for each circumstance; how to apply the required “fruit” for the specific situation.

Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Likewise, when 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-4 talk about attire, there is no specific “instruction” (or law) as to exactly what to wear. To summarize, these passages simply say to dress modestly, and to prioritize inner beauty over outer beauty.

 

Bonus – Another nonsense argument

Quote: “We see in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3 that women are to wear unadorned, long flowing garments that cover the form.  (See the post CLICK HERE for more information on women’s biblical apparel.)  Since the man is the head (authority) of woman (1 Corinthians 11) and the leader in his home, (Ephesians 5) he is to be the leader in all things of Christ  so if his wife is to be dressed biblically, it stands to reason that the man (leader/head/authority) would be so as well”

This is another example of poor reasoning. When God addresses men and women separately, it is because men and women are different from each other – and therefore sometimes require different information. Otherwise, there would be no reason to address us separately.

If I turn the author’s reasoning around, it will also mean that “So if the [husband is to lead] biblically, it stands to reason that the [woman] would be so as well”. Hopefully you can see why this type of reasoning is logically self-defeating.

 

My main point for breaking all this down is to demonstrate that the provided link is not a very reliable source of Christian doctrine. They may (or may not) be well-intended, sincere Christians. But the argument provided in the linked page is highly flawed in terms of logic and consistency with scripture.

 

“I am struggling with how to be obedient, but not to be living under the law”

I think you are underestimating yourself and the Holy Spirit. Scripture says to dress modestly. According to your opening post, you are making a sincere effort to “dress modestly”. That is called being “obedient”. If we are sincere in our Christianity, the Holy Spirit will gently convict towards the behavior He approves. Don’t let other people’s ideas trap you into the distraction of self-condemnation.

 

[Starise]

On 1/11/2023 at 11:39 AM, αγάπη said:

Thank you for the detailed comment, Tristen! 

"This person" also mentioned Paul talking about dressing modestly, but also the greek word of something Paul said = wearing tunics? If we are to imitate Christ, & also Paul as he imitates Christ, we should then dress according to how Paul teaches ("This person's argument"). 

My apologies for the lack of Scripture. I hope what I am saying is making sense. I'll go ahead & a post a link to this person's article which speaks about what they believe. 

http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2014/10/biblical-apparel-does-gods-word-teach.html (It is a long read, which I don't expect you to read it. Just placing it here, as to avoid any confusion as to what "this person" is stating about Biblical dress).

I am struggling with how to be obedient, but not to be living under the law. We are told to strive to enter the narrow gate. We are also told that few people will find the entrance via the narrow gate. 

I believe God in His mercy illuminates the narrow road we are to travel by not only His Word, but via His Holy Spirit, which leads us into ALL Truth. 

Thank you for your patience & time spent replying to me 

 

I am glad you provided a link to the source for your concern. If I had seen and read over it in the beginning my responses might have been different. 

I don't think there is a certain way a man is supposed to dress so far as style.

[believeinHim]

50 minutes ago, Starise said:

I am glad you provided a link to the source for your concern. If I had seen and read over it in the beginning my responses might have been different. 

I don't think there is a certain way a man is supposed to dress so far as style.

Starrise, You are still looking pretty hairy. I see your profile is still Chewy. 

[believeinHim]

"As the spirit leads..............................' " *sigh*  So many pit falls in this 

[Starise]

2 minutes ago, believeinHim said:

Starrise, You are still looking pretty hairy. I see your profile is still Chewy. 

It's slowly growing back.

[αγάπη]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

“I'll go ahead & a post a link to this person's article which speaks about what they believe.

http://spiritandtruthdiscernment.blogspot.com/2014/10/biblical-apparel-does-gods-word-teach.html”

I have several concerning issues with this article.

1 – A bad start 

The argument employs a lot of eisegesis (reading ideas into scripture that are not present in the text itself).

Quote: “In the beginning mankind ( Adam and Eve ) sinned and tried to cover their forms in a apron. God saw this was NOT enough coverage and ..... in Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. God Himself placed Adam and Eve in a tunic / robe like garment ( to the knees or beyond )”

Where does the scripture say that God’s made them clothes because their attempts to cloth themselves were “NOT enough coverage”? The Bible does not state that as the reason?

Where does the scripture say that the garments were “to the knees or beyond”? These are things made-up and assumed by the author to suit the author’s conclusion. But the Bible does not actually state these ideas.

Quote: “In truth, all godly men since Noah to Jesus have worn such a garment to cover their forms per the Lord's instruction and that ha[s] never changed.”

What “instruction”? Where do I find “the Lord’s instruction” to wear this type of garment in scripture? It isn’t there. The type of argument being made here is called Non-Sequitur (meaning it does not properly follow logic). Basically, the author is claiming that, ‘Since Godly people in Biblical times wore certain types of clothing, that amounts to God instructing all His followers for all of time to wear the same types of clothing’. That conclusion does not make sense.

 

2 – The argument is a ‘Bait and Switch’

‘Bait and Switch’ (sometimes called Equivocation) is where one thing is claimed, but evidence for something else is provided. It is a type of logic trick.

Quote: “Today most ( even claimed believers) are disobeying God by showing off their forms in a sinful manner of clothing. The dress standards have followed the fallen culture NOT God's Holy Word. Note: we do not wear biblical clothes to be closer to God or look religious. No, we wear biblical dress to obey Him because we are born of Him!”

Having failed to justify any “instruction” from God to wear certain types of clothing, the author simply claims it to be a matter of “obedience” and Godliness – and then proceeds to provide evidence that we should be Godly and obedient to God.

Should we be Godly and obedient to God? Obviously yes – and there are many, many scriptures that could be used to support being Godly and obedient to God. Does that mean we are obligated to wear a certain type of clothing? Only if God instructed it in scripture – which He has not.

 

3 – The argument is legalistic.

Notice in the “Fruit of the Spirit” passage that there is no specific list of rules – i.e. no particular actions are advocated or prohibited. It’s very general. That is because we follow the Holy Spirit as to what is required for each circumstance; how to apply the required “fruit” for the specific situation.

Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Likewise, when 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-4 talk about attire, there is no specific “instruction” (or law) as to exactly what to wear. To summarize, these passages simply say to dress modestly, and to prioritize inner beauty over outer beauty.

 

Bonus – Another nonsense argument

Quote: “We see in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Peter 3 that women are to wear unadorned, long flowing garments that cover the form.  (See the post CLICK HERE for more information on women’s biblical apparel.)  Since the man is the head (authority) of woman (1 Corinthians 11) and the leader in his home, (Ephesians 5) he is to be the leader in all things of Christ  so if his wife is to be dressed biblically, it stands to reason that the man (leader/head/authority) would be so as well”

This is another example of poor reasoning. When God addresses men and women separately, it is because men and women are different from each other – and therefore sometimes require different information. Otherwise, there would be no reason to address us separately.

If I turn the author’s reasoning around, it will also mean that “So if the [husband is to lead] biblically, it stands to reason that the [woman] would be so as well”. Hopefully you can see why this type of reasoning is logically self-defeating.

 

My main point for breaking all this down is to demonstrate that the provided link is not a very reliable source of Christian doctrine. They may (or may not) be well-intended, sincere Christians. But the argument provided in the linked page is highly flawed in terms of logic and consistency with scripture.

 

“I am struggling with how to be obedient, but not to be living under the law”

I think you are underestimating yourself and the Holy Spirit. Scripture says to dress modestly. According to your opening post, you are making a sincere effort to “dress modestly”. That is called being “obedient”. If we are sincere in our Christianity, the Holy Spirit will gently convict towards the behavior He approves. Don’t let other people’s ideas trap you into the distraction of self-condemnation.

 

Thank you for the time it took to write your reply. I will reply to you when I am in front of my personal computer. Thanks!

[Roymond]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

 

The Bible says to dress modestly, and not to look like the other gender. Beyond that, it's not really specific. 

 

It should be noted that when Paul says women should dress modestly:

1. He's putting "modestly" in contrast with adorned with jewelry and fancy stuff

2. The context is prayer in church.

 

The first one came to a head in a Methodist church when I was a kid; some ladies got on this thing of chastising young people for not dressing modestly, but they were decorated like princesses in a palace.  One of the young people was smart enough to look up the reference and read it to them, pointing out that in terms of what Paul was saying, they were the ones not dressing modestly!  Of course that set the ladies on the war path.

The poor pastor was a man who didn't like offending anyone, so it fell to the head elder -- local high school varsity wrestling coach and administrative assistant -- to deal with this before it got out of hand.  Knowing how he could shame a student to tears with just polite words, I presume he did the same to those ladies, but he also worked the other side of it, telling the young people that when his wrestling team went to compete with another school they dressed in a way to show they were proud of their school -- and maybe coming to church ought to be the same.  At any rate, the young people started dressing in a more dignified fashion and the ladies seriously toned down their baubles.

[Roymond]

On 1/10/2023 at 11:38 AM, αγάπη said:

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!

I think it was Chuck Smith at the original Calvary Chapel who noted that the principle here also applies to men, at a time when members were shifting from being so many "beach people" to deciding they should dress well for church, and it seemed that some were trying to "dress to impress", and he nipped that in the bud.