Holiness dress standards-salvation or consecration

[JoeBandy]

Originally Posted by TakingDominion

Now I know many on this forum do not like the correlation between holiness and modest dress, and I see their point. However, it's a concept we are all familiar with; whether we agree with it or not.

My thought that I wanted to pose to the forum: do you see modest holy dress standards as salvational or having to do with consecration towards God?

I look forward to your responses.

Biblical modesty and modern Apostolic "standards" are not the same. There is no scripture correlation for the typical "standard".

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

Too many people look at so-called "holiness standards" as what makes us holy. That is impossible, and a fallacy that degrades the Cross and Christ's finished work. You can never become holy, for holiness is an attribute of God. When we are born again, because of our faith in Christ, we are made holy. We are called to be holy, to be what we have been made in Christ.

For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. (NLT) Hebrews 10:10

When people teach that holiness is our clothes, our lack of makeup, our cut or uncut hair, it gives man the power of God to make himself like God. NOT POSSIBLE! We are made holy by Christ and then called to be what we have been made.

One other point, beloved. Going to the Old Covenant to establish holiness standards is contrary to the teachings of the New Covenant. Going back to a version of law keeping to maintain salvation neglects Christ's finished work of His fulfillment of the Law. Now, we need not keep the letter of the Law, for He has written His law on our hearts, making us holy. The Law took us to Christ. We are now in Christ, and while the Law brought condemnation, Christ brings and keep salvation.

you got to be kidding. you completely contradict yourself. you say no one can become holy then say we are called to be holy. So you think you have nothing to do with you being Holy. read Romans 12:1,2. Also scripture commands modesty, is that something you can become. also says be ye Holy for I am holy. How do you "be" holy without a little bit of work. you have everything to do with being holy.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by UnTraditional

Too many people look at so-called "holiness standards" as what makes us holy. That is impossible, and a fallacy that degrades the Cross and Christ's finished work. You can never become holy, for holiness is an attribute of God. When we are born again, because of our faith in Christ, we are made holy. We are called to be holy, to be what we have been made in Christ.

For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time. (NLT) Hebrews 10:10

When people teach that holiness is our clothes, our lack of makeup, our cut or uncut hair, it gives man the power of God to make himself like God. NOT POSSIBLE! We are made holy by Christ and then called to be what we have been made.

One other point, beloved. Going to the Old Covenant to establish holiness standards is contrary to the teachings of the New Covenant. Going back to a version of law keeping to maintain salvation neglects Christ's finished work of His fulfillment of the Law. Now, we need not keep the letter of the Law, for He has written His law on our hearts, making us holy. The Law took us to Christ. We are now in Christ, and while the Law brought condemnation, Christ brings and keep salvation.

Wrong, God doesn't change his mind, the principle of gender distinction from Deut 22:5 is still applicable today.

2 Timothy 3:16
16..All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Wrong, God doesn't change his mind, the principle of gender distinction from Deut 22:5 is still applicable today.

2 Timothy 3:16
16..All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

In response to the bolded portion above; Have you offered a blood sacrifice lately?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In response to the bolded portion above; Have you offered a blood sacrifice lately?

Jesus took care of that, the principle still applies.

ceremonial law was done away with in Christ.

Ethical principles such as gender distinction still apply

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

you got to be kidding. you completely contradict yourself. you say no one can become holy then say we are called to be holy. So you think you have nothing to do with you being Holy. read Romans 12:1,2. Also scripture commands modesty, is that something you can become. also says be ye Holy for I am holy. How do you "be" holy without a little bit of work. you have everything to do with being holy.

Modesty and holiness are not the same. One can be modest, and unholy. And, as with the example given regarding Isaiah prophesying for three years in the nude, there are circumstances wherein one might be holy and yet not "modest".

Holiness has several different facets. First, there is ontological holiness. This is the result of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When one receives the Holy Spirit, the holiness of the Holy Spirit is imparted into the very nature of one's inner man, even if outward behaviors need adjustment in order to be in alignment with the new nature (the process of sanctification). Then there is behavioral holiness, which is comprised of one's mindfulness and actions as they relate to being Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't a 20th century Apostolic Pentecostal. One can be an exemplary "Apostolic Pentecostal", and yet be unlike Jesus.

Modesty is a biblical Christian practice. However, the Scriptures do not set specific guidelines for what are typically called "standards". Most of our standards are rather subjective and differ from church to church. So, I caution anyone who would equate the keeping of standards to being "holy".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Wrong, God doesn't change his mind, the principle of gender distinction from Deut 22:5 is still applicable today.

2 Timothy 3:16
16..All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Gender distinction is an interesting topic when it comes to dress. The specifics on that are not specified in Scripture and are largely culturally defined in every society and can even differ from generation to generation. For example, high heeled shoes. Originally high heeled shoes were made for wealthy and affluent men to give them higher stature. As women began to wear them to assert themselves in a very male oriented society, women wearing high heeled as part of a statement became more popular (I believe a Queen popularized this trend). As that was happening, the Industrial Revolution was taking place, and soon a more utilitarian, flat footed, shoe for males became the norm. However, women were not a part of that early industrial culture, and so they maintained the high heeled shoe, and still do until this very day.

In Deuteronomy 22:5 we read...

Deuteronomy 22:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Given the perversions among the ancient pagan peoples, I lean towards this verse being a condemnation of the perversion of crossdressing, or gender bending. It isn't necessarily a mandate that would force women not to wear T-shirts because they were originally designed for men. It is addressing a perversion, hence it being an "abomination".

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Modesty and holiness are not the same. One can be modest, and unholy. And, as with the example given regarding Isaiah prophesying for three years in the nude, there are circumstances wherein one might be holy and yet not "modest".

Holiness has several different facets. First, there is ontological holiness. This is the result of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When one receives the Holy Spirit, the holiness of the Holy Spirit is imparted into the very nature of one's inner man, even if outward behaviors need adjustment in order to be in alignment with the new nature (the process of sanctification). Then there is behavioral holiness, which is comprised of one's mindfulness and actions as they relate to being Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't a 20th century Apostolic Pentecostal. One can be an exemplary "Apostolic Pentecostal", and yet be unlike Jesus.

Modesty is a biblical Christian practice. However, the Scriptures do not set specific guidelines for what are typically called "standards". Most of our standards are rather subjective and differ from church to church. So, I caution anyone who would equate the keeping of standards to being "holy".

you missed the point, I did not say that holiness is modesty, but for sure a holy spirit produces modesty. the point is some believe the individual has nothing to do with being holy. that is simply not true.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

you missed the point, I did not say that holiness is modesty, but for sure a holy spirit produces modesty. the point is some believe the individual has nothing to do with being holy. that is simply not true.

I believe category distinctions are necessary. In some ways, a person doesn't have anything to do with holiness (for example, ontological holiness). In other ways, they do (for example, behavioral holiness, or what many call "sanctification"). It's important to distinguish what kind of "holiness" one is talking about to properly understand the statement and intension made. Else, one descend into an argument comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, but they are distinct fruit. The new nature and one's personal involvement in the process of sanctification are both aspects of holiness. But they are distinct aspects of holiness.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe category distinctions are necessary. In some ways, a person doesn't have anything to do with holiness (for example, ontological holiness). In other ways, they do (for example, behavioral holiness, or what many call "sanctification"). It's important to distinguish what kind of "holiness" one is talking about to properly understand the statement and intension made. Else, one descend into an argument comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, but they are distinct fruit. The new nature and one's personal involvement in the process of sanctification are both aspects of holiness. But they are distinct aspects of holiness.

Holiness is every way involves human involvement, thats my point.