Old way of Holiness Standard do we need to keep?

[tdc]

I think many of us in the UCPI get distracted from the central themes of the bible. The main themes that I see repeated over and over again are Christ's work on the cross and the forgiveness/salvation it brings, faith in that work, love as well as the rest of fruit of the spirit (love is highlighted), being born again as per Acts 2:38, etc.

Even though there are many closely related central issues that Jesus put emphasis on time and time again, it seems we tend to pick at mostly the "motes" if you will. The rarely mentioned and not emphasized parts of the word seem to be what the majority focus on.

Please don't misunderstand me, all of the bible is truth and all parts are important, but if Jesus and his apostles paid great care and attention to the delivery of certain select subjects (almost as if they felt they were of utmost importance and we really needed to make sure we got the point ), should we not in turn pay more attention to those subjects?

Concerning "holiness standards", my opinion has always stayed the same. I don't see them stressed in the bible, nor clearly stated, so I do not overemphasize them in my life. I clearly see the need to carry myself in an appropriate manner so I may represent God in the manner He deserves to be represented. I understand that the bible asks me to be modest, so modesty is what God gets from me in that regard. Of course there are the obvious things like murder, theft, adultery, fornication etc. that are plainly expressed and none can argue, being so plainly stated.

As per the dress code part of the "holiness standards", I again exercise modesty. I cannot see dress codes as a salvation issue for they are not stressed, nor are they plainly stated in the bible. (((Woman not wearing clothing pertaining to man, vice-versa, imo, simply refers to society's standard, [as long as we are the modest version of said standard], seeing as the whole point is meant to let us be seen by the world as separate sexes, and set apart by being the modest version of said separate sexes. At the time of it's writing [clothing pertaining too ...] men and woman both wore the same clothing, except there were male/female versions.)))

The best example, biblically, that I can come up with concerning outward standards and Christ's position on them, is the Pharisees. (No offense, just being honest.) They felt they were justified in God's eyes, based on their appearance/works and started twisting even spiritual things into fleshly acts such as fasting and praying. The whole law was a physical effort to be holy. Jesus explicitly stated that ....

Matthew 5:20 - For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As we all know the Pharisee's righteousness was summed up as ....

Matthew 23:28 - Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

I am by no means saying anyone here is a hypocrite or a Pharisee. The point is, this outward stuff didn't seem to please Jesus very much. Just a couple versus up he told the Pharisee's he was more interested in the inside of man than the outside.

All that to say this, if we start where God starts, the inside, the inner man/heart, and let God bring us to full maturity, we will inevitably begin to wear the true holiness of God that is on the inside of us, on the outside (Without the conscious effort due to stressing the issue).8

Ephesians 4:24 - And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Eph. 4:24 clearly states that when we are born again, we are new creatures that are created by God in true holiness. No matter what you were wearing at the moment you were saved, in that moment, you had true holiness in you.

Once more, it's just my opinion, but I think it is wise to cease telling people they are going to hell or disappointing God because of their dress, and really get down to business concerning what God plainly stated were salvation issues.

[dizzyde]

Originally Posted by tdc

I think many of us in the UCPI get distracted from the central themes of the bible. The main themes that I see repeated over and over again are Christ's work on the cross and the forgiveness/salvation it brings, faith in that work, love as well as the rest of fruit of the spirit (love is highlighted), being born again as per Acts 2:38, etc.

Even though there are many closely related central issues that Jesus put emphasis on time and time again, it seems we tend to pick at mostly the "motes" if you will. The rarely mentioned and not emphasized parts of the word seem to be what the majority focus on.

Please don't misunderstand me, all of the bible is truth and all parts are important, but if Jesus and his apostles paid great care and attention to the delivery of certain select subjects (almost as if they felt they were of utmost importance and we really needed to make sure we got the point ), should we not in turn pay more attention to those subjects?

Concerning "holiness standards", my opinion has always stayed the same. I don't see them stressed in the bible, nor clearly stated, so I do not overemphasize them in my life. I clearly see the need to carry myself in an appropriate manner so I may represent God in the manner He deserves to be represented. I understand that the bible asks me to be modest, so modesty is what God gets from me in that regard. Of course there are the obvious things like murder, theft, adultery, fornication etc. that are plainly expressed and none can argue, being so plainly stated.

As per the dress code part of the "holiness standards", I again exercise modesty. I cannot see dress codes as a salvation issue for they are not stressed, nor are they plainly stated in the bible. (((Woman not wearing clothing pertaining to man, vice-versa, imo, simply refers to society's standard, [as long as we are the modest version of said standard], seeing as the whole point is meant to let us be seen by the world as separate sexes, and set apart by being the modest version of said separate sexes. At the time of it's writing [clothing pertaining too ...] men and woman both wore the same clothing, except there were male/female versions.)))

The best example, biblically, that I can come up with concerning outward standards and Christ's position on them, is the Pharisees. (No offense, just being honest.) They felt they were justified in God's eyes, based on their appearance/works and started twisting even spiritual things into fleshly acts such as fasting and praying. The whole law was a physical effort to be holy. Jesus explicitly stated that ....

Matthew 5:20 - For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As we all know the Pharisee's righteousness was summed up as ....

Matthew 23:28 - Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

I am by no means saying anyone here is a hypocrite or a Pharisee. The point is, this outward stuff didn't seem to please Jesus very much. Just a couple versus up he told the Pharisee's he was more interested in the inside of man than the outside.

All that to say this, if we start where God starts, the inside, the inner man/heart, and let God bring us to full maturity, we will inevitably begin to wear the true holiness of God that is on the inside of us, on the outside (Without the conscious effort due to stressing the issue).8

Ephesians 4:24 - And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Eph. 4:24 clearly states that when we are born again, we are new creatures that are created by God in true holiness. No matter what you were wearing at the moment you were saved, in that moment, you had true holiness in you.

Once more, it's just my opinion, but I think it is wise to cease telling people they are going to hell or disappointing God because of their dress, and really get down to business concerning what God plainly stated were salvation issues.

I think your opinions are right...

[Melody]

well while I do agree on the emphasis being on salvation, holiness would have never been mentioned if it wasn't an issue. While yes historically everyone wore robes, men "girded their loins" and women were never mentioned as doing so.

So while the world outwardly continues to get worse in appearance, as long as we look just a lil more modest we are separated?

I don't agree, I don't think His ruler changes so to speak because the world has continued a decline.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Melody

well while I do agree on the emphasis being on salvation, holiness would have never been mentioned if it wasn't an issue. While yes historically everyone wore robes, men "girded their loins" and women were never mentioned as doing so.

So while the world outwardly continues to get worse in appearance, as long as we look just a lil more modest we are separated?

I don't agree, I don't think His ruler changes so to speak because the world has continued a decline.

Do you have any idea what 'girding loins' is? It's basically saying to put your clothes together with a belt.

rgx
Transliterated Word
Chagar
Phonetic Spelling
khaw-gar'
Definition

1. to gird, gird on, gird oneself, put on a belt
1. (Qal)
1. to gird
2. to gird on, bind on
3. to gird oneself

ajnazwvnnumi
Transliterated Word
Anazonnumi
Phonetic Spelling
an-ad-zone'-noo-mee
Definition

1. to gird up
2. metaph. be prepared
1. a metaphor derived from the practice of the Orientals, who in order to be unimpeded in their movements were accustomed, when starting a journey or engaging in any work, to bind their long flowing garments closely around their bodies and fastened them with a leather belt.


And yes, women are mentioned as girding their loins too.

Isa 32:11
Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.

[tdc]

Originally Posted by Melody

well while I do agree on the emphasis being on salvation, holiness would have never been mentioned if it wasn't an issue. While yes historically everyone wore robes, men "girded their loins" and women were never mentioned as doing so.

So while the world outwardly continues to get worse in appearance, as long as we look just a lil more modest we are separated?

I don't agree, I don't think His ruler changes so to speak because the world has continued a decline.

I completely understand your response. I understand that there are different perspectives on the subject and refrain from passing judgment in any form. The subject tends to be quite a tedious one, capable of causing dissension, so I prefer to let the issue rest with the individual rather than press an argument. I can, however, clarify my stance in attempt to ...... clarify my stance. LOL.

Concerning your words "holiness would have never been mentioned if it wasn't an issue", I stated in another post (and should have restated in this one), all things mentioned in the bible are there for a reason, and they all are pertinent.

As for men girding their loins, that was what I meant by "men and woman both wore the same clothing, except for the fact that there were male/female versions." The versions of male and female clothing at that time were similar to today's variations in men and woman's clothing. It is quite easy to spot an effeminate man by his dress, and vice-versa. A woman's pant is extremely different in comparison to a man's pant in design. Sure, they both have a waist, mid section and two legs, but the design is easily recognized as male or female. It is really no different than if you visited the early church and saw a man wearing a dress that was gird about the loins, and a woman also wearing a dress that wasn't gird about the loins. (Also, see Isiah 32:11) Both were in dresses, but there were subtle differences that served to clearly define the masculine/feminine properties of the attire. (Most are surprised to find that the first sex to ever wear pants was female. Chinese women started wearing them when they worked in rice fields.)

As far as looking just a "lil more modest" than the world, that was not the intention I meant to convey. If women start going nude, that does not make bikinis moderate. (Interestingly enough though, Adam and Eve started off naked and had no problem with it until sin was introduced.) Moderation is not set in clearly defined terms in the bible as a specific standard (It just says moderate). There are only general terms that we should follow, "Man is not to dress in woman's attire and woman is not to dress in man's attire". Nakedness would seem to convey shame if we look at it in O.T. scripture.

In truth, holiness is mentioned in the bible, but it is mentioned as a quality of God bestowed upon man. We are to put on God's holiness/righteousness, not our own. We tend to try to apply physical life principles when we approach God. We strive to do well in school and receive scholarships, we strive so hard in work to receive raises/promotions, etc. Then we come to church and try to strive in the physical to reach greater heights in the spiritual, but we forget that works of the flesh do not exult us in Christ the way they do in the physical world when we are looking to excel in things pertaining to the spirit.

As I mentioned in a previous post .....

"Ephesians 4:24 - And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Eph. 4:24 clearly states that when we are born again, we are new creatures that are created by God in true holiness. No matter what you were wearing at the moment you were saved, in that moment, you had true holiness in you."

Holiness and righteousness, as well as forgiveness and salvation comes directly from God. Holiness is not something we can do or attain by works, it is a gift. That said, there are still guide lines, and one of those was that man should not wear woman's apparel and vice-versa. Today's culture will clearly state that although man and woman wear pants, one style is feminine, while the other is masculine, just as if you asked one of the early church members what the difference between men and woman's skirts was. One was feminine in design, the other was masculine.

As for "His ruler" (measuring stick) changing, I don't think it has. God still expects us to clearly separate the sexes as pertaining to society. If society can see that your dress is conformed to your sex, the job is done. The proof of this statement is simple to present. At the time that the early Christians lived in, did every female that was not a Christian dress as a man? No! Did every man that was not a Christian dress as a woman? No! Even the sinners could depict male and female attire and many dressed accordingly, as pertained to their sexual preference. (And in N.T. times, homosexuality would be a crime subject to stoning, so it was not a subject taken lightly.) The point was, God removed the option. When you observed a Christian, their stand against homosexuality was in their dress, their dress pertained to their sex. (Worldly men and women also dressed in accordance to their proper sex, but is was by choice, not by commandment of God.) That visual separation of the sexes was not original, but it was an ordained trait of a Christian. You often saw worldly men and woman dress as pertaining to their sex, or their sexual preference, but you never saw a Christian dress outside of their sex. A Christians sexual orientation was not up to personal preference, it was according to the ordained word of God. Man is for woman, woman is for man. The uniform attire of a male was distinguished from that of a female to simply accentuate the fact that God ordained opposite sexes to attract and not vice-versa.

The idea of separating male from female by dress was not primarily a Christian idea. If a worldly man liked woman, he would try to be as masculine as possible to attract females, Christian or not. (Vice-versa.) God simply drew a line in the sand stating that it was not an OPTION for Christians. Man must dress as a man and join with a woman and vice-versa. God's law on male and female attire simply accented that fact that He intended man for woman and woman for man. He removed the option of homosexuality. But in the midst of all of this, worldly men and woman still dressed appropriate to attract the sex they desired. (Including dressing inappropriate to attract the same sex. The idea here is God specifically intended the world to NEVER see His followers dress outside of their natural male/female sexual orientation!)

God bless

[HeavenlyOne]

Great post, TDC.

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by tdc

A woman's pant is extremely different in comparison to a man's pant in design. Sure, they both have a waist, mid section and two legs, but the design is easily recognized as male or female.

Total hogwash!!! With the exception of color, there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE!!! I know, I picked out 4 pairs of pants at the salvation army that were in the men's section(they were all black) and one of the pants turned out to be "ladies pants" when I got home. The only way you could tell was when you turned the label around and it said size 12 instead of 34. Now I'm not an advocate of the "women aren't supposed to wear pants persuasion", but to say that they are extremely different in comparison and are easily recognized as male or female? And yes these "ladies black pants" had pockets front and back....zipper in the front.....I'd defie anybody to tell that these were womens pants from casual observance. Same dress pants material as used in "mens dress pants".

[tv1a]

I have a problem with the only criteria used to determine gender separation is what is worn from the waist down. There are numerous times I've been with those of the dress code persuasion who thought a woman behind a counter was pentecostal she looked the part from the waist up. To their utter shock, from the waist down they were in women's slacks.

No one suggests a scottish man is feminine when he wears a skirt. We call them kilts and move on. Why? Because we look at the whole picture.

Just like it takes more than a kilt for a man to look like a woman, it takes more than pants for a woman to look like a man.

Making judgements about one's gender based on what they wear from the waist down is closer to perversion than I care to be.

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

Total hogwash!!! With the exception of color, there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE!!! I know, I picked out 4 pairs of pants at the salvation army that were in the men's section(they were all black) and one of the pants turned out to be "ladies pants" when I got home. The only way you could tell was when you turned the label around and it said size 12 instead of 34. Now I'm not an advocate of the "women aren't supposed to wear pants persuasion", but to say that they are extremely different in comparison and are easily recognized as male or female? And yes these "ladies black pants" had pockets front and back....zipper in the front.....I'd defie anybody to tell that these were womens pants from casual observance. Same dress pants material as used in "mens dress pants".

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I have a problem with the only criteria used to determine gender separation is what is worn from the waist down. There are numerous times I've been with those of the dress code persuasion who thought a woman behind a counter was pentecostal she looked the part from the waist up. To their utter shock, from the waist down they were in women's slacks.

No one suggests a scottish man is feminine when he wears a skirt. We call them kilts and move on. Why? Because we look at the whole picture.

Just like it takes more than a kilt for a man to look like a woman, it takes more than pants for a woman to look like a man.

Making judgements about one's gender based on what they wear from the waist down is closer to perversion than I care to be.

Especially when we consider that cross dressing men will wear women's pants!! Anyone that says they aren't cross dressing because they have on pants is delusional and in denial and needs their head examined.

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Especially when we consider that cross dressing men will wear women's pants!! Anyone that says they aren't cross dressing because they have on pants is delusional and in denial and needs their head examined.

Yeah but if you were to take the UPC standard against women wearing pants and as pants being a MANS garment by the letter then it wouldn't be cross-dressing now would it? And YOU would need to have YOUR head examined as being delusional for being part of an organization that teaches such!!! That also would mean there is no such thing as women's pants.

You can't have it both ways!!!