This is a liberal strawman! If all of society was modest we, today, would dress no differently than the rest of society. I can assure you that IF there were identifying dress standards for the ungodly in scripture, none of the early church would have dared to dress like the ungodly.
I find it sad that you and others would dare to reduce the apostolic church to one that has reduced one of the most sacred aspects of living for God, namely holiness, and reduced it to a dress code! Your statement is unintentionally false, but false never-the-less!
How does devaluing the sacred cow(standards) have anything to do with holiness? That is a statement of huge misguided proportions - the two have NOTHING in common!
interestingly enough TF quotes Tertullian who was a HUGE TRINITARIAN...
Does that not seem totally hypocritical?
And that has what to do with anything?
I think that was your point a couple of posts ago!
You need to re-read my post to Rico... maybe if you read it a few times you will understand it because you obviously did not understand it the first time.
Broad brush false statements (whether intentional or not) are always open for challenge... that was the point of my post!
Perhaps you had a problem with my reuse of his words of attack in my defense.
How does devaluing the sacred cow(standards) have anything to do with holiness? That is a statement of huge misguided proportions - the two have NOTHING in common!
Clearly your above statement resounds with a certain group on AFF. Clearly you arent the first to say this.
just because it has been said, does not make the statment factual.
Standards are not holiness. that does not mean that Holiness and standards have nothing in common.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Rico, did you not read where the epistle said that holiness was to be in every area of life. Is not scripture enough? All means all. Without exception. You cannot be holy in one area, and not in the rest and still be considered holy in the eyes of Jesus.
Rico, did you not read where the epistle said that holiness was to be in every area of life. Is not scripture enough? All means all. Without exception. You cannot be holy in one area, and not in the rest and still be considered holy in the eyes of Jesus.
The proof is given. You simply refuse to see it.
You still have not shown that holiness includes following your idea of a dress code, Bro Price. The reason being you can't. It's just your perception, and other's, of what holiness is. Frankly, I think y'all have cheapened the meaning of holiness with so much focus being placed on what people wear.
You still have not shown that holiness includes following your idea of a dress code, Bro Price. The reason being you can't. It's just your perception, and other's, of what holiness is. Frankly, I think y'all have cheapened the meaning of holiness with so much focus being placed on what people wear.
Rico, cheapened holiness? You must have forgotten who you are speaking to. This is the guy who has been all over the map, who has fell for every wind of doctrine out there, even "standardless holiness". I have been there. There is no holiness. They try to have a good attitude, but they most have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. This is one area I am somewhat thankful for what I have been through.
Holiness must be inward, yes. But, if it is not outer as well, then it is not true holiness. I have known people to have the outer standards and not have it inwardly. This is about 5% of the saints I have experienced. The rest have it down pat.
The scriptures presented show forth that holiness is in every area of life. Dress is included. You must be holy in all, or you are not holy at all, period. You want to limit it to inward, which truly cheapens it. If it is truly in you, then it will come out of you. If it is in your heart, you will simply stop being like the world.
Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing, But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God. (1 Timothy 2:9-10 AMP)
The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 AMP)
For I am the Lord, I do not change; that is why you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6 AMP)
Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages). (Hebrews 13:8 AMP)
If God said it was an abomination before, this does not change. He does not change. Or, shall we say that God has now changed His mind on what He hates?
Sorry Rico, but it is still holiness in all, or nothing is holy at all.
Rico, cheapened holiness? You must have forgotten who you are speaking to. This is the guy who has been all over the map, who has fell for every wind of doctrine out there, even "standardless holiness". I have been there. There is no holiness. They try to have a good attitude, but they most have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. This is one area I am somewhat thankful for what I have been through.
Holiness must be inward, yes. But, if it is not outer as well, then it is not true holiness. I have known people to have the outer standards and not have it inwardly. This is about 5% of the saints I have experienced. The rest have it down pat.
The scriptures presented show forth that holiness is in every area of life. Dress is included. You must be holy in all, or you are not holy at all, period. You want to limit it to inward, which truly cheapens it. If it is truly in you, then it will come out of you. If it is in your heart, you will simply stop being like the world.
Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing, But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God. (1 Timothy 2:9-10 AMP)
The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 AMP)
For I am the Lord, I do not change; that is why you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6 AMP)
Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same, yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages). (Hebrews 13:8 AMP)
If God said it was an abomination before, this does not change. He does not change. Or, shall we say that God has now changed His mind on what He hates?
Sorry Rico, but it is still holiness in all, or nothing is holy at all.
Brother, I don't see anyone arguing against modesty. This is something people like you never seem to acknowledge. I have yet to see anyone on these forums argue in favor of immodesty in dressing. The argument is against legislating what modesty means by coming up with these ridiculous dress codes. You can't wear this, you have to wear that, that sort of thing. That's what I meant by asking for a documented sermon or proof on what early Christians believed. Show me where your idea of women not wearing pants is the same as what they believed back then. Show me where they preached against short sleeves. Show me where they preached any of these supposed holiness dress standards that have become the litmus test for holiness today. If it was as important as some of you make it sound then surely y'all could find some proof, even historical proof.
Hybrid Mode
